< Back An Amusing Apology from a Lincolnshire Newspaper 1806 Whereas I, Benjamin Birch, Of Boston town (and near the church), At Stamford Market, o’er the bowl, Got drunk and slandered neighbour Cole. For which he has --- to my vexation --- By law compelled this declaration: That I, without just cause or reason, Made use of words as base as treason, And therefore do his pardon ask --- A most unpleasant, painful task. But as I own I was to blame, Why dang it! Then I sign my name. By B.Birch Boston January 1806. Source. The Million (a London Magazine) September 2nd 1893 (Saturday) p17/c1, in the Queer, Quaint and Curious Section. A printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Anonymous Abuse – 1830s style: or Little Changes in Politics. By John S Hartley There has rightly been much criticism of certain social networks which have permitted anonymous personal abuse of their members. Today it all happens quickly and openly. In the 1830s abuse may not have been public in the same way, and its delivery took rather longer, but the scurrilous anonymous attack occurred then also. This is a companion piece to my longer article, Eat, Drink and be Merry , to be found elsewhere on this website. Two surviving anonymous letters were sent to the successful candidate in the 1831 Election at Stamford illustrate such abuse: both were sent to Charles Tennyson, uncle of the poet. Between 1735 and 1868 he was the only Stamford MP against the “Burghley interest”, represented below by Lord Thomas Cecil, brother of the second Marquess. Tennyson was elected the second MP for Stamford in 1831. He was initially mildly radical and a member of Grey’s 1831 administration. The 1831 campaign had been, literally, a bruising campaign, at the very height of the clamour for reform of the electoral system throughout the country. Three days after this first letter was postmarked, the new Stamford Members of Parliament, Cecil and Tennyson, fought a duel on Wormwood Scrubs, the source of much later ridicule. Cecil’s remarks relating to Tennyson’s election campaign had given offence, probably as intended. Neither was injured, both were arrested but no prosecutions followed. Anonymous letter to Charles Tennyson Lincolnshire Archives 2 T d’E, H/26/8 Sir [Postmark – 15 June 1831] You are a low foul mouthed blackguard and like most of your party a bully and contemptible coward. It is only to be regretted that Lord Cecil should have placed himself on an equal footing with a fellow who wants the manliness and courage to avow expressions that were heard distinctly by 30 persons including myself, and who would condescend to the meanness of a lie to escape the punishment that awaited Him. Had I been Lord Cecil I would have horsewhipped you on the spot, instead of treating you as a Gentleman; a character your coward heart has proved you to have no pretension to. You may anonymously throw dirt at your noble antagonist through the daily press, but it will not answer; you are branded at my club in St. James Street as a dastardly 1 poltroon and may throw your slime how or where you please. A friend of Lord Cecil A member of White’s St James Street C Tennyson Esqr. Ordnance Office Pall Mall 1 This word might equally well be read bastardly , thanks to an extra riser on the “d”. It is hard to imagine this was a careless slip of the pen! The second letter , also to Tennyson, written after the Reform Act became law on 7 June 1832, laments the fact that Tennyson has decided not to contest the next election for Stamford, preferring to seek the newly created seat of Lambeth. Ironically , after the passing of the First Reform Act in 1832, Stamford became even more securely a pocket borough for the Marquess of Exeter and the Tory party; voters in St Martin’s now became electors for Stamford Borough. The new enfranchisements, apparently overwhelmingly in the Exeter interest since the family owned most of St Martin’s, seem to have been the chief cause for Tennyson’s withdrawal. His fellow reformers, rejoicing in the emancipation of so many large towns in England seem scarcely to have noticed that Stamford had become even more firmly a Tory stronghold. A brief biography of Tennyson may be found in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (available online with a library ticket number); a full report of the three elections at the start of the 1830s may be found in the 1820-32 volume of the History of Parliament. In Stamford in the first half of the nineteenth century political colours were reversed from what we would expect today – “Blues” were the radicals, reformers and Whig/Liberal supporters, while the “Reds” (or often actually nearer orange!) were the Tory and subsequently Conservative supporters of the Exeter interest. The punctuation, spelling and grammar of this letter, a far cry from the sophistication of the first, probably reflect accurately the social divisions of the voters in the town. It goes without saying that Burghley House patronage, in various forms, both overt and covert, played a highly significant part in their seemingly unshakeable hegemony – until the arrival of the secret ballot in 1872. Anonymous letter to Charles Tennyson LAO T d’E H/36/27 Stamford July 2nd 1832 Sir is this the Reform Bill Passing It is with gratitude for my fellow Cuntrymen I now take up my Pen to write to you asking you Weather you have forgot the Words you mad use of on the Hustings if you have I will remind you of them. Did you not say that if you ever forsook the Borough of Stamford might God forsake you and another thing I will remind you of When you was at the George and Angel window you said that if you ever forsook Stamford you wished your Right Harm might drop from your Body and now has forsook it O What a Oath to take My Dear friend Pray Write and give your at your end Resons for not Coming God will forsake you for Our town is all of the Devil will take you an upRoar the People of Stamford is as Blue as ever it was we have Hopes that this may be a false Report becaus you Cannot Leive becaus of St Martins voting there is about 40 or 50 voters and we know of 19 Blues and 8 as will not vote at all. Had you Have Come again Stamford would soon of been its Self and there is a great many fresh votes I know of 20 fresh ones. Who would of thought you would of forsook Stamford Whilst you Had Breath in your Boddy I once thougt we should Beet the marquis of Exeter but now we must give all up to the Red Party, but Stop let me think. know we will not give up to them till thay make us and thay shall have work to mak us for thay shall kill me before I will give up to them your tital is Rit Honl is this Rt Hon no if this Report be true it is not but we Have Hopes yet but if it be true I will give my Hearty good wishes I wish you may Never get another place in Parlement Can you forget the Thousands that Came to meet you when you first Came to Stamford I never shall forget though you have forgot us but I must Conclud By saying that I shall Ever remain a true BLUE We will give all up now but ah now we are forsaken the Tears that have been Shed in Stamford is unacountable To the Right Honerable Chas Tennyson You Have Fought the Battle Till you thought you have done Get Beet and then you gone John S Hartley A printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Find out about The Stamford Local History Society who meet once a month in Stamford to discuss and learn about the history of the town. ABOUT The Society was created in its current form in 2013 and follows a number of aims managed by it s committee. The history of our organisation Stamford Local History Society (SLHS) exists for anyone interested in the rich history of Stamford and its satellite settlements and communities. The society was formed in 2013 as the successor to the Stamford Survey Group (SSG) and is a member of the British Association for Local History. Founded in the 1960s, SSG began as a research group whose principal aim was to study and publicise Stamford’s past. It published a series of important works on the town’s ancient buildings and institutions (listed in the Publications section of this website) and numerous smaller scale articles of research and comment which were collected into six volumes of the journal The Stamford Historian between 1977 and 1982. In addition to the collective output of SSG and SLHS, individual members of the two organisations have independently published articles and books on a broad range of topics relating to the history of Stamford and the neighbouring areas. SLHS meets monthly between September and June, excluding January, usually on a Thursday evening in Barn Hill Methodist Church. As well as talks by local and visiting speakers, its programme includes a members' evening. It holds its AGM in June and excursions to places of historical interest are organised in the early summer. Members are encouraged to form sub-groups under their own leadership in order to research and discuss issues of specific interest to them. Our aims The Society aims to bring like-minded people together to engage in four main areas of activity: To hear lectures and presentations relating to people, places and issues of interest and relevance to its members. To visit places of interest in the local area and further afield. To foster research and publication in topics about the town and district and, where possible, to engage in and facilitate both group and personal research. To collect, record and publish by display or lecture, in print or on the web, information about the history of the area which might otherwise be lost or unknown. To support the formation of Stamford Museum alongside Stamford Town Council. The Committee Chair Chris Hunt Vice Chair Steve Dunne Secretary Richard Asher Treasurer Trish Auciello Website Co-ordinator Ronald Teasdale / Eugene Perrett Membership Secretary Eugene Perrett Functions Co-ordinator Diane Perrett Committee Member Katy McLauchlan Other responsibilities including publicity, talks and events are shared amongst the committee members. Volunteers to join the committee are always welcome.

< Back Move of Police Station from Stamford Town Hall to the Portico Submitted by Chris Hunt MOVE OF POLICE STATION FROM STAMFORD TOWN HALL TO THE PORTICO The police offices at Stamford are this week being transferred from the Town-hall to the Portico. SOURCE STAMFORD MERCURY FRIDAY APRIL 4TH 1890 p4/c2 Note. The Portico on High Street is now part of Stamford Library. The police station was sited in an adjoining building to the left of the Portico, between the Portico and Goldsmiths Lane, and is now part of the library. The clock above the entrance is there to this day (January 2025). A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Peterborough GNR Loco v Stamford Rutland Ironworks November 9th 1895 Chris Hunt The Ironworks journeyed to Peterborough on Saturday to fulfil their engagement with the Loco team. There was not a large attendance considering the great rivalry that exists between these old opponents. The teams were composed as follows: Ironworks . – Goal, Morris; backs, Rudkin and Middleton; half-backs, Avery, T.Braunston and Glithero; right wing, C.Atter and Pentelow; centre, Burcombe; left wing, Miller and J.Atter. Loc. – Goal, Shaw; backs, Randall and Palmer; half-backs, Pearson, F.Palmer and Bean; right wing, Cannon and Darnill; centre, Fox; left wing, Burbage and Garner. Referee, Mr Carter. The home team won the toss, and the Reds had to face the breeze in the first half. The opening exchanges were in the favour of the visitors, whose forwards displayed admirable combination. Burbage early showed up well, and from him alone did it appear that much danger was likely to ensue. J.Atter and Miller passed nicely down the left and the sphere was lifted over to the right. C.Atter secured and with a clinking shot drew first blood for the Reds. A few minutes later the homesters were giving Rudkin and Middleton plenty of employment. The first mentioned back dropped the sphere down the right wing and C.Atter, getting the better of a tussle with Palmer and Randall, was on the point of shooting at very close range when he was ruled off-side, most unfairly, as he had beaten three opponents. Following this piece of work, the referee awarded a corner against Avery, who was yards from the ball. The visitors showed great dissatisfaction at this, but matters reached a climax a few minutes later when a home forward standing almost under the cross-bar slipped the leather into the net from a shot by a half-back at long range. In spite of all protestations to the contrary, the referee adjudged this point to be a legitimate one. These most disgraceful decisions caused RUCTIONS and a lively scene ensued. The visitors decided to take no further part in the contest, but did not leave the field. They kicked the ball off from the centre, but offered no opposition to the homesters, who under the personal direction of the referee took the leather down the field and put in between the Reds’ sticks. The important but perverse functionary whose abominable decisions had caused this miserable state of affairs informed the Loco players that they must be careful not to get “off-side". J.Atter took exception to this mode of procedure, but was politely requested to “shut up”. The spectators were talking in knots on the playing piece, and Mr J.Atter, town clerk of Stamford, and the father of the left winger, stepped on to the field with a view of pointing out duties of a referee to the “knight of the whistle”, but he was ordered off and promptly complied with the request. The Ironworks simply kicked the ball when necessary to keep it in play, such as in the case of goal-kicks and throwing in, and by so doing did not lay themselves open to the charge of leaving the field without the referee’s permission. Several of the home players had adjourned to the neighbouring pub to discuss the matter, but were ordered to resume their position on the field and were cautioned. Again was a farcical order of the referee complied with, and the Loco took the ball down the field and scored a fourth point. Half time arrived with the score reading Peterborough Loco 1 goal Rutland Ironworks 1 goal Referee 3 goals. The forty-five minutes in the second half were whiled away by the players in any way they chose, as long as they remained on the ground. Pipes were lighted and discussions friendly and otherwise took place. Before the players were allowed to leave the field the darkness spread its mantle over the scene, and stars became visible. A more unsatisfactory game can scarce be imagined, and it is evident that scenes of a similar but milder nature are not rare on the Loco ground, as the spectators acquainted the visitors that they were as bad as Boston and Spalding. ************ The Stamford and Rutland Guardian’s football comments in 1895 were written under the by-line ‘Half –Backs’ and he stated that: The “game” at Peterborough on Saturday, “Ironworks v Peterborough G.N.Loco”, was a perfect fiasco, and it is high time that the Association interfered in the matter of referees. It is only fair to the Loco players to say that the majority of them were equally disgusted with the decisions of the ruling official. Note The above article appeared in the Stamford and Rutland Guardian of Friday November 15th 1895. It shows that criticisms today’s crowds express about referring decisions are nothing new. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford in 1868 Chris Hunt 2018 1868. J.Clapton. Esq; Mayor. February 25th, owing to the failure of his health, the Earl of Derby resigned the premiership, and on the 28th, Mr Disraeli became Prime Minister. In March, the entrance lodge to Burghley High Park, near the race course, was commenced. May 4th, Viscount Ingestre (son of the Earl of Shrewsbury) elected Member of Parliament for Stamford, vice Viscount Cranbourne elevated to the peerage by the death of his father, the Marquis of Salisbury. On the 8th a spirited race was rowed on the river Welland between Stamford Bridge and the Railway Bridge, between the crews of an outrigger and a four-oared gig, and attracted crowds of spectators. The colours were light blue and white. The “light blues” won by a length. On the 23rd June, William Unwin Heygate was elected Member of Parliament, in place of Viscount Ingestre, elevated to the peerage. July 31st, close of the last Parliament elected under the Reform Bill of 1832. August 6th, an Anglo-Saxon cinerary urn was found on the Essendine Railway in the parish of St George. September 18th, a steamer on board which was Lord Burghley, eldest son of the Marquis of Exeter, was wrecked in Queen Charlotte’s Sound, New Zealand. No lives lost. October 14th, about 5.00am, a very destructive fire broke out at Mr Joseph Phillips’ brewery, in Water-street, and was not got under control for some hours, during which time it destroyed the malting-rooms (which contained several hundred quarters of malt) and the ale stores. The damage was very heavy. The town engines were present and also one from Burghley, one from the works of Messrs. Ashby and Jeffery, and Mr Blashfield’s L’Extincteur. On the 17th, a stone coffin, of the Roman period, containing two skeletons and fragments of pottery, a bone pin, &c., was found on the farm of Mrs Gilchrist, between Stamford and Tinwell, about half a mile from Ermine-street. November 11th, the London Gazette contained a proclamation for dissolving the seventh parliament of Queen Victoria. The Second Reform Bill having deprived the borough of Stamford of one of its members, Sir John Hay was on the 16th returned as Stamford’s only representative in Parliament. Mr Andrew Gray, a shipping agent from London, was proposed and seconded; he made a speech and then his candidature was withdrawn. On the 2nd of December, the Disraeli ministry resigned, on the account of the result of the election. Showing a majority of one hundred and twenty-one to the opposition. On the 4th, Mr Gladstone was commanded to form a ministry, which was sworn into office on the 9th. Source:- The Annals of Stamford 1837-1887 by Arthur J. Waterfield printed and published in 1867 by Haynes & Son, 51 High Street, Stamford. Note: - 1868 was the year of parliamentary elections in Stamford. Two by-elections in May and June followed by a General Election in November when the borough returned for the first time just one Member of Parliament. The reduction from two being as a result of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1867. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford in Domesday Book Dr David Roffe 2018 Stamford and District Local History Society, 15 February 2018 Introduction Thank you so much for inviting me to Stamford. It is a great delight to be back here again and to be invited to reflect on the history of the town. I first began thinking about its origins and early history in 1975. I had volunteered to work on the castle excavation directed by Christine Mahany. Many of you will remember the site. It was at the time one of the largest medieval excavations ever undertaken and certainly unprecedented in terms of a castle. The finds were quite spectacular, not that I had much to do with them: it soon became apparent, in fact by lunchtime on the first day, that I was not a natural digger. Bang went another career option. I could read Latin, though, and in the afternoon I was sent off to the office in Kings Mill House to try to make sense of the medieval documents relating to the castle and the town generally. The rest is history. Chris and I presented a synthesis of the historical and archaeological evidence for the origins and growth of Stamford at the Battle Conference in 1982. The paper was published in Anglo-Norman Studies in the following year. Much of the conclusions was based on the first comprehensive analysis of the Domesday account of the town. Historians had long mined the source for information, but there had never been a comprehensive analysis in terms of the later history of the lands that it describes. Tonight I shall revisit that study for the first time in 35 years. The intervening years has seen much new research in the field of Domesday studies, but I am glad to say that, by and large, our analysis has stood up well. The Domesday account of Stamford Domesday Book comes in two parts. Volume 2 is known as Little Domesday Book and describes the three eastern counties of Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. Volume 1, Great Domesday, covers the rest of the country south of the Tees and just a tiny bit of Wales. The relationship between the two parts does not concern us today. Suffice it to say that the account of Stamford occurs on folio 336d of Great Domesday. It appears at the head of the Lincolnshire folios after the account of Lincoln and is followed by Torksey and then the body of the text, the account of the lands of the tenants-in-chief, substantially the barons of the shire. It is written in Latin, but in a highly contracted form. You will notice that almost every word in the text exhibits diacriticals, that is distinctive marks that indicate the omission of letters (figure 1). This system of shorthand speeded up writing, but sometimes it is difficult to reconstruct exactly what the scribe wanted to say. Fortunately, our chap was on his best behaviour when he wrote up Stamford, for there are relatively few contractions and suspensions. We are not always so lucky, but here we can be confident of what he intended (figure 1). Figure 1: the Domesday account of Stamford The Domesday Survey Before we dive in and examine what he wrote we must first get some idea of why the Domesday survey, and Domesday Book that was compiled from its returns, was commissioned in the first place. Otherwise, we shall not be able to interpret what is recorded. You may have a vague idea from schooldays of the Domesday survey as a census. Well, it wasn't. To start with, at least half of the population is missing: there are next-to-no women mentioned in the text. More credible is the notion that Domesday was compiled as an inventory of William the Conqueror's new realm. Even so, there are still problems. William defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Why, then, did he leave it until 1086 to undertake the survey? True the Conquest was not complete until the fall of Ely in 1071, but the Domesday survey was still 15 years after. In reality the survey addressed urgent problems in 1085. England was threatened with invasion. King Cnut of Denmark had formed an alliance with Count Robert of Flanders and had mustered a fleet to conquer England. His claim to the throne was arguably stronger than William's and he must have thought that large parts of England were in one way or another sympathetic to his cause. William clearly saw Cnut as an existential threat to his rule. He was in Normandy when he heard of the imminent invasion, and acted with characteristic decisiveness. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that he crossed the channel with the largest force of mercenaries that had ever been seen in England. Meanwhile, Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury had convened a conference and it was decided to billet the troops on landholders throughout the country. In the event for various reasons the invasion was put off until the spring of 1086 and was then abandoned after the death of Cnut. William, though, was not to know this in late 1085. He laid off some of the mercenaries over the winter, but nevertheless continued with preparations for a renewed onslaught. He ordered the coast to be wasted to deprive any invading army of sustenance. All military enterprises depended on foraging for supplies in the eleventh cent ury. Further, at his Christmas court in Gloucester he appointed trusted agents to East Anglia which, with its Anglo-Scandinavian population, was seen as a particularly exposed Achilles heel. Wulfketel at Crowland was replaced by Ingulf and Gunter was appointed to Thorney and Maurice to the see of London (with extensive estates in Essex and East Anglia, the bishopric was a key player in the east of England). All three were trusted royal priests whom William could rely upon to represent his interests and act decisively. This was the context in which the Domesday survey was commissioned. At the same Christmas court, as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William ordered a survey of the king's income in land and taxes and an equally exhaustive inquiry into the income and services of his tenants- in-chief, that is the barons. It is clear that the immediate aim was to raise cash to pay the mercenaries, but there was also a determination to plan for the future. The survey began in January 1086 and seems to have been complete by late June or early July. At a meeting, 'of all those who held land in England', at Salisbury in August 1086 taxation was extended to the lord's demesne and, it seems, new quotas of knights were determined. Never again was the realm to be dependent on mercenaries for its defence or at least that was the aim. The writing of the Book All of the data that were collected were then written up in what we now know as Domesday Book. When is a matter of debate. Many insist that it was compiled as part of the 1086 programme. But it is odd that it was not a complete record of the survey: it omits much of the data. I have therefore argued that it was a later enterprise ordered by William's son, William Rufus, in 1090. In 1088 there had been a rebellion against the new king which had occasioned much tenurial chaos. Domesday Book may have been compiled to inform a settlement. Writing in 1125 or so, the Anglo-Norman historian Orderic Vitalis probably makes an oblique reference to the enterprise. However, there is no explicit mention of the Book until the early years of the reign of Henry I, so it may have been compiled anytime up to 1102. The structure of the Stamford account Whatever its date, Domesday Book was clearly a royal feodary, that is a work of reference drawn up to inform government of the king's interests and dues. As such, it was an abstract – most noticeably the livestock so carefully recorded in the survey was jettisoned – but it drew all its data from the survey. The sort of information we get, then, is determined by the concerns of 1086. It is thus not surprising to find that the account of Stamford is divided into two broad sections, that is the income of the king and those of his tenants-in-chief. Both are signalled by capital letters and, intermittently, by paragraphoi, that is gallows marks, for the latter (figure 1). Now, Domesday talks in terms of land, terra in Latin, but we must take care not to be misled thereby. What is mostly involved is rights over land rather than in what we would call real estate. In an urban context those rights were various. Foremost was landgabel or gafol. This was a rent, usually around a shilling a year, due from the community of the borough. This sum, however, if prominent, was not the sum total of what 'land' signified. There were also renders that Domesday generically calls consuetudines, 'customs', payments in coin and kind that represent a former food rent, and occasional labour services such as mowing on the king or lord's demesne. Then there was soca, 'soke', that included dues for the right to bake and brew as well as the amercements, fines in modern terms, that were paid in the borough court. Finally, there were tolls which were taxes on the buying, selling, and the passage of goods. Land itself, freehold to be anachronistic, generally resided in the townsmen. The king's income Having cleared the ground, we can now get down to the nitty-gritty. We first get a statement of the tax the town paid to the king (figure 2); it was assessed at 12½ hundreds. In the Danelaw the hundred was not the institution of the same name of hidated England. That was represented by the wapentake. The northern hundred was more like a vill, the unit of local government at its lowest level – think the civil parish of today – and it was rated at 12 carucates. So Stamford was assessed at 150 carucates for the geld, army and navy service, and Danegeld. The town was divided into six wards. We have no further information, but they were probably each associated with the gates of the town. That was certainly the pattern elsewhere. The ward was a unit of policing – hence watch and ward – and an association with routes into a town is common. In the later Middle Ages there were five gates north of the river in Stamford and probably a sixth in Stamford Baron. All the dues that resulted accrued to the king. It should be noted that the ward south of the river was an integral part of the town even though in Northamptonshire. There is no evidence that it was ever constituted as a separate borough. Figure 2: tax and the wards of the town Then we move onto the number of properties that owed their dues to the king – 141 and half a mill in 1066 and the same in 1086 less 5 that had been destroyed in the building of the castle (figure 3). The dues of 4 others had been taken away by Brand, whom we can identify as abbot of Peterborough. A further two belonged to a Wulfketel son of Merewine who was almost certainly the former abbot of Crowland. Figure 3: the land of the king Finally, there were 77 properties that belonged to privileged sokemen over whom the king had more limited rights, namely heriot, forfeiture, and toll alone, that is death duty, the right to land consequent to felony and the like, and, as we have seen, taxes on traded goods (figure 4). Sokemen are not usually found in towns. Indeed, this reference is all but unique in an urban context. But in status they were akin to burgesses. Both, for example, had similar inheritance customs. In Stamford throughout the Middle Ages the property of an intestate burgess passed to his youngest son rather than his eldest. Many rural sokemen were also subject to this custom which became known in English law as Borough English. Eustace of Huntingdon who took away the mill was sheriff of Huntingdonshire. He, like sheriffs in general, was a notorious despoiler of land. How he came to put his oar into Stamford is unrecorded. Figure 4: the land of the sokemen The land and income of senior townsmen and tenants-in-chief As we have seen, the second section deals with dues that did not go to the king. Lawmen come first (figure 5). Twelve in 1066 and 9 in 1086 and holding in all 51½ properties, they held with sake and soke, that is all customs apart from the ones explicitly excluded here. They were judges of the law, receptacles of local custom rather than the bewigged panjandrums of today, but it is clear from a twelfth-century text called the Leges Edwardi Confessoris that they also acted as royal agents. They were responsible for recording crimes – in Stamford in 1226 they are called coroners – and they made distraints, that is took goods as bail, for offenders to appear in court. These are functions that were later granted by charter and so we are effectively looking at a town council. Unlike in Lincoln, the lawmen are not named. We do, however, have a valuable record of the properties they held. They were substantial townsmen and in all likelihood English. Fastolf too was English, holding a single church in 1086 which was quit, that is no dues were paid to the king (figure 6). Unfortunately, there is no record of who held the church in 1086. Figure 5: lawmen Figure 6: Fastolf Then we have a series of barons who had interests in Stamford. We can best start with the 9 properties held by Leofwine in 1066 and Alfred of Lincoln in 1086, We learn from Alfred's chapter in the body of the text that these belonged to his manor of Uffington (figure 7). We have no explicit evidence of this kind for other holdings, but the later history of some indicate other connections with rural manors. We learn from the 1212 survey of Stamford that the 23 properties held by Earnwine the priest and Eadsige and then Eudo Dapifer belonged to the manor of Wakerley in Northamptonshire (figure 8). The same source indicates that the 7 properties of Azor and Gunfrid de Chocques belonged to the manor of Casewick. Edward Cild's 14 properties belonged to Witham, Sproxton, or Tickencote. Finally, there were 10 properties in Lincolnshire, that is north of the river, that belonged to Peterborough abbey. I have been unable to place them in any particular manor. Figure 7: the manor of Uffington Figure 8: properties belonging to rural manors Queen Edith's fee Contributory manors, as they are known, of this kind are a common characteristic of English towns. They have been used to indicate the territory that was assigned to boroughs. Here, though, they are few in number and so little can be made of the pattern they describe. The 70 properties held by Queen Edith, the wife of King Edward the Confessor, which are described next may superficially appear to be of the same order. In reality, however, they are of a completely different type of holding (figure 9). Domesday indicates that the fee belonged to Roteland, that is the northern part of what became Rutland in the next century. This was an ancient dowage estate of the queens of England that consisted of a number of separate manors. The value at the end of the Stamford entry clearly indicates that the 70 properties had been one of them. Thus, in 1066 Queen Edith's fee was adjacent to the borough but not part of it. As odd as it may seem, this was by no means a unique characteristic of Stamford. Most English boroughs had royal and/or comital (earl's) estates closely associated with them. What is usual here, however, it that the estate was administered by the sheriff of Nottingham as Domesday indicates at the beginning of the account of Roteland. Figure 9: Queen Edith's fee By 1086 the 70 properties had become incorporated into Lincolnshire and Stanford. The fee of Albert of Lorraine, a priest of the royal household, hints at a reason. Albert held the church of St Peter's in Stamford which is said to have belonged to the church of Hambledon (figure 10). The same point is made in a reference to Albert's land in the account of Roteland itself (figure 11). However, we know from a charter of William Rufus that Albert had been granted all the churches of Roteland. We can, then, understand that St Peter's was the church of Queen Edith's manor here in Stamford. You are all familiar with the site of the church. It was adjacent to the castle and so it is likely the castle site too was originally in Roteland. If so, the whole area was moved into Lincolnshire to bring it under the control of the sheriff of Lincoln. In the later Middle Ages the combined lands were known as 'the castle and manor of Stamford'. Figure 10: Albert of Lorraine's church St Peter Figure 11: Albert's fee in Roteland The boundary between Roteland and Lincolnshire was moved out of the town to Ermine Street to the west. Domesday Book recognizes the change by describing the Roteland portion of Stamford in a postscriptal entry in the Northamptonshire folios where it is called Portland (figure 12). The churches of St Peter's and All Saints held land there under the king. In the later Middle Ages the area, the West Field of Stamford, was known as Sundersoken which means 'estate apart'. Figure 12: Portland Stamford in the late eleventh century Well, what does all of this tell us about the town in 1086? We can start with size. The assessment at 12½ hundreds, ie 150 carucates, tells us Stamford was by far the largest settlement in south Lincolnshire in terms of the tax it paid. The number of properties might be expected to give some indication of just how big it was (figure 13). In total 405½ are recorded. But the Latin term, mansio, plural mansiones, is an unknown quantity. It is usually translated as something like messuage or tenement; I have used the more neutral 'property' advisedly. What it was definitely not was a house: in Nottingham we have a reference to 3 mansiones in which there were 11 houses (domus). So, there were probably considerably more houses in Stamford in 1086. Moreover, the account is demonstrably incomplete. Although Stamford Baron was already in existence, no details are given. The earliest survey comes from 1125 when there were 74 properties of various kinds. Many of them must have been in existence in 1086. We must, then, be careful how we interpret the figures. It has often been stated, for example, that the castle was built on the fringe of settlement since only five mansiones were destroyed. In reality, we don't know how any houses this implies and anyway we are told only about those that had rendered dues to the king. Figure 13: summary Our numbers are uncertain, but we can say something more about the physical extent of the town north of the river. We have four explicit markers. First, there is the bridge. It was on the same site as today judging from the twelfth-century structure at its south end. Second, the castle, the earliest part of the extant structure being the motte, the present bus station. Third, St Peter's church, now marked by a mound on St Peter's Hill. Finally, All Saints church – later known as All Saints in the Market – which still stands in Red Lion Square. Although somewhat better than for some towns, this is seemingly a poor yield from such a detailed survey. Fortunately, though, other markers can be deduced from the later history of the fees described. In the early thirteenth century William de Lanvalie granted the church of St Clement's to St Michael's nunnery in Stamford. William was the lord of Wakerley and the successor to Eudo Dapifer. It seems likely, then, that one of the churches that Eudo held in 1086 was St Clements. It was situated somewhere close to Barn Hill House in Scotgate – skeletons have come to light from the garden – and so it seems that the area was already developed in 1086. William is not recorded as granting any other church, so the second one held by Eudo cannot be identified. Fastolf and his church present a more difficult problem. We have no record of who held in 1086, so we cannot trace its later descent. Its status, however, may provide a clue. It was quit, so it was held in chief of the king. This profile fits Holy Trinity outside St Paul's gate. In the thirteenth century it was the only church in Stamford that had its own court, as did other lords in Stamford who held in chief of the king. Finally, there is the land held by Crowland. Abbot Ulfketil is not recorded as holding a church. By the mid twelfth century, however, the abbey held St Michael's and this church is likely to mark at least one of Ulfketil's properties. We end up with a somewhat detailed topography for such an early period. By 1086 Stamford seems to have reached the full extent of the thirteenth-century town (figure 14). There were certainly no walls at this time – they are of later construction – but it is possible that even the line of the later defences, in part or whole, was already established. It might be doubtful, though, that the town was infilled to the same degree as later. Figure 14: the thirteenth-century town Despite such riches, ranking Stamford among the 70 or so boroughs of England in 1086 remains a difficult task, not the least because different units are used from town to town. Had all of them been measured in terms of mansiones, comparison would be possible. But they aren't. Beside mansiones we also find burgenses, domus, hagae, acrae, or a combination of two or more. So it is that value to the king is the best metric of size, as imperfect as it is (figure 15). Stamford rendered in total £78 in 1086. This does not put it in the Premier League of the English boroughs recorded in Domesday Book. Lincoln, York, Norwich and, of course, London although not fully described, were altogether much bigger and richer boroughs. But Stamford was well up in the First Division. Figure 15: the value of the town Conclusion Tonight I have confined myself to the Domesday evidence. There is, of course, a lot more evidence out there (figure 16). I have not touched on the archaeology, topography, nor numismatics. However, it is Domesday that provides the framework for understanding the early history of Stamford. The most important conclusion that Chris and I reached in 1982 was that the castle perpetuated a centre of authority of long standing. Adjacent to St Peter's church, it almost certainly replaced the manor house of Queen Edith's fee. That association in its turn provided context to late ninth-century defences that we found beneath the bailey. If we are looking at one area that we can identify as the origin of the town it is here. How it relates to the rest of the town is another story and another lecture. Figure 16: archaeology ©David Roffe 2018 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Transcript of Bert Bailey's WWI diary P Massey & K Hansell 2014 Pte Bert Bailey Following the Society's WW1 exhibition in November 2018, to commemorate the signing of the Armistice, we have been given kind permission from the family of Bert Bailey to publish the following transcript below from his diary. For further details and the location of Bert’s residence please visit the Stamford Boys of 1911 . The diary transcript can be accessed HERE Previous Next

< Back F Dawson, Grocer, Stamford. Unofficial Farthing (W.4820) Martin R Warburton The Token Book 2 (Galata 2013) indicated that no information could be found about this issuer. Research at Stamford Library and in the British Newspaper Archive has revealed that Frederick Dawson was in business for only two years, from 1854 to 1856, and so avoided being recorded as a Grocer in either the 1851 or the 1861 census. Being in business for only a short time probably accounts for the scarcity of the token. During his short time as a shopkeeper he was, however, a frequent advertiser in the local papers. Examples include the start of his business in the Stamford Mercury of April 28th 1854; The apparent success of his business by advertising in June 1855 for an ‘...APPRENTICE. A Dissenter preferred...’; And the suggestion that perhaps all was not well with the business in his announcement in the Stamford Mercury of January 25th 1856; Frederick Dawson was born in 1832/3, a son of William Dawson, Baker and Confectioner of St Mary’s Street, Stamford. He is probably the same Frederick Dawson who died in Stamford in 1881, aged 48. Chandos House in the High Street is thought to be the first building on the right leading from Red Lion Square (to the left of St John’s Church) and is currently an outdoor clothing shop. Frederick Dawson’s short-lived business can possibly be connected with the decline in passing trade experienced by Stamford when the railways arrived from the late 1840s onwards. Before this his shop was in a prime location next to Red Lion Square on the old Great North Road from London to Edinburgh. Coaches stopped and horses were changed in Stamford. The other side of Red Lion Square still boasts The Millstone public house offering ‘good stabling and loose boxes’. It all changed though with the coming of the railways; progressively east and west from Stamford (Town) from 1846 to 1851, and from Stamford (East) in 1856. Many thanks for assistance go to Chris Hunt of the Stamford Local History Society and to Dave Smith of the Token Corresponding Society. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The formation and first home of the Stamford Institution (1838-1842) John Daffurn 2023 On 22 March 1842, a large crowd gathered in the sunshine outside of the Stamford Institution in Broad Street. Together with the great and good of the town they eagerly awaited the arrival of the Marquess of Exeter accompanied by his sons, the Lords Burghley and Brownlow. The Stamford Institution had been formed four years earlier and the Marquess, as patron of the Institution, was due to lay the foundation stone for a new purposely designed building on St Peter’s Hill. A procession lined up, headed by a banner and a band, and followed by; the architect (Bryan Browning) and the builder (Moses Peal); the Marquess and the mayor (Joseph Phillips); the president of the Institution (Dr W L Hopkinson) and the vicar of All Saints church (Rev N Walters); followed by a group of clergy, magistrates, aldermen, burgesses, councillors and members of the Institution ( Lincolnshire Chronicle , 25.3.1842 [ LC ]). Amongst the latter assortment were Councillor Richard Newcomb and Alderman Thomas Mills, who feature below. The foundation-laying party left Broad Street and processed down Ironmonger Street, along the High Street, across Red Lion Square and up All Saint’s Street to St Peter’s Hill. On arrival the band played, and a local choir sang, the National Anthem before the proceedings were opened with prayers from Rev Walters. The foundation stone was duly laid by the Marquess, during which the bronze trowel snapped, and Dr Hopkinson spoke to the assembled crowd. It is not reported how many speeches took place, but the only two reported were those of Dr Hopkinson and Richard Newcomb, the latter of which was unplanned by the organising committee. Newcomb, by 1842, was firmly in the Radical camp and an adversary of the Cecil family and this was alluded to in his speech which hijacked the occasion. In it he mentioned that “although it [Stamford Institution] had secured very high patronage it was originally projected and established by those who did not occupy the highest stations in life — by two or three individuals whom it would be perhaps invidious to name” ( LC , 25.3.1842). A following column in the Lincolnshire Chronicle of the same date commented that the event had passed off satisfactorily “…except the tainted address of an orator whose speech seemed combined of a desire to avail himself of the opportunity to show off…”; an obvious dig at Newcomb. The idea to create a new society began in 1837, or possibly earlier, and would have involved the two or three gentlemen alluded to by Newcomb, and may have included Newcomb himself. The idea was to provide a library, museum, and reading and lecture rooms, in order to disseminate literature, science and the arts to a wide audience. The Newcomb family had previous in this regard, as Richard’s father had set up a subscription library in his bookshop on the High Steet in January 1787, and remained its librarian until 1807. However, there appears to have been tensions leading up to the Institution’s formation in 1838 as it was reported, in May of that year, that “Almost every difficulty which naturally presented itself to the formation of this very desirable society has, we are happy to say, been overcome…” ( LC , 23.5.1838). During that month, the provisional committee convinced Dr W L Hopkinson, previously mayor of Stamford, to become President, and pressure was applied on the Town Council to call a public meeting at the Town Hall. It was at that meeting on 5 June that resolutions were passed, and officers and members of the provisional committee were named. The committee included Richard Newcomb, Alderman Mills and John Bentley, a bank cashier who was named at the meeting as one of the originators ( Stamford Mercury, 8.5.1838 [ SM ]). In the following months, the development of the nascent Institution was reported in every detail in the Lincolnshire Chronicle , but not in Newcomb’s Stamford Mercury , and later, in 1838, Newcomb’s name no longer featured as a member of the committee. Furthermore, Newcomb’s name was conspicuously absent on the published list of donations, suggesting a falling out over the way forward. At the beginning of November 1838, the committee proudly announced that they had taken over a property in Broad Street which would shortly be ready as the home of the Stamford Institution ( LC , 2.11.1838). The address of this property can now be revealed as 49 Broad Street (currently part of Barclays Bank). The 1841 census named Thomas Blades as caretaker, a position he continued after the move to St Peter’s Hill. Also residing in the building in 1841 was John Bentley, the committee member mentioned above. Nevertheless, the identity of the building remained elusive, until its use or occupants were traced backwards and forwards from 1838, the detail of which is included in the Appendix below. 49 Broad Street (far right) The building was built in 1770 by John Truman (Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, The Town of Stamford, [148]) and it is through the Truman family that the trail in the appendix begins. However, within the one-hundred-year search for the occupants of the Broad Street building other information has been uncovered. The property had been used as a school for many years, but in 1829 the property became empty when Mr Gilbert failed to take over the school from Mr Wragge, despite an advertisement to the contrary (Appendix, 1828 ). By 1830, the property had been taken over by a new, Tory leaning newspaper, the Bee , which some say was financed by the Marquess of Exeter. Its editor was Thomas Fernandez Clarke, previously with Farley’s Bristol Journal, who took up residence in the building, which also housed the printing presses. Although the editor’s name was known and published, the identity of the proprietor/publisher was more circumspect. However, hidden in one of the endnotes of Newton and Smith’s history of the Stamford Mercury (Newton, 153) is a reference to an article which provides a clue. The article describes Mr Mills of the Town Council as “a principal proprietor of the late newspaper called the Bee ” (SM, 14.10.1836), but the subject matter of the piece is also important as it refers to a major disagreement, and turmoil, at an earlier Town Council meeting. This throws some light on Newcomb’s later antipathy for the Institution and his unplanned speech at the laying of the foundation stone. The opening sentences of the piece highlight the indignation of the Mercury and therefore Newcomb: The rancour and desperation of the Tories have rarely been more exemplified than in the following paragraph, which appeared in the English Chronicle (London paper) of Tuesday last: “The Town Council of Stamford have passed a vote of censure on the conduct of Mr. Newcomb, a Councillor, and most ultra Radical, for his factious conduct at their meetings; and they have designated its general tenour as ‘ungentlemanly and unbecoming.’— Lincolnshire Chronicle.” No such false statement, we believe, has appeared in the Lincolnshire Chronicle… The so-called vote of censure relates to the Town Council meeting of 1 October ( SM , 7.10.1836) which was reported in detail. In short, it involved the inability of the mayor, Dr Hopkinson, to control the meeting called to elect Aldermen for each ward. The meeting descended into farce when Newcomb referred to the mayor as Dr Hopkinson instead of His Worship, to which Hopkinson took offence and eventually stated “I throw my gown from my shoulders, and cease to be mayor”. Hopkinson then resumed the chair without his gown and was immediately baited by Newcomb who referred to him as “Dr Hopkinson or Mr late Mayor” which caused uproar. This in turn led to a motion from Alderman Mills, a Tory, that Newcomb’s comments were uncourteous and unbecoming of a member of the Council. However, in contrast to the piece allegedly in the Lincolnshire Chronicle above, no vote was taken as Mills withdrew his motion. The protagonists in this spat, Hopkinson and Mills, later became key players in the formation of the Stamford Institution. Also in 1836, the Stamford Borough Rate Books, showed that Thomas Mills owned a property on Broad Street which was in the possession of Mr Secker (Appendix, 1836 ), who was running a school in the building. Mills was the same Alderman Mills who became a founding committee member of the Stamford Institution and when the new society needed accommodation his building, following the departure of Secker, was empty and available. Once the Institution had moved to its permanent home in 1842 the property reverted to its former use as a school, until eventually it became part of the Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company, latterly Barclays Bank, which closed permanently in April 2023. 49 Broad Street in 2023 Appendix The occupants and uses of 49 Broad Street 1798 . Approximate date of school run by the Misses Atkins and Winter, from Atkins death announcement ( SM , 19.12.1823). See also 1811 ii), below. 1799. Advertisement for the freehold sale of “a house in the Beast Market, well situated for a boarding house for young ladies” ( SM, 5.4.1799). It states to enquire of Mr Truman [Thomas, the son of John Truman], St Martin’s. 1801. Advertisement for a school to be opened in January by C Bibbing ( SM , 26.12.1800). No address given. See 1806 ii) below. 1806. i) Several advertisements throughout 1806 for the sale of a freehold house in the Beast Market, stating reply to Mr Truman, St Martin’s. The last being in September ( SM , 5.9.1806). This suggests property not sold in 1799. ii) Advertisement for Wm Meadow’s school in the Beast Market mentioning Bibbing as previous tenant ( SM , 12.12.1806). 1809. Property still for sale by Truman. 1811. i) Advertisement for the freehold sale of house in the Beast Market, formerly a boarding school. Reply to Mrs Burns, St Martin’s ( SM , 18.10.1811). This relates to Ann Burns née Truman, the daughter of John Truman who bequeathed a property in the parish of St Michael’s to her and her sister. ii) Advertisement for an auction to be held at the house of the late Thomas Truman, of a freehold property in the Beast Market “formerly used as a boarding-school for young ladies; late in the tenure of Misses Atkin(sic) and Winter” ( SM , 27.12.1811). It is assumed that the property was finally sold at this auction, probably to Thomas Mills as an investment. 1812. Advertisement for a Classical and Commercial Academy to be opened in the Beast Market by T A Jones ( SM , 3.4.1812). 1814. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by T A Jones has been taken over by the Rev W Lancaster ( SM , 23.5.1814). 1819. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by the Rev W lancaster has been taken over by J Russell ( SM , 23.4.1819) 1825. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by J Russell has been taken over by Mr Wragge ( SM , 2.7.1825). 1828. Advertisement stating that the Classical and Commercial Academy previously run by Mr Wragge has been taken over by Mr Gilbert ( SM , 24.10.1828). 1829. It appears that Mr Gilbert did not take up the running of the academy. 1830. The Bee is using the house as an office, for printing and as accommodation for Mr Clarke, editor (see 1833 below). 1833. The Bee closes down, Clarke’s furniture is auctioned, the printing equipment is sold and the building is advertised as a property “well adapted for a boarding school” ( SM , 3.5.1833). 1835. Secker takes over school ( SM , 8.5.1835). 1836. Thos. Mills is listed in 1836 Stamford Rate Assessment as owning a house in Broad Street with Secker as a tenant ( http://stamfordlocalhistorysociety.org.uk/rate-book-1836 ). 1837. Secker leaves ( SM , 7.4.1837). 1838. Becomes the home of Stamford Institution (see 1843 below). 1842. Stamford Institution moves to St Peter’s Hill. 1843. Advertisement for Classical and Commercial School opened by J Bartram in building ”lately occupied by the Stamford Institution” ( LC , 13.1.1843). 1845. Advertisement for Broad Street Academy run by Samuel Weddell “lately conducted by Mr Bartram” ( SM , 7.2.1845). 1850. Advertisement to inform that Mr Thacker will take over the Broad Street Academy from Samuel Weddell ( SM , 20.12.1850). 1853. Thacker retires through ill health. Broad Street property to be let. 1860. Joseph Smith reopens Broad Street Academy ( SM , 20.7.1860). 1864. People’s Institute was opened on site previously used as an academy ( LC , 5.11.1864). 1875. By this time the People’s Institute is closed ( SM , 11.6.1875). 1881. The 1881 census includes 49 Broad Street as part of a bank. However, the building must have been let in later years, in particular to Kelham & Son, solicitors, who occupied at least part of the building for much of the first half of the twentieth century. © 2023 John Daffurn A print version can be downloaded HERE Other articles about Stamford Institution: John Flowers Bentley (1810-1884): Stamford Polymath The Stamford Institution Previous Next

< Back Fear of invasion at Stamford Grammar School after Dunkirk After Dunkirk (May/June 1940), when the threat of invasion was very real, a decision was made by Canon Day, Headmaster of Stamford Grammar School, to evacuate School House (the Boarders), together with any day boys who had parental permission, to a remote Elizabethan manor house in North Wales, close to Dyffryn-on-Sea in Merionethshire. So for seven or eight weeks, the Head, his wife, three teachers and some of the boys had a ‘summer idyll’ away from Stamford. Sources. The Stamfordian Vol 11. No 3. (Summer Term 1940) and various. A Printed copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford. Elizabeth Pulley. Murder Most Foul Chris Hunt 2022 On March 16th 1860 there occurred in High Street, St Martins, a murder most foul when Elizabeth Pulley, ‘spinster of that parish’ was murdered in her own home and valuables stolen by a near neighbour, Henry Corby. Although first thought to be an unfortunate accident. Having failed to cover-up his crime by attempting to burn the body of the deceased, but when evidence was found that pointed towards his involvement and the body exhumed he was arrested and charged with her murder. Before he was committed to trial he took his own life in Stamford Gaol. This crime was not just of local interest, articles reporting the case appeared in local, regional and national newspapers. The Victorians loved to read about gruesome murders. The last public hanging did not place till eight years later. There must have been some who were disappointed that Henry Corby took his own life, which ironically he did by hanging in his prison cell. Printed broadside ballads were a common sight being sold on the streets, on market days and at fairs. They were quickly printed on cheap paper whenever publishers saw a profit. The murder of Elizabeth Pulley was just such an opportunity as can be seen from the following transcribed document which was printed by Taylor, Printer, Brick Lane, Bethnal Green (London). Although undated the original dates from 1860. Although we can read it from a moral viewpoint, it could be suggested that it falls into a ballad sub-genre best described as Gallows Literature. THE LAMENTATION OF Mrs. ELIZABETH PULLEY Who was Murdered, Robbed, and Burnt at Stamford _______________________________________ The cruelest murder e’re was pen’d, Has in that place been found. Elizabeth Pulley, a lady was, To the poor was good and kind, Who was robbed & murdered by a wretch To a cinder burnt we find. The gold rings from her finger, The murderer took away, The writing-desk and a bank-note, With a hundred pounds they say. The silver-plate and other things, Both gold and silver coin, He took from Lady Pulley, Who was so good and kind. The white-locks from off her head, The murderer he must tear, For amongst burnt clothing and other things, Was found much human hair. The carpenter that did her work, Henry Corby, was his name. And for that horrid murder They took him for the same. He must have had a heart of stone, To do that dreadful deed, For of all the murders that ere was done, This is the worst, indeed. To a cinder burnt the lady, Oh, what a cruel one; In the ashes was found her tooth, Likewise her finger bone. Oh, the deed was laid to Corby, A carpenter by trade; And since the murder has been done, He many a debt has paid. Two young men that was in his shop, On a shelf, they by chance did see, The writing-desk and the gold rings, Which belonged to Mrs Pulley. For Elizabeth and Thomas Pulley, On the gold rings were their names, Which those young men saw in the shop And to the police they told the same. For murder they took Corby, And charged him with the crime, And remanded he has been At Stamford different times. Upon the nineteenth day of April, Just at the break of day, Fast to a bar of the window, Corby hung himself, they say. And those that read these verses, Cannot help to shed a tear, For on a slate he had wrote these words, Unto his wife and children dear. From public-houses, my dear boy, I pray you keep away, And try to assist your mother, Much as in your power lay. Do try to help one another, Through this wide world of care, Farewell to you, my loving wife, Adieu my children, dear. Taylor, Printer, 93, Brick Lane, Bethnal Green A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next