< Back Hearth Tax Return for St Martin's, Stamford - 31st July 1663 Professor Alan Roger THE HEARTH TAX RETURN FOR THE LIBERTY OF NASSABURGH, FOR 31st JULY, 1663 [Stamford St Martin's section only in this extract] note by Tim Halliday of Peterborough. Stamford Survey Group wish to thank him for permission to reproduce the Stamford section of these returns. INTRODUCTORY NOTE This is the earliest hearth tax return surviving for any part of Northamptonshire and is now to be found in the Public Record Office under reference PRO/E179/254/12. The date of the Return is a little misleading in that the regnal year is stated on the first membrane to be 4 Charles II, whereas it was made in the fourth year of the King's return to England, namely 1663, being more correctly 12 Charles II. The manuscript consists of twelve rotulets stitched together at the head and the title given above is intended literally, since it covers the whole of Nassaburgh but no other hundreds of Northamptonshire. The manuscript is in very good condition throughout. The Return is divided into separate sections for each ward of the City of Peterborough and each vill or hamlet outside the urban area of the City. At the end of each such section, the manuscript provides a total, which refers to the number of hearths therein. The totals of entries provided in italics at the end of each section have been added to the transcript so as to show the number of buildings assessed in each such ward, vill or hamlet. The entries for Peterborough and its hamlets, including Eye, are grouped together in an orderly manner, then Paston and its hamlets, followed by Glinton and Peakirk (which two ecclesiastical parishes form one manor) but thereafter the entries follow an itinerary passing backwards and forwards across the northern part of the Liberty, hamlets often appearing before their mother villages or quite apart from them, before the itinerary reaches Stamford St Martin's, after which it progresses south through the western parishes to Wansford, then east through the hamlets of Castor before terminating with Castor itself. T M H, 1986 [ Mem 10] St.Martin's Stamford Baron Fyer Harths A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Incumbents of the Stamford Churches c.1886 By Chris Hunt From Simpson Papers in Town Hall, My Notes Vol 1 pp.6 & 8 Limericks have always been popular, especially in the later C19th after Edward Lear published a series in 1845. However these reflect the attitude from the organ loft of one church ….. Six churches so six incumbents – those were the days! – JSH Found among the papers of St Michael’s Church c.1970 “Some Evangelists and some Pastors and Teachers.” Stamford St. Martin’s Rev. Chancellor My first is the Chancellor haughty It’s nice, folks have said, but it’s naughty With maidens to play At all hours of the day So be careful, my Chancellor haughty. St. Mary Rev Wickham My second’s th’evangelist Wickham With grace, meet and unction to lick ‘em If he’d sit rather less And stand more, I’d bless The burning and shining light, Wickhan. St. John Rev. Waller My third‘s the uxorious Waller Whose truths are not easy to swaller To blackguard the Pope Seems the limit and scope Of the brainless book learning of Waller. All .Saint Rev. Oldfield My fourth is the sociable Oldfield Who they say has the wealth of a goldfield His nieces are charming But it’s more than alarming To sit for an hour under Oldfield St. George.Rev. HB Browning My fifth is the invalid Browning Much given to fireside and frowning When the Litany’s said Then he’s off to his bed The prudent but profitless Browning St. Michael Rev.H. Macdougall My sixth’s the well loving Macdougall This last rouses black bile and blue gall If your voice is in trim Try his Jubilee Hymn And you’ll make some remarks on Macdougall “ 1886 By Messrs. Hailstone (tutor) and Harvey, (Organist, St. George) “ A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Nora Blake: young Stamford pacifist K Hansell, N J Sheehan 2021 Following the World War One exhibition at Stamford Arts Centre in November 2018, the Society was contacted by Paul Markwell regarding his mother Nora Blake. As a thirteen-year-old schoolgirl in Stamford, Nora wrote the winning essay in a national competition for children of ex-servicemen. Her achievement was reported in The Stamford and Rutland News on Tuesday May 8, 1934, and the essay was reproduced in full in the next issue of the newspaper. Stamford St George’s School Girl’s Prize Essay 1934 Nora Blake (aged 13) War War! The very word makes me shiver. Although the Great War ended before I was born, I know enough about it to realise that all countries concerned are still suffering from its results. We are all paying the penalty. No country can spend four years in destruction, blowing millions of pounds in the air in the form of shells, without suffering from chaos. The whole of the industrialised world was disorganised, and as a consequence many soldiers who survived from the war without serious consequences came back only to find it impossible to secure employment. Also thousands of families mourn the loss of loved ones, and thousands more have the care of those who were disabled, the blind, the crippled, the insane. Truly war levies a terrible toll. Without dwelling unduly on the horrors of war, or its far-reaching ill effects on the community, I think that all will agree that the great task of this generation is to arrange international affairs so that another war is avoided. Politicians during the war, I understand, talked a lot about it being a war to end war and since 1918 the League of Nations has had a meeting in Geneva with this end in view. Disarmament Conferences have been held and there has been much talk between nations. But, while every country agrees that war should end, the nations have not been able to form any plans to satisfy all. Every conference has closed without achieving any tangible result and this is a very disappointing state of affairs. After sixteen years of conferences we find that the nations mistrust each other and are afraid to put down armaments. Suspicion is the order of the day and we find nations arranging to spend more money on defence services. All are seeking security but will a competition in armaments give security? Let us consider this question. This makes us think about the next war. I think that there will be as much difference in the next war and the Great War as there was between that and the Napoleonic Wars. I think death will come from the air in the form of gas and poison bombs. Attacks will take us by surprise and the result will be that large cities, with all their inhabitants, will be wiped out in a few hours. It seems very possible to spend all out lives in defence and yet be unsafe. What is the alternative? Just this. All lovers of peace must continue to work for gradual disarmament, even if their cause seems hopeless. All education should have this end view. Public demonstrations of a warlike nature should be avoided. Children should not be taken to torchlight tattoos and boys should not be encouraged to play with toy soldiers. An international army, having all the armaments of the world, should keep peace in the same way that the police force keeps civil peace. It is very rarely that a policeman has to fight but the knowledge that he is there, backed by the powers of justice, is generally sufficient to keep us safe from robbery and violence and I think that is the ideal for all peace lovers, for the world to be policed. Now, no idea was ever realised easily. Rome was not built in a day and all the countries of the world will not become suddenly reasonable. But if all people who believe, as I do, will work and pray for “The Day”, it will come. It may not be in our time. But good citizens are always content to work for a future generation. In our school we have a book on citizenship which has on the cover a figure of the head of Jesus. It has two faces. So, in school, we learn the history of the past. We find that great progress has been made and that the world is much better to live in than it was in the middle ages. When we compare conditions with what they are today, we should be optimistic for the future. Shades of the great reformers of all times encourage us to carry on with the good work and not to doubt the ultimate result. It also seems to me that all nations are waiting for someone to take the lead. They are like children. I frequently hear children say “I will if you will” but no one wants to that the initiative. I believe that if France would only begin, Germany would be glad to follow and vice versa. I wish one country would have the courage to tell the world “We will disarm by 1950”. If the country could be my own, I should be very proud. I for one would be willing to take the risk. If I am to have a sticky finish, I should like to know that my country has done the right thing. If the world persists in arming, a future war is inevitable. It may not be in my time, but as a good citizen, that is no consolation. I am aware that all I have said is idealistic, but nevertheless, all good peace-loving people must work for peace on these lines, looking with the eye of faith for the glorious dawn of the day when “Swords shall be turned into plough-shares and spears into pruning hooks” The Winning Medal Nora Blake was the third of the four children of Frank and Vida Blake, with an elder brother John, sister, Olive and a younger brother, Ken. They were all born and brought up in Stamford. Nora left school at 15 and went to work at Martin-Markham Ltd where she met her future husband, Len Markwell. In later life she was known as "Jill". Len and Jill moved to Ryhall in 1956 where they lived for over 50 years. Jill Markwell continued to write for pleasure, often poems that she would send to friends. She was always very proud of the medal that she won in the national competition when she was 13. Jill sadly passed away in May 2009. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Stamford Terracotta Company (Blashfield’s) Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 In 1858, John Marriott Blashfield (1811-1882) transferred his terracotta manufacturing business from London to Stamford in order to exploit the local Jurassic clays which were particularly suitable for terracotta production. Blashfield took over the site of the former Grant’s Iron Foundry on Wharf Road (Fig. 1), [1] which was considerably larger than his London premises and whose position adjacent to the River Welland was convenient for bringing clay in and shipping terracotta out. The site included a 100-foot-long showroom along its north edge. Fig.1 Gate Arch to Blashfield’s works The business was re-named The Stamford Terracotta Company and the new works were officially opened on 14 March 1859. The lighting of the first kiln was attended by the Marchioness of Exeter and her family and a bust of Queen Victoria fired to mark the occasion was presented to the monarch the following day. A detailed review of the Blashfield’s company and the wider history of the terracotta industry was published in the Stamford Mercury on 18th Feb 1859. [2] Most of the clay that Blashfield’s used was from brickyards in the vicinity of Stamford, principally the Earl of Lindsey’s estate at Uffington, the Marquis of Exeter’s pit at Wakerley and Mr John Lumby’s field in Stamford, with much of the rest being sourced from further afield at Poole and Devon. [3] In 1858, Mr Blyth of Uffington advertised his field of red clay as being fit for the manufacture of moulded and plain bricks, paving tiles, ridge coping, ornamental and plain flower pots, vases, chimney shafts and pots. Blashfield’s range of products far exceeded this, its wares ranging from utilitarian items such as bricks (Fig.2), tiles and chimney pots to architectural dressings, classical ornaments, statues and other sculpted figures. Fig.2 A Blashfield brick (Old Frechevillian’s Brick Collection) Taking inspiration from artists and architects, Blashfield employed highly skilled sculptors and craftsmen to produce his ware. In addition, he collected hundreds of casts of both classical and contemporary work. While he may have been influenced by the designs of the Coadestone factory, it is inconclusive whether he bought any of its moulds after it ceased production in the early 1840s. His clay recipes which contained a complex blend of ingredients typified his scientific approach to terracotta production. By 1861 the company was employing 46 men and 13 boys. The business prospered and Blashfield designs won medals at the 1862 and 1867 Paris Exhibitions (Fig.3). Fig.3 Advertisement for Blashfield's Terracotta With the introduction of new models, the range of products had increased to over 1400 items by 1870, fired in four kilns. Blashfield’s published illustrations of its merchandise in a series of trade catalogues (Fig. 4). It became a limited company in 1872. Fig.4 Trade catalogues (Internet Archive Free Download) Blashfield’s wares were widely sold throughout England and overseas and his architectural and garden ornaments found their way into many country houses, including those at Burghley and Uffington. An allegorical figure of Literature (Fig.5) is on view at Burghley House and four large terracotta urns commissioned by the Marquis of Exeter form the centrepieces of the fountains in the South Gardens (Fig.6). The boathouse at the eastern end of the lake was also built by Blashfield’s. Fig.5 Allegorical figure of Literature (Burghley Collections. Ref EWA08621) Fig.6 Terracotta urn in Burghley’s South Gardens (Burghley House website) The whereabouts of most of the works of art and garden ornaments manufactured for the Earl of Lindsey from his own clay are unknown but Blashfield urns, probably based on a Coade design, still adorn the imposing gate piers (Fig.7) of his Uffington mansion which burnt down in 1904. Fig.7 One of a pair of Blashfield terracotta urns on the gateway to the lost Uffington House Blashfield’s products were used for both structural and decorative purposes in many properties in Stamford town but few examples remain. The most notable building is the grade-II- listed, former Scotgate Inn with its red terracotta facade (Fig.8(a)). 4 Another example is a shop at 30 High Street whose 1873 frontage contains five red terracotta panels amongst its detailing (Fig. 8(b)). Fig.8 (a) Former Scotgate Inn at 5 Scotgate, and (b) 30 High Street Despite its early successes and its strong international reputation, a combination of poor business practices, misfortune and competition from cheaper mass-produced terracotta. drove the company into voluntary liquidation. The Blashfield’s works closed in 1875 and its plant and stock were auctioned off. Blashfield died on 15 December 1882 after a short illness. The site of his factory on Wharf Road is now occupied by a residential development completed in 2007. Notes [1] In 1937 the arch was rebuilt several feet to the south and parallel with the road [2] ‘Art Manufactory in Lincolnshire. Terra Cotta Works at Stamford.’ The Lincolnshire, Rutland and Stamford Mercury. Friday, February 18, 1859, p.3 [3] Blashfield's was not the only terracotta manufacturer in Stamford. Henry Lumby had a production site in St Martin's in 1868 and 1872 and in 1863 Charles Joseph Whitton had a works in London Road. [4] Earlier used as a depot for P & R Phipps and now in commercial use. Bibliography ‘John Marriott Blashfield’. Mapping the Practice and Profession of Sculpture in Britain and Ireland 1851-1951. University of Glasgow History of Art and HATII, online database 2011 http://sculpture.gla.ac.uk/view/person.php?id=ann_1263577621 HeritageGateway Lincolnshire HER. Blashfield Terracotta Factory, Wharf Road, Stamford. HER Number MLI30744 'Sectional Preface: Building Materials and Construction', in An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in the Town of Stamford (London, 1977), pp. lxiv-lxix. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/rchme/stamford/lxiv-lxix The Gardens Trust. ‘Artificial Stone 4: Post-Coade potteries.’ https://thegardenstrust.blog/2016/08/13/artificial-stone-4-post-coade-potteries/ A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

the third manor of Stamford < Back St. Cuthbert's Fee in Stamford Dr E C Till 1982 This paper was written for the Stamford Historian by the late Dr E C Till. For this paper, the author has drawn on much original material in a attempt to remove some of the mysteries surrounding this obscure manorial court. St. Cuthbert’s Fee A manor with full administrative rights within the general area of a large town manor; such was St Cuthbert’s Fee. Peck (1) demonstrates its origins in the extensive grants of lands and tenements made to the cathedral priory of Durham, which maintained a cell at Stamford, later St. Leonard’s Priory. Writing in 1724 (2) he refers to ‘The two parishes of St Maries (by the bridge) within Stamford; all…. in the patronage of the prior and convent of Durham’, He postulates ‘a feast held by the aldermen and bretheren of Corpus Christi gild in their gild hall yet standing in the Monday mercat street’. (3) Stamford Baron Manor, south of the Welland, originally held by Peterborough Abbey but lost at the Reformation, was in Northamptonshire until the Boundary Act of 1832 when the built-up area was brought into Stamford Borough. It was granted to Sir William Cecil by Elizabeth in 1560 and was always tightly held and controlled by the Cecils. Stamford Manor, north of the Welland, from early times was a Royal manor and grants reverted to the Crown. In 1561, Queen Elizabeth granted it to Sir William Cecil. In 1622/3, his grandson, the second Earl of Exeter, secured a grant of the reversion. Being without male issue, he settled Stamford Manor in 1639 (the year before he died) upon the Earl of Stamford, who had married his youngest daughter Anne. More than a hundred years later, in 1747, it was purchased by the 8th Earl of Exeter for £6,950 and so returned to control by the Cecils, albeit in a somewhat tattered and diminished state. The manor of Cuthbert’s Fee, the third manor in Stamford, belonged in 1550 to Robert Hall.(4) By 1557/8 William Cecil was lord of the manor and probably purchased it from the Hall family. It was certainly a possession of the Cecils before Elizabeth’s grant of 1561, and remained with the Cecils after 1640. With the dissolution of the monasteries from 1536, it had been secured by the Crown Commissioners for the use of Henry VIII and was subject to the sales and leases that followed. From the Restoration in 1660, the Cecils and the Greys (Earls of Stamford) were politically opposed and much friction developed over the control of the two manors. This came to a crisis in the 1720’s when the 8th Earl of Exeter, a somewhat prickly nobleman, was prepared to act as plaintiff in a suit before the Court of Common Pleas. A draft of historical and current evidence was prepared (5) and this document is the only firm evidence to date of the extent and tenements of Cuthbert’s Manor. The actual Court rolls have not yet been discovered. The document states that it is ‘a distinct Manor and by the Court Rolls…. it appears to be a Court Leet and Court Baron and always swore a constable and aletaster but the extent of the Manor….nowhere appears, but waifs and strays and felons goods were taken within the said manor for the use of the Lord thereof as appears by the Rolls in 1550 and 1654. Actions for small debts… were … determined there as a Court Baron and a freehold house called the Bull Inn (6) particularly is held of the said manor and paid a Relief upon the death of the owners as appears … in 1557 and on and off a fine of 8 pence ….’ Until 1640, when the Greys inherited Stamford Manor, the Courts of Cuthbert’s Fee were usually kept at 3 – 4 years interval and it was convenient for the tenants of both manors to appear at one court. In 1640, the 3rd Earl of Exeter kept a separate court for Cuthbert’s Manor and thereafter ‘the inhabitants of St Mary’s parish were summoned yearly for a time and then every 3 or 4 years. By 1729, ‘Lord Stamford insists that the whole town is within his Manor and therefore his steward keeps court in St Mary’s parish (and) sets fines … upon the inhabitants there …. which Lord Exeter insists is within his manor of Cuthbert’s fee. Eventually, matters came to such a pass that the steward of Stamford Manor appointed a constable for St. Mary’s parish at the Court Leet and the inhabitants were summoned to perform their suit and service to Lord Stamford. The document states ‘By tradition and by best information we can get of the Antient inhabitants within the manor and elsewhere …. The said manor of Cuthbert’s Fee extends from Dr. Denham’s House at Castle Dyke (7) and takes in all St. Mary’s parish on both sides of Tenter Meadows and takes it in soon (i.e. after the interval imposed by the Blackfriars Estate) by St. Leonard’s to Uffington Mannor on the south side of the Way. Several other freehold houses and lands in different parts of the Town of Stamford belongs to this Mannor as a Court Baron’. To prove the active jurisdiction of Cuthbert’s Fee by the Earl of Exeter, a series of extracts of amerciaments (fines and penalties imposed by the Court) are given for the years 1722, 1724 and 1728/9. A selection of these extracts are given, as they enable the students of Stamford property deeds to locate some of the buildings within the jurisdiction of Cuthbert’s Manor. 1722 Fines varying from 2d – 1s 6d levied on ten persons for ‘laying loads wood on the waste ground in a place called the Tenter Mead’. Included are Simon Walberge ‘Doctor in Physick’ (8) and Boniface Bywater (9) Thomas Dawkins, gent, fined for laying unspread Ramell (rubbish, usually mason’s) in the same place. (10) Felix Feast ‘in the same place creating a Water Cut or Lake of Water adjoining to ye River Welland’, William Miller ‘for a wash pitt or Lyme Pitt on the same meadow near his house and also for a load of Dung in the same place’. (11) Ayscough Kirke for a Dunghill in the same place. (see also under g.) Hannah Curtis, spinster, Mary Curtis, spinster and Francis Peck, clerk, for ‘containing an incroachment in the common street called St. Mary’s Hill with two stone pillars adjoyning to the messuage in tenure of Mr John Rogers …’ (12) Felix Feast, Esq ‘for stopping the common highway with Posts sett up and placed at the messuage in the tenure of Ayscough Kirke in the parish of St. George’. (13) 1728/9 Thomas Doosley for depasturing his horse upon Blackwell’s Leys before the end of harvest. Thomas Sharman depasturing his horse upon grass before May day. Peter Symonds ‘for a wall on St. Mary’s Hill belonging to his messuage called The Bear and Ragged Staff’. (14) Robert Collington (15) ‘for a lake of water containing length 20 yds and in breadth 6 yds adjoining to the River Welland’. Thus the area of Cuthbert’s Fee in 1722, included substantial parts of St. John’s and St. George’s parishes in addition to a major part of St Mary’s parish. What is far from clear, is the extent to which the designated lands and property represent original ownership by Durham up to the Reformation. It seems probable that the Cecils for convenience tacked on sporadic acquisitions either or both before 1561 and after 1640. William Cecil, Lord Burghley, throughout his life dealt extensively in property, both buying and selling. For example, in 1551 he purchased from Sir Ralph Sadleyr and Laurence Wemington a job lot of chantry and ex-monastic property including St. Katherine’s chapel in Saltfleethaven, the site of St. John’s chapel in Louth, the chapel garth etc. in Ashby in Bottesford and the ‘Scholehouse’ in Stamford St. George’s.(16) This is the well recorded Carmelite school that according to Peck, lay ‘full east of the parsonage…’ Again, in another private purchase just before the Queen’s grant of Stamford Manor, William Cecil acquired a parcel of small areas of land in and around Stamford, including ‘Lands and tenements lyeing and being in the circuite …. of the Poche (i.e. parish) sometyme called the Poche of St. Andrew in Stamford…. ‘(17) A further problem lies in the possible existence of other small Stamford manors, merged but not forgotten in 1724, when the marriage settlement of the 8th Earl of Exeter mentions the ‘Manors (or reputed manors or estates) of Cuthbert’s Fee, Wake’s Fee and Barker’s Fee’.(18) The names of 61 tenants of these ‘Fees’ are given and almost all are surnames occurring in contemporary Stamford documents. This, then, is the latter-day history of Cuthbert’s Fee. Possibly the student of the chronology of parish boundaries in Stamford may be able to shed further light on this interesting problem. Notes Peck, Antiquarian Annals of Stamford , 1728. Lib II pp. 7-13 ibid Lib XIV pp. 6 and 7 Exeter MSS 86/5, contains a deed of 1652/3. This cites ‘a cellar under a Tenement called the Guildhall in Stamford … which … Queen Elizabeth … did grant unto Hercules Wytham and Francis Thekeyton of London … in … the two and fortieth year of the said Queens raigne’. The deeds are those of 4 St Mary’s Place and part of the undercoft still persists. Exeter MSS 54/1-5 ibid Lincolnshire Archive Office 1545/6, I, 17; ii, 137. The Bull Inn occupied a site in St. Mary’s Street on part of which the (former) Stamford Hotel now stands. Exeter MSS 85/8, dealing with properties on the south side of Castle Street, locates Dr. Denham’s house at the junction of Castle Street and Castle Dyke. The house was demolished after 1868 when Wright Waterfield lived there. Photographs of this medieval building still exist. In 1727, Mrs Walburge occupied a garden west of the Assembly Rooms. Exeter MSS 88/42. Boniface Bywater, whitesmith (also gunsmith and clock repairer) of 11/12 St. Mary’s Street c.1725 (Peck, A.A.S., Lib XI p.25 and Stukely, Surtees Soc . 76 (1836), p.324. From 1744-52 he lived in a tenement at the north east corner of St. John’s passage, part site of the present 36 St. Mary’s street. Exeter MSS 47/31/12. He owned a house on the site of the present 4 St. Mary’s Place. Exeter MSS 86/5 A fellmonger. In 1727 was living in 21 St George’s Sq. Exeter MSS 88/42 13 St Mary’s Hill (property deeds). John Rogers was ‘a doctor in physick’. 19 St. George’s Sq. (Peck A.A.S., 1728 Lib XI p.26). The raised plinth and a flight of stone steps in the NW cellar demonstrate the need for protection of the sunk area in the adjacent street. 13 St. Mary’s Hill (property deeds). Peter Symonds, sadler purchased the property in 1723 A coaldealer (Exeter Day Books). Exeter MSS 201/53 Exeter MSS 90/14 Exeter MSS 45/13 Glossary Manor : An area of land with tenements granted originally by the Crown in return for services rendered. The lord of the manor, in turn had the right to exact certain fees, fines and services from those who occupied his lands and tenements. The administration was expressed through the holding of periodic manorial courts, presided over by the lord or his steward. The court appointed its own officials – constables, aletasters, bailiffs etc. – and was largely independent of magistrate’s, assize and other courts of the English legal system. Court Baron : The assembly of the freehold tenants of a manor. Court Leet : A sort of record held periodically (in Stamford usually once a year) before the lord or his steward and attended by the residents of the manor. Fee : (e.g. St. Cuthbert’s Fee) a heritable estate held in feudal law of the Crown in condition of ‘homage and service’. Fine(s ): Usually, these were not punitive as modern usage suggests, but more in return for a licence to do certain things within the manor and its waste (ground). Thus it appears that Tenter Meadow was a town rubbish tip with its heaps of dung, wood and builders ramell. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Searchlight on Land, Labour and Social Problems 1903 Burghley House by Stamford Town By John Taylor. Author of “Social Sermonettes for Working Men.” “The Marquis of Exeter, of Burghley House, Stamford, owns 13,545 acres of land in Northamptonshire, with a rent roll of £21,015 a year. He is also the owner of 10,712 acres in Rutlandshire, with a rental of “16,389 yearly. And in Lincolnshire he has 3.327 acres, with a rent roll of £10,808 yearly.” New Domesday Book 1903. When I come across a proud aristocrat who owns 27,684 acres of land that God gave us all, and who has an income of £48,212 a year from that land, I naturally want to know how he came into the possession of all that land, why he should be allowed to keep it, and what return he is giving to the community for all the money he is taking out of his fellow men’s pockets. It was in this spirit of inquiry that I took train from Peterborough one morning, and went to see for myself what the ancient Royal Borough of Stamford is like, and to unearth some interesting facts from its history. After the dissolution of the monasteries and the confiscation of the abbey lands the manor of Stamford fell into the hands of the ancestors of the present Marquis of Exeter. His family traces its descent from William Cecil of Bourne, in Lincolnshire, who became Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth, and was elevated to the peerage under the title of Baron Burghley. Enormous grants of Crown lands, and many Enclosure Acts, and a few prudent marriages with rich heiresses will easily account for the vast accumulation of land in this fortunate family. A Victorian view of the South Side of Burghley House “Burghley House by Stamford town” is one of the ancestral homes of England, and, like Chatsworth House and Eaton Hall, is a show place, where you can be admitted to feast your eyes on payment of a shilling. It is a magnificent place, stored with tapestries, and needlework, and pictures and bric-a-brac, and works of art, and antique furniture enough to last a score of connoisseurs a life time. The house is only a short pleasant walk from the town, and it stands in its own park of fourteen hundred acres. Burghley Park is stocked with deer, and plentifully studded with chestnuts, oaks, and lime trees. On a fine sunny day, it must be a delightful attractive spot, but the day I was there the river was in flood, and the rain was coming down in torrents, and every tree under which you tried to shelter gave you a heavy shower bath. If you want to know what militant landlordism can do to ruin a town you should walk through the streets of Stamford, and use your eyes and ears. It is a quaint old-fashioned place, full of churches, and beer houses, and alms-houses, and in the good old times it must have been a perfect nest of political venality and corruption. The unreformed Parliament sent two members to the House of Commons, and the “Spectator” of those days tells us how prize-fighters and bullies were hired in London at five shillings a day, all found, and were turned loose on the electors of Stamford to dragoon them to the polling booths. The free and independent voters tore their clothes from their backs, and broke their heads, and obliged them to seek shelter in a malthouse to save their lives. When the election was over the Marquis of Exeter of those days served notice to quit on all his tenants who had not voted for his nominees, and he warned all the widows and spinsters who held land or houses under him that they would be evicted, too, if they did not get married before the next election, and find husbands who would vote as they were told. But the crowning disaster came to this little town when the Marquis of Exeter opposed the Great Northern Railway scheme for carrying the line through Stamford. It was proposed to construct a line of railway and build a station within a few hundred yards of his park gates, but he raised a terrible row about this proposal. He resisted the scheme both in the House of Commons and outside, and flung away his money so recklessly that the company withdrew their scheme, and built their line about four miles away. His chief objection to a railway was that it would injure his property in the town and put an end to the coaching and posting business at the George Hotel. When the railway had passed him by and left him severely alone, he was glad to build a line of railway nearly four miles in length to link his forsaken town with the railway at Essendine. Stamford has never recovered from this terrible disaster, and it never will. The engine, carriage works and repairing shops that would have enriched it were taken to Peterborough instead and they will never come back. The principal industries of the town are a small foundry and agricultural implement shop, some breweries and saw mills, and one or two large timber yards. The population is only eight thousand, and it is stationary or declining. It has a sewerage scheme on hand that will cost £50,000, and that is a big undertaking for so small a town. It works out to more that six pounds per head for every man, woman, and child in the place. About two hundred new houses have been built in Stamford during the last few years, and yet the population is less now than it was before they were built. Those new houses were built to replace some vile rookeries and filthy slums that have been pulled down. But nothing can galvanise the sleepy, mildewed, medieval town into life and vigour and progress. It has had some fine opportunities and some splendid chances, but it was never ready when its opportunity came. Source Cotton Factory Times November 6th 1903 p7/c1-2 Notes. The Cotton Factory Times (1885-1937) was a Socialist newspaper aimed at cotton workers in Lancashire and Cheshire. Using an online CPI calculator; £48,212 in 1903 is worth £7,491,401 in 2025. In pure cash terms 48,212 gold sovereigns at present prices (May 2025) would be worth close to £28.4 million. The calculated income in this article does not include any profits from the Burghley Estate property portfolio. A Print copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back CATHOLIC CHAPEL IN STAMFORD 1851. Parish of All Saints. Submitted by Chris Hunt Erected February 1834. Separate building. Used exclusively as a place of divine worship. Free sittings, Yes. On 30th March (1851). In morning General Congregation 170., Sunday School 51. Remarks. The number of Catholics attached to this mission may on a fair average be estimated at about four hundred, but owing to a variety of causes, say, distance and want of decent apparel a regular attendance cannot be expected. Signed Thomas J. O’Connor, Catholic Priest, Incumbent Source Lincolnshire Returns of the Census of Religious Worship 1851. Edited by R.W.Ambler, M.A. Published by the Lincoln Record Society Volume 72 (1979) page 3. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back George Longstaff and Clay Tobacco Pipe Manufacture in Stamford Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 Brief History of the Clay Pipe industry The manufacture of clay tobacco pipes began in England in the 16th century soon after the introduction of tobacco from North America by Sir Francis Drake . [1] London took the lead in producing pipes, followed by Bristol, and the industry quickly spread throughout the country, so that b y the mid-17th century clay pipe making was a well-established trade nationally. [2] The South West of England, particularly Devon, Cornwall and Dorset, was the primary source of the white earthenware clay used throughout the pipe making process. Pipe smoking was common amongst all classes but the fortunes of the industry fluctuated early on in response to opposing factors such as the punitive tobacco tax of 1604 and the granting of a charter to the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers in 1619, [3] as well as to disruption by the English Civil War. [4] After smoking was temporarily supplanted by snuff in fashionable circles in the 18th century, [5] there was a resurgence of pipe making from about 1820. [6] However, a s cigarettes, cigars and wooden pipes subsequently became more popular, the industry went into terminal decline and few clay pipe-making businesses survived into the 20th century. [7] Clay Pipe Making in Stamford Pipe making reached Lincolnshire around 1640 [8] and clay pipes may have been being produced in Stamford by 1665. [9] The earliest trader of pipes in Stamford was Francis Barnewell, a surgeon and tobacconist, but it is unlikely that he made pipes himself, more probably bringing them in from London. [10] The first recorded pipe-maker was William Whitehead who was active in 1673 [11] and worked in the trade for about twenty years. [12] Several other pipe makers followed for short periods. [13] Robert Collington (d.1733), a grocer, imported clay from the Isle of Wight and Thanet [14] for the local pipe makers up to about 1716 [15] and later set up his own pipe-making business.[16] He may have been the only pipe maker working in Stamford at that time. Production of clay tobacco pipes in Stamford occurred mainly during the periods 1650-1745 and 1815-1895. [17] Between these times, because of falling demand, no pipe makers were recorded in the Stamford Hall books, either as freemen or apprentices, from about 1745 until 1817. [18] After Robert Middleton (1789-c.1860) entered the trade in 1817, [19] he and his family became the sole makers of pipes in the town until 1849. [20] His business on North Street was then taken over by George Longstaff. [21] George Longstaff (1815-1875) George Longstaff was the principal clay tobacco pipe-maker in Stamford during the third quarter of the 19th century. Born in 1815 in Spalding, he was the fifth of ten children of Henry Longstaff and his wife Ann (nee Sewell). All five sons became pipe makers, with at least four of them, Thomas Staveley, Charles, George and Sewell becoming masters and William and James being employed by other master pipe makers. George learnt his trade in Spalding before moving to Stamford, where he married Mary Larks (d.1916) at All Saints Church in 1846. They had eight children. [22] On taking control in 1849, George acquired Robert Middleton’s kiln, workshop and two-storey house on North Street. It was the only kiln operating in the town at the time [23] and he was assisted in running the business by his wife Mary and younger brother Sewell (b.1828). Robert Middleton’s youngest son, also called Robert, stayed on and worked for the Longstaffs for several years, most likely until at least 1863. [24] Other former Middleton employees who stayed on included William Henry Taylor and Robert Andrews. [25] Peter Cole and James Lees may also have worked for George Longstaff for a while. [26] It is evident that the business thrived as George submitted plans in 1873 to extend the kiln. [27] Although the Longstaffs remained in the same home, their address changed to 15 and 16 Elm Street after the east end of North Street was renamed East Street in about 1868 and the small lane between East Street and Broad Street became Elm Street. [28] Another of George’s brothers, Willliam (c.1817- bef.1881), was also working as a pipe-maker in Stamford in 1851, but for whom is uncertain. It is not known from where George Longstaff obtained his raw materials but one nearby source of tobacco pipe clay was the extensive pits at Northampton whose black or grey-coloured clay was exported to neighbouring and more distant counties. When such supplies were exhausted, the business may have used Devon clay. [29] Longstaff was not known to have used the brownish-coloured local clay, although Samuel Saunders who was a pipe maker in Stamford Baron in the late 17th and early 18th centuries occasionally did so. [30] George Longstaff marked most of his pipes 'GL' on the sides of the spur [31] and he was the only member of the family to add his personal insignia apart from Thomas Staveley Longstaff who stamped 'LONGSTAFF' upon the bowls of his pipes. [32] After George’s death in 1875, aged 59 years, his widow Mary took over the running of the business until at least 1892. However, by then, the industry was in sharp decline and falling demand forced her to cease manufacture and close down the kiln. [33] Efforts by the Longstaff Bros, probably George and Mary’s sons, A. and Jabez, to revive the business in 1896 proved futile [34] and most pipe-makers had shut down by end of the 19th century. The Longstaff’s brick-built clay pipe kiln was discovered in 1972 during building work on North Street, at the rear of Stamford School. [35] Fate of Clay Pipes The lifespan of clay pipes was relatively short. C onsidering the huge numbers produced, along with their fragility and disposable nature, it is unsurprising that intact or fragmentary examples are regularly found in rubbish dumps, on agricultural land, and in parks and domestic gardens, often carried there in midden waste or soil imported from elsewhere. [36] There have been major finds of clay tobacco pipes at several sites in Stamford, including that of the North Street kiln, the River Welland and Stamford Racecourse. [37] A small number of these pipes were made by George Longstaff. Clay tobacco pipe found in the Stamford area [Photo Nicholas J Sheehan] A print version can be downloaded HERE ------------------------------------------------------ [1] National Pipe Archive. Worcester and Clay Tobacco Pipes. http://www.pipearchive.co.uk› publications [2] Carpenter, Daniel. Clay pipe making. Heritage Crafts . April 26, 2017 [3] Oswald, Adrian. The Evolution and Chronology of English Clay Tobacco Pipes. Archaeological News Letter. Vol 7. No.3. September 1961. p.55 [4] National Pipe Archive [5] Oswald [6] Wells, Peter K. The Pipemakers of Lincolnshire. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.123 [7] Carpenter [8] Wells, p.123 [9] Comrie, A C. The Clay Tobacco Pipe Industry in Stamford. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.187 [10] Comrie, p.187-8 [11] Wells, p.160 [12] Comrie, p.188 [13] Comrie, p.188 [14] Comrie, p.193 [15] Comrie, p.188 [16] Wells, p.161 [17] Comrie, p.187 [18]Comrie, p.188 [19] Comrie, pp.194-5 [20] Comrie, p.188 [21] Wells, p.161 [22] Hammond, Peter. The Longstaff Family of Tobacco Pipemakers. Society for Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 70. Autumn/ Winter 2006. pp.11-14 [23] Comrie, pp.194-6 [24] Comrie, p.195 [25] Comrie, p.197 [26] Comrie, p.199 [27] Wells, p.161 [28] Comrie, p.198 [29] Moore, W R G. Northamptonshire Clay Tobacco-Pipes and Pipemakers. Northampton Museums and Art Gallery, 1980. pp.4-5 [30]Comrie, p.192 [31] Comrie, p.223 [32] Hammond, p.13 [33] Comrie, p.193 [34] Comrie, p.200 [35] Wells, p.161 [36] Comrie, pp.219-21 [37] Comrie, p.201 Previous Next

< Back The State of Stamford's Housing at the end of the Great War Chris Hunt 2022 At the General Election held in 1918. Lloyd George, a Liberal politician, and Prime Minister of the War Coalition Government, called for "a country fit for heroes to live in". If not fully accepted by all political parties, it was one that none could argue against. It was therefore not surprising that the resulting elected Coalition Government of which nearly two thirds were Conservatives Members of Parliament, followed this ethos by carrying out a number of reforms championed by their junior partners, the Liberal Party. One of these revolved around improving the housing stock for working class families. A commissioned Parliamentary report on housing was produced by the Tudor Walters Committee in November 1918. This led to the The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act of 1919. The recommendation of the committee and the subsequent Act set the standards for council house design in the inter-war years. It was in this atmosphere that the Borough of Stamford Medical Officer of Health, Mr E.A.Hutton Attenborough M.B. B.S. presented his 1918 report to the town’s Health Committee in March 1919. Housing was a major concern and he stated that he would like to see upwards of 200 houses built to replace those he wished to see closed. And that these new houses should be built as a Garden City, either singly or in pairs, and not to be more than eight to the acre. Once built he stated that he would ask the Council to close every court in Stamford and also numerous streets. Not only closed, but demolished, thereby improving the ‘supply of air’ to adjacent properties and also allowing the widening of some roads in the Borough. As to the list of streets to be demolished in whole or in part: 1) Water Street. 2) North Street, including Belgrave Terrace and School Terrace. 3) East Street and Hope Terrace. 4) Elm Street. 5) Gas Street, Stokoe’s Buildings and Milner’s Row. 6) Welland Street and Tenter Lane. 7) Wharf Road, from St George’s School House to St Leonard’s Street. 8) North side of St Leonard’s Street, except Cornstall Buildings. 9) Brazenose Lane. 10) Bath Row. 11) Sheep Market, Castle Buildings. 12) Austin Street and Austin Friar’s Lane. 13) Eight Acres and Foundry Road. Besides these streets the Medical Officer of Health stated that there were numerous other houses dotted around the town which needed to be closed, and that there were some betterclass houses in the ‘condemned streets’ which his remarks did not apply to. Concerns were also expressed over the sewerage system in the town and the supply of fresh water, neither were adequate, even by the standards of the day. As to the sewerage system, this had been improved before the Great War, but was still far from perfect and some expensive alterations and additions were necessary. The report also raised concerns over the Water Supply, both in quantity and quality and that fresh steps were needed to provide the town with a pure and plentiful supply. It was his understanding that the Stamford St Martin’s and Wothorpe Water Works Company, whose proprietor was The Most Hon. The Marquess of Exeter was consulting experts on this matter. The Medical Officer of Health was of the firm opinion that the Borough Council should now procure powers from the Local Government Board to build at least 200 houses and that as these were built, then an equal number of the worst houses should be closed (and demolished). And that under such a State-aided housing scheme the first too benefit should be those who were living under conditions dangerous to health. The then private sector developers were continuing to build private housing after the War on the eastern edge of the town along Doughty Street and Rutland Road and subsequently Drift Road, Drift Avenue and Drift Gardens. But, it was the Borough’s Council House Policy with the development of the council house estates north and south of New Cross Road and the gradual condemning of the slums in the centre of the town, that so radically changed the shape of the town in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and improve the living conditions Aided by Government Legislation and the Medical Officer of Health’s Report presented to the Council in 1919 kick-started the post-war expansion of the town. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Stamford Deviation Mike Sockett 2018 There is a common assertion that the Great Northern Railway planned for their route to come through, or near to, Stamford and that it was the objection of the Marquis of Exeter that stopped this. However there is evidence that this was not the case and is certainly not the whole picture. In May 1844 the GNR proposed a route through Peterborough and a meeting was held in Stamford to lobby for a ‘deviation’ that would take the railway near the town, with a station at Newstead. By August the GNR had decided against the deviation, though the people of Stamford continued campaigning. It seems that the Marquis of Exeter initially supported this deviation but by 1846 had withdrawn his support and then become an active opponent. There is s letter in the Mercury on June 14th 1847 which is a clear attack on Exeter accusing him of being a hypocrite. In this it is asserted that when the deviation was proposed Exeter actually drew a line of the railway on the map and made sure it would pass through his land! It is then asserted that when the GNR refused to give him the price he was asking for his land he withdrew his support and instructed his Parliamentary nominee Granby to remove from the Bill all references to the Stamford deviation. As the letter is signed by ‘a person’ this was clearly a political issue – there was general election the following month. A Committee of the House of Commons had considered the issue of the deviation and gave their reasons for refusal on June 8th 1847, here addressing the role of the Marquis of Exeter: “….it may well have weighed with the Committee to consider whether they would sanction anything which could in any way injure or detract from the noble, and princely, and historical domain of Burghley…..these cases were by no means the grounds for our decision. It was a matter of public not private interest which swayed us in the judgement at which we arrive.” The Committee also dealt clearly with the whole issue of whether the deviation was in the general interest: “…..as the station intended for them by the Great Northern was to be upwards of a mile from the town of Stamford, they would still have that distance to go to gain the GN, thereby gaining an advantage of only three miles, while the rest of England travelling on that line and not intending to stop at Stamford, would be carried nearly two miles out of their course by the proposed deviation; and it came therefore to a nice account for the Committee to settle between Stamford and all the rest of the travelling world, whether the people of Stamford should go three miles out of their way or all other travellers two miles. It was, as it were, a fair match between Stamford on the one side and all England and Scotland on the other; we thought that England had it.” There are two interpretations of the role of Burghley in this: Firstly that he did not want the GNR through Stamford, but supported the campaign of the town to keep in with its citizens (and voters!). His support is referred to as ‘luke warm’ in one source. Secondly that he did want Stamford on the GNR because it would be very profitable for him, but he miscalculated the price the company was willing to pay for his land. It would seem that the idea of the GNR passing through, or near to, Stamford was never part of the railway company’s plan and it was always referred to as a ‘deviation’, ie a deviation from the preferred route through Peterborough and Tallington. For a map of railway routes in the Stamford area that shows the line of the deviation proposal see Martin Smith, ‘Stamford Then and Now’, (1992), page 120. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back V Bomber Crash at Barnack Chris Hunt 2017 HANDLEY PAGE VICTOR B.2 BOMBER No XM714 On the night of March 20th 1963 a Handley Page Victor B.2 Bomber No XM714 of 100 Squadron took off from Wittering on a training flight. It crashed east north-east of Wittering in the Parish of Barnack and of the crew of six only one person ejected and survived. The plane was a write off. The plane stalled after take-off and spun into the ground. A fire warning was indicated for the No.2 engine, this occurred at about 800 feet. During the fire drill the airspeed was allowed to drop and the aircraft began to judder violently. It then flipped over, entered a spin at between 4,000 and 5,000 feet and crashed. The co-pilot ejected and survived with compression fractures but the rest of the crew were killed. The fire warning was found to be false. The co- pilot – Flight Lieutenant Brendan Jackson remained in the RAF and retired in 1993 with the rank of Air Chief Marshall. There were two squadrons of Victor B.2 Bombers at Wittering during the 1960’s. 100 Squadron from May 1962 to September 1968 and 139 (Jamaica) Squadron from February 1962 to December 1968, they were both part of the Quick Reaction Alert force of the RAF. Two nuclear armed aircraft were permanently on 15 minutes readiness to take off. They were parked within 300 ft of the westerly runway threshold and in times of higher tension, four bombers could be stationed beside the runway. If the aircraft were manned they could all be airborne within 30 seconds, with an incoming missile warning from RAF Fylingdales of only four minutes before impact this ensured if the country came under attack, the bombers would be scrambled and be able to retaliate. Each plane carried an Avro Blue Steel Missile, this was a British air-launched, rocket- propelled thermonuclear stand-off missile and was the primary British nuclear deterrent weapon until the introduction of the Polaris missile armed nuclear submarine fleet. Basically. the missile was a pilotless, winged aircraft. It was powered by a rocket engine, burning a combination of hydrogen peroxide and kerosene. Fuelling the missile before launch took nearly half an hour, and was quite hazardous. On launch the rocket engine's first chamber would power the missile along a predetermined course at around Mach 1.5 and then once close to the target, the second chamber of the engine would accelerate the missile to Mach 3. Over the target the engine would cut out and the missile would free-fall before detonating its 1.1 megaton warhead as an air burst weapon. The crash occurred about 100 yards north of the Bainton Road reaching almost to the village cemetery. The area was soon cordoned off with RAF Police and crash teams from Wittering; civilian police were also on hand. Fire brigades from Stamford and Peterborough also attended the scene. It was reported in the press that the RAF armourers on hand were there to deal with Very lights. Trees were set on fire and for a time the whole village was covered in a black cloud as a result of the burning fuel. Local residents were interviewed by the Stamford Mercury reporters who spoke of debris from the crash as near as fifty yards to Station Farm. The cockpit canopy landed the far side of Pond Farm falling through the roof of a stone outbuilding and No 10 Bainton Road was in direct line with the crash. A Barnack villager reported that the sound the plane was different to normal and was gliding in when it hit the ground. To some there was a renewed fear of further accidents and the continuation of night flying did nothing to quell those fears. At the inquest which was held in Peterborough on May 16th 1963 the sole surviving airman (Flight Lieutenant Brendan Jackson) informed the inquest jury that No 2 Engine Warning light came on at about 800 feet and they commenced the normal fire drill. They could not see the engine in question so the only indication of the fire was the warning light. The Base was informed of the incident and the crew were warned to check their parachutes. At this stage the aircraft suffered severe buffeting, ‘an intense vibration caused by aero-dynamic reasons or by mechanical failure in the engine’. Shortly after this the nose of the plane reared up and it went into a spin. The Captain gave the order ‘Get Out, Get Out’ and the Flight Lieutenant ejected at about 2,000 feet, before leaving the plane he heard someone at the rear say I can’t move. The design of the plane meant that although the pilot and co-pilot had ejector seats the rest of the crew had to bail out. This was not an easy procedure due to the restrictive nature of the interior of the plane and the danger of being caught by an engine when bailing out. A witness on the ground stated that there was no fire on board the plane prior to the crash. Three of the deceased were buried with full military honours in Wittering Cemetery. Flight Lieutenant Jackson’s stated at the inquest that:- “I think the captain very courageously stayed at the controls when he could have used his ejector seat, because of the knowledge that the rest of the crew could not get out.” The question of course is whether on the night of the accident the plane was carrying a Blue Steel Missile with a nuclear warhead attached? Considering the high status level at the time it was the norm for aircraft in the air to be carrying a weapon. The missile’s warhead was primed in-flight so although in a crash scenario nuclear material could be released into the environment; there was little or no likelihood of a nuclear explosion. Of course it could have really been a training exercise carrying a dummy missile on what was a relatively new plane. The pilot - Flight Lieutenant Alexander Galbraith - heroically stayed with the plane making the ultimate sacrifice and saving numerous lives on the ground and the village of Barnack. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back STAMFORD PRIMITIVE METHODIST CHAPEL (another religious location in the town) On Sunday last, two sermons were preached in the Primitive Methodist Chapel, New-gates, Stamford, by Mr. William Lewin, from Whissendine. Congregations were good, and collections very liberal. On the following day, a public tea meeting was held in the place of worship, at which 60 or 70 persons sat down. The subsequent meeting was addressed by Mr. Lewin (chairman), Mrs Cobley, the Rev. A. Beanland, and others. The Primitives have taken the above-mentioned place of worship, and intend to hold services every Sunday afternoon and evening. Source Stamford Mercury (Friday) November 7 th 1862 p4/c2. Notes. Although we have no precise location for this Chapel, however, it must have been on the east side of Newgates, as to the west we have the Stag and Pheasant Inn with its associated yard and outbuildings. The Primitive Methodists must not be confused with the Trinity Methodists on Barn Hill, who, in 1862, were worshipping in what is now the Barn Hill Church Meeting Room. The Primitive Methodists saw themselves as practising a purer form of Christianity and being closer to that of earlier Methodists. William Lewin, chair of the meeting, was a Coal Merchant, Brick and Tile Manufacturer, as well as a local Preacher living in Whissendine. In 1871, his daughter was an Infant School teacher in the Primitive Methodist Chapel School in Whissendine. The Rev. A. Beanland is Mr. Arthur Beanland who, in 1861, resided in Hinckley, Leicestershire. Both men were obviously travelling preachers, spreading the Word in Stamford. Chris Hunt February 2026 A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next