< Back Belgian Refugees in Stamford Jean Orpin 2014 This paper was prepared by Jean Orpin as part of the research carried out for the Stamford commemoration of the start of World war I in August 1914. Between late August 1914 and May 1915, 250,000 Belgian Refugees came to Britain. It was the largest influx of political refugees in British history. Today it is almost entirely forgotten. Yet in the early part of the war helping Belgian refugees was a significant part of Stamford’s contribution to the war effort. October 16th 1914 Stamford Mercury An appeal is made by Mr Samuel, President of the Local Government Board for hospitality which is urgently necessary for town and country organisations to provide accommodation on a considerable scale and is asking for places to take 50-100 or more. He also appealed for individuals to offer care. The Belgian refugees tell an awful story of savagery which compelled them to flee from Mekelen, a manufacturing town of 60,000. On Sunday September 27th after German bombardment the whole town lay in ruins. It was then occupied by German soldiers. Refugees fled to Welhem where they stayed for 3 days and nights then that town was invaded and they went to Antwerp and were shipped to Harwich. October 23rd A crowded meeting was held at the Town Hall to consider the maintenance of the refugees attended by the Mayoress, the Marchioness of Exeter, Countess Villiers, the Countess of Ancaster and other prominent residents. The Mayor hoped that everyone would do all they could and they needed to think of expenses. Mrs Edmonds had offered furniture and the Mayor had bought 9 beds and 16 blankets and would make the gift up to £20. The estimated cost of maintenance was 7/- per week. Mr Halliday and Reverend Rogers advised proceeding cautiously as many of Stamford’s own residents might need help before the war was over. Mr Coulson said that the town could be divided into districts and ladies appointed to collect weekly subscriptions. The Roman Catholic priest asked if they could get French refugees as he did not understand Flemish. The Mayor proposed that they proceed with arrangements for 20 and appointed a committee. The Mayor said that gifts of clothing, bedding, furniture and linen were acceptable. Satisfactory arrangements were made with the owner of Eversley House School, Mr R. G. Evans. This commodious dwelling has been furnished for the reception of the refugees. Large quantities of bedding, furniture and household requisites have been given or loaned by the townspeople. The gas company undertook to supply gas free of cost and the Urban Electric Company would supply electric light at 2d a unit instead of 5d. A letter to the Mercury suggested that a quiet reception be made as he had already noticed a lot of schoolchildren peering through the windows of Eversley House as if something in the nature of a freek show was taking place. Villages were participating too. Easton had a house available. Collyweston planned to make a weekly collection. Folkingham had a scheme for entertaining and accommodating a number of refugees. Duddington and Ryhall also offered support. October 30th The Belgian Refugee fund had £389 in the bank. Mrs Pepper of Red Lion Square collected 2040 pennies.Madame Matilde Dorzou was put in charge of Eversley House, which had been fitted up to house about 30 refugees. The first party of 30 including a banker, an accountant and the postmaster of Louvain arrived on the 22nd and was met at the station by the Mayor and Mayoress, the Town Clerk and Reverend Father West, the Honourable Mrs Geoffrey Pearson and Mr Orlando Edmonds. Brakes conveyed the refugees to Eversley House where they were addressed by the Mayor. Ten more refugees arrived on Saturday evening. They attended mass each morning. The light and gas company supplied fuel on special terms. Drs Greenwood and Attenborough were in attendance. November 6th £462 has been paid into the Relief Fund. Another party of refugees were expected and preparations were made at a house on Broad Street, formerly occupied by Mr Hassan which brought the number of refugees up to 60. November 13th Relief Fund £ 493. To avoid difficulties at Eversley House two families left for Manchester. November 20th A whist drive raised £8 10s 6d for the refugees. December 6th A party arrived but soon moved on. Peasant classes arrived to occupy premises at 18 and 19 Broad Street. December 11th Relief fund £689. December 18th It was agreed that empty houses occupied by refugees should not pay rates. T he Invasion of Belgium Germany planned to conquer France quickly. As the border was heavily fortified they planned to avoid the French fortifications by invading neutral Belgium as part of the Schleifflen Plan to capture Paris quickly. This act was seen as a violation of International law as Belgium was a neutral country. Belgian neutrality had been respected in the past and Britain had guaranteed Belgium independence with the Treaty of London in 1839. The invasion took place on August 4th. King Albert, declaring that Belgium was a country not a road, led the Belgian army which resisted the invasion. The first battle in Belgium was at Liege (August 5-16th). This delayed the German progress and gave the British time to send a British Expeditionary Force to Belgium to join the Belgian army. It was small but highly professional. (The British did not have a large army and depended on the Navy as a main line of defence.) Although the Germans were stopped, they had overrun Belgium which remained in their hands for the rest of the war. Over a million refugees fled the country, a quarter a million to England. War Refugee Committees were set up to cope with the refugees.Belgium had a population of 7.5 million. It was a prosperous country with an economy based on trade and industry including a steel industry and coal and iron but imported food. The major ports were Antwerp and Ostend. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford and the Gough Map, The Earliest Known Image of the Town. Chris Hunt 2014 In 1809 Richard Gough donated a medieval map to the Bodleian Library which today bears his name. The age of the map is uncertain. The previous owner of the map to Gough believed that it dated from the reign of Edward III (1327-1377), whilst scholarship in the 19th century considered a date of c.1300. Historical evidence from the map itself suggested a date between 1355 and 1366. The reasons behind these dates is that the image of Coventry shows a city wall which was first constructed in 1355, and the latter date of 1366 as in that year the town of Sheppey in Kent was renamed Queenborough. More recent studies have however suggested a later date for the map based on handwriting and stylistic evidence towards then end of the 14th century and then revised as late as the 1430’s. Although of course the original map may date from the time of Edward I (1272-1307) and the Gough Map is a later revised and updated copy produced in the time of his grandson. The map has the east to the top of map with the west to the bottom of the page. Stamford is shown on the Gough Map as a walled town with two gates and a church with a spire on a river which is shown in green (on the image below). A road running from the south in this image (top right) which crosses another water course at Wansford, then passes through Stamford before going north to Grantham (bottom left). A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back New Footbridge over the River Welland 1863 Submitted by Chris Hunt The new footbridge across the River Welland, leading from Terra-cotta Lane to the Water Street railway station, was formally opened on Saturday last by Alderman Octavius N. Simpson, chairman of the committee, and attended by the Mayor and other members of the committee. The structure will be found exceedingly convenient to the residents of the eastern half of Stamford, more especially to those residing in St George’s parish. It has a very pretty appearance as viewed from the town bridge, and is quite an ornament to the part of the river which it spans. The structure consists of two stone abutments and one arch of 80 feet span, with a roadway of 6 feet wide, which is carried on Mallet’s buckled plates overlaid with asphalt. The main portion of the bridge is of rolled angle tee and plate iron, cast iron is only used in the bed plates and parapets, and the whole is put together with more than 8,000 rivets, and contains about 7 tons of iron. The stonework has been carried out by Messrs. Roberts, the ironwork by Mr. Cliffe, and the asphalt has been laid by Mr. Reedman, the whole having been done according to the plans and under the superintendence of Mr. Wright, Civil Engineer, Stamford whose plans it will be remembered were selected in competition out of 17 others. The total cost from first to last, including professional charges, will not exceed £400. Source STAMFORD MERCURY (FRIDAY) JULY 10TH 1863 p4/c3 Note. This footbridge was swept away by the floods of July 1880 and was replaced with the present Albert Bridge. Terra-cotta Lane was renamed Albert Road after Prince Albert, consort to Queen Victoria, who died in 1861. The railway station mentioned above is of course the old Stamford and Essendine Railway station whose main building and goods shed still stand at the east end of Water Street. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

From 1977 to 1982 the Stamford Survey Group (the forerunner to the Stamford Local History Society) published The Stamford Historian, and a sample of its scholarly articles is included in this section. A detailed list of all of the articles can also be accessed, and the actual articles can be viewed at Stamford Library. STAMFORD HISTORIAN From 1977 to 1982 the Stamford Survey Group (the forerunner to this Society) published The Stamford Historian, and a sample of its scholarly articles can be viewed below. A detailed list of all of the articles can be accessed HERE , and the actual articles can be viewed at Stamford Library. Death by Misadventure: Coroners Inquests 1700-1850 - Part 1 investigating Stamford deaths John Hartley Stamford Historian September 1978 Read Article Death by Misadventure: Coroners Inquests 1700-1850 - Part 2 a list of inquests John Hartley Stamford Historian September 1978 Read Article Queen Eleanor's Cross location of the Stamford cross Ken Coles Stamford Historian February 1980 Read Article St Cuthbert's Fee in Stamford the third manor of Stamford Dr E C Till Stamford Historian February 1982 Read Article Stamford Poor Law Union a history of Stamford's workhouse Dr Stella Henriques Stamford Historian February 1979 Read Article Stamford and the Plague the plague and parish registers Aubrey Plowman Stamford Historian February 1980 Read Article The Cecil's Monopoly of Milling in Stamford 1561-1640 the townspeople, millers and the Cecils Dr D L Thomas Stamford Historian February 1982 Read Article

< Back Stamford Borough Police Force 1836 to 1889 By Chris Hunt Today in 2026 there is much talk in political circles of reform to the structures of the police forces across England and Wales with amalgamations and the construction of a National Police Force. Such restructuring is not new. The Stamford Borough Police Force came into existence on January 2 nd 1836 when Mr William Reed was appointed Chief Constable, assisted by nine constables. Mr Reed was very much a trusted member of society in Stamford. He also held the posts of Sergeant at Mace, Deputy Clerk of the Borough’s Markets with additional responsibility for Weights and Measures, for which he held the title of Inspector, and Clerk of one of the local Turnpike Trusts. The force was amalgamated into the Lincolnshire Constabulary in 1889. Prior to this date, the town had fallen under a system of Watch and Ward, although controlled by the Borough Council, it was very much structured around the five parishes. This system had evolved from the powers granted to the town under the Charter granted by Edward IV in 1462. The powers within the Charter did not extend south of the River Welland. It was not until the 1830s that parts of St Martin’s Parish became part of Stamford for some political functions. Stamford police on the steps of the Town Hall The Police Force was very much under the control of the Borough Council through the Watch Committee, who drew up the Rules and Regulations which were then agreed by the full Council before being sent to the Home Office for endorsement. In 1842 the regulations insisted the police constables wore their complete uniform when on duty. They were all issued with their own numbered personal truncheon, which had the Royal Cypher and the Borough Crest. The truncheon, in addition to being for personal protection, was also their authority, and was similar to a warrant card today. One of their responsibilities was to visit public houses during the hours of divine service on a Sunday to make sure that no intoxicating liquors were being sold or consumed. Another duty was to look out for gambling on a sabbath. This involved visiting the outlying areas of the town where groups of men would congregate to play cards for money, Uffington Meadows being a favoured spot. The problem that these early policemen had was, when chasing fugitives, they needed to catch the individual before he/she crossed the Borough boundary, because their authority vanished once they crossed the border. On one occasion, wrongful arrest was successfully claimed when the individual was apprehended on the south bank of the River Welland in the Parish of Barnack. New regulations were made in 1857 which included the provision that all constables had to have his rank and number put in a conspicuous place in front of his premises. The name and addresses of the Policemen started to appear in local directories, so everybody knew where they lived. In 1873 for instance the police force was made up of: - Mr Richard Ward, Chief Superintendent, 30 Scotgate. John Harrison, Sergeant, 2 Austin Friars’ Lane. David Leach, Sergeant, 3 Milner’s Row, Belton Street. George Dalrymple, Acting Sergeant, 4 Milner’s Row, Belton Street. No. 1 William Wade, Merit Class, 1 Palmer’s Buildings, Empingham Road. No. 2 Francis Gray, Merit Class, 19 Belton Street. No.3 Samuel Burrell, First Class, 9 Exeter’s Court, St Peter’s Street. No. 4 John Martin, First Class, 58 St Leonard’s Street. No. 5 Richard Wright, Third Class, 4 Welland Street. In 1857, other changes included the creation of a structure within the police force with the introduction of sergeants and the removal of the gap between the Night Duty, which previously finished at 5.00am, and the Day Shift, which started at daylight. In the same year, consideration was given by the Watch Committee to amalgamation with the then newly formed Lincolnshire Constabulary. The decision was made to keep the local control, even though such a move would have resulted in a saving of £93 0s 0d. The Stamford Borough Police Force was a well-managed force as it was described in 1861 as “one of the most efficient small forces in the district” by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary. Chief Constables/Chief Superintendent William Reed January 2 nd 1836 to October 20 th 1859 (died in office). Richard Ward November 22 nd 1859 to November 21 st 1885 (retired). Alfred Palmer November 26 th 1885 to September 29 th 1886 (required to retire), (formerly a Sergeant in the Stamford Borough Police). John William Lawson September 30 th 1886 to March 11 th 1889) (Chief Constable at Peterborough), (formerly an Inspector of the Rotherham Borough Police). On April 1 st 1889, Stamford lost its independent police force and had to amalgamate with the Lincolnshire Constabulary as the Borough had a population of less than 10,000. However, for several years, Stamford remained as a separate division of the County Force. Sources. Jenkinson’s Royal Albert Almanack 1873 Lincolnshire Constabulary 1857 – 1957 (Author Unknown) A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Parliamentary Election 1847 (Hustings and Poll) Chris Hunt 2022 On Friday July 30th 1847 the hustings for the Parliamentary election in Stamford were erected in Broad Street for the candidates to present themselves for nomination before the electors of the Borough. It was the first true contested election in the town for nearly forty years and the growing unrest in both the middle and lower classes uniting against the Burghley interest meant that there was a real possibility of political change. Both believed that the economic future was dependent on the London to York railway passing through the town and that the Marquis of Exeter was working to prevent such a route. An expansion of the town and its numbers of voters would have of course destroyed for ever his control. The independent minded amongst the Borough Council had found John Rolt Esquire as a candidate and using the George and Angel on St Mary’s Street as a base began their campaign with the support of Alderman Richard Newcomb – owner and proprietor of the Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury. On the day of the hustings Mr Rolt and his supporters met up at the George and Angel to march to Broad Street, by the time they got there the crowd numbered close to two thousand. Lord Exeter’s nominees – the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries arrived slightly later with few supporters who were shouted at and hissed by the crowd. It was reported in the Stamford Mercury that all the remarks were in ‘good humour’. Once the initial formalities had been completed the nominations began. Doctor Hopkinson nominated the Marquis of Granby stating that the Marquis was a fit person to represent the town and having done so these last ten years. However, within his speech he highlighted a bill signed: ‘An Elector, to which it was stated that the Noble Lord’s and Mr Herries’s friends had been guilty of exercising undue influence. He begged distinctly to say that no influence of the kind had been put into practise’. This was met by cheers which were soon drowned out with hissing and cries of ‘It has’. Mr Cayley seconded the nomination speaking of the ability and integrity of the Marquis of Granby; however, most of his speech was drowned out by the crowd. Mr C.Haycock then proposed the Right Honourable John Charles Herries of Sevenoaks, Kent; as the second candidate for Stamford. The crowd by now had found its voice and it was a while before he began to speak. Much of which was drowned out by the crowd. Mr Henry Chase Atlay seconded the nomination. Mr Hatfield then came forward to nominate Mr Rolt, he was met with much cheering at which he stated that it was time that Stamford had its own representative. He stated that the question had to be considered ‘whether Lord Exeter should continue to usurp the power of returning both their members’. ‘it was a shame that any attempt should be made to prevent the electors to having at least some share in the choice’. He then reminded the crowd, although it was probably as much as a message to the Burghley candidates ‘that there was a standing order of the House of Commons which made it a high infringement of the Liberties of the People for a Peer of Parliament to interfere in elections to the House of Commons’. He reminded the crowd that such influence of the aristocracy would be able by legislation to coerce both the Crown and the People. He then stated that ‘it was a maxim of the constitution that the People should not be taxed without their consent; but that principle became an absurdity when the electors were prevented from choosing whom they thought proper to vote the taxes, and were threaten with pains and penalties, which being turned out of their houses, or deprived of their trade or means of living, if they made a free and conscientious selection’. He then stated that suffrage was not given as a right for a man’s own benefit, it was a privilege for the benefit of his fellow man. He then spoke of the loss of freemen’s right because of a lack of proper representation, an issue which closely touched on the majority of the adult male population of the town. Whether or not they had the vote. In finishing his speech he raised the issue of the mainline railway passing through the town and; ‘to serious loss the town was likely to experience by the carrying to a distance of the Great Northern Railway through the Marquis of Exeter’s opposition to it from pecuniary motives’. In proving this point he reminded the crowd how the Marquis had offered land to the railway company at ‘monstrous terms’ compared with prices he had been willing to buy land only a few years previous. Mr G.H.Betts then seconded Mr Rolt’s nomination. After mentioning issues around the Corn Law and Game Laws he too raised the issue of the north-south railway and ‘the scandalous manner in which the town had been cheated out of the advantages of railway communication from North to South’. The support of the gathered crowd at the hustings was very much in support of John Rolt for when the Marquis of Granby addressed the crowd he was met with a ‘storm of hissing’. When he finally spoke he attempted to defend his position on the Great Northern Railway, he had met a deputation from Stamford on the matter and that he had told them ‘that he would consult Lord Exeter on the subject’ produced laughter in the crowd. He then stated that ‘in doing so, he believed he had acted honourably and fairly’, a wag in the crowd was recorded as heckling; “Yes, to Lord Exeter, but not to the town’. When asked by Mr Tebbutt whether the Marquis would support the railway bill if it was reintroduced, stated ‘I will pledge myself to nothing’. He then stated that he had supported the increase to the Maynooth Grant - a Roman Catholic seminary in Ireland - , alterations to the Corn Laws and the Ten-Hours Factory Bill. Mr Herries then addressed the crowd and he too was met with much hissing and groans. He stated that he had twenty-year’s service in Parliament of which ten years had been as a minister, latterly as Chancellor of the Exchequer. He stated that Stamford was exempt from corruption which antagonised the crowd. There was more heckling about why having been elected eight times for Harwich he was now standing in Stamford. His view on secret ballots when asked by an electorate was that such a change would be against the ‘honesty of Englishmen’. After stating that those who had the vote should use them and those who do not should make no noise, so aggravated the crowd that the cry that ‘You have insulted the nonvoters and so we will not hear you’ was the end of his address. He just gave up. Mr Rolt then addressed the crowd. He stated that he would come ‘to the great question’, which was ‘whether the constituency of Stamford should be free’. He reported to the crowd that he had spoken to many of them and that he had been told that although they wanted him to be elected to Parliament they could not vote for him because of their fears of ‘ejected from their houses or lose some of their customers’. His view on the Corn Laws was that they should be given a fair trial and if they if they were not of benefit and led to the ruin of agricultural interests then there should be a return to protectionism. He also stated that he supported the use of public taxes for the education of the People. Mr Rolt then touched on other aspects, including, the Maynooth grant, the Health of Towns Bill, the Poor Law, the Great Northern Railway measure; his views on these matters being supported by the crowd. He finally asked the Electors to ‘assert their independence’ in voting for him. The nominations being received the call for the vote was heard and the Mayor declared Mr Rolt and the Marquis of Granby elected. At this point Mr Haycock on behalf of Mr Herries demanded a poll. Mr Rolt was then escorted by a large crowd to his residence in Rock Terrace and on the Friday evening he addressed a meeting at the George and Angel. The polling commenced on Saturday morning at about 8.00am and was carried on till about 11.00am, all the time the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries being in front. Shortly after 2.00pm with the populous become more and more tumultuous and Mr Rolt realising that there was insufficient votes still to be polled agreed to ‘resign the contest’. After the books were closed the Mayor declared that the Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries had been elected and the votes cast were: For the Marquis of Granby 359 For Mr Herries 290 For Mr Rolt 234 The Marquis of Granby and Mr Herries after saying a few words at the Stamford Hotel after Mr Rolt resigned the contest left Stamford by train to London via Cambridge before the vote was declared. Whilst Mr Rolt addressed a large crowd at the George and Angel stating that he would be willing to stand again in the Borough and that the reason for his defeat was that twenty-three voters had promised to vote on his behalf but had been ‘induced by customary means’ to vote for Mr Herries and that others who had stated that they were going to remain neutral recorded their votes for the Burghley nominees. The following week it was being reported in the Stamford Mercury how the recent contested election had passed so quietly. Although, it was noted that by some that they would have voted differently if the Marquis of Exeter’s agents had not been present. Unfortunately, the political future in Stamford over the next few years was hardly quiet. Resulting in violence at subsequent Municipal elections, alleged corruption in the ‘buying of votes’, Burghley Tenants thrown out of their homes, and an investigation of the Parliamentary election by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Chris Hunt A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back John Clare and Bull Running 1819 Chris Hunt 2018 John Clare’s Autobiographical Writings which are preserved in the archive at Peterborough City Library leads us into the early life of the poet. In manuscript A32 (p18-22) after stating that he left employment at the New Inn at Great Casterton, he continues with: - ‘I left Casterton on the Bull running day at Stamford and on calling on Drury I fell in with John Taylor whom I found was the Editor of my poems then in the press and nearly ready for publishing, he was visiting at Mr Gilchrists and in the evening they sent one of the servant maids to Drurys to invite me to go.’ John Clare’s first collection of poems – Poems, Songs, and Sonnets, Descriptive of Rural Life – was published in January 1820. Bull running day in 1819 was a Saturday. The previous day on Friday November 12th 1819 the Stamford Mercury published two of Clare’s poems. ‘To A Primrose’ and ‘The Setting Sun’, under the by-line ‘Sonnets by J.Clare, An Agricultural Labourer, of Helpston, near Stamford. These poems, are ones that he had revised again and again having starting them back in 1807/1808 when he was only fourteen or fifteen. The versions published in the Mercury are slight variants of the ones that appeared in print the following year. On the adjoining column was an anonymous anti-bull running letter to the Editor of the Stamford Mercury. A view strongly supported by Richard Newcomb, the then owner of the paper. Perhaps Clare read the paper on the Friday at Casterton and then walked into Stamford on the Saturday feeling flushed at seeing his name in print. Stamford’s famous, or should that be infamous, annual bull running taking place on November 13th would have been a further draw to Clare as it must have been to others of his class from surrounding villages and towns. It can be best described as being a local public holiday and a day when the judiciary was powerless to control what could become an unruly mob. Between 1809 and 1834 we are lucky to have in Stamford two local newspapers of very differing political views. Drakard’s Stamford News and the Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury. Although, it would be true to say that the Mercury was more a regional paper than a local one. At this time the Mercury supported the Burghley interest whose Members of Parliament followed the Tory line. The 9th Earl of Exeter in 1788 having supported the Borough Council in its first attempt to outlaw bull-running. Drakard on the other hand was pro bull-running, and took every opportunity to highlight hypocrisy amongst the nobility and his paper supported radical causes. On one occasion he was horsewhipped in his own Office by one of the Brudenell family, he was taken to court by Newcomb for libel, and spent time in prison for an article published in his newspaper on corporal punishment in the British Army. John Drakard’s view of the 1819 bull-running was that: - It grieves us to acknowledge that the sport was unusually bad. The bull did not face one of his followers, and dishonoured the character for courage and ferocity which he had obtained in his native pasture, and which, as usual, caused his selection. We regret this, because we like the sport, and, more especially, because the want of spirit in the animal encouraged the mob to load his horns, and press upon it, and give an appearance of cruelty to the diversion, from which we affirm no amusement is, broadly speaking, more exempt. We say this advisedly, and are prepared to stand up against all contradiction to the assertion, ‘like Atlas unremoved’. The Stamford Mercury however took a different view, stating: - The lower orders of Stamford had their annual uproar, the bull-running, on Saturday last. It is creditable to the town that the taste for this sport seems to be dying away: it was with difficulty that a sufficient subscription could be raised for the purchase of a bull. A person of Pickworth for £9 delivered his poor animal for the torture. The manner of the bull’s death, after it had run about the town for several hours, was, extremely savage and shocking: at the back of St Paul’s Street it was stuck, but before the life was out of it, numbers of persons, each eager to have his shilling’s worth of the flesh, cut pieces (hide and all) from the lacerated and reeking carcase, and bore them off in triumph for their feasts. One fellow in his haste, actually fell into the paunch of the animal, and was nearly suffocated. Whatever was happening on the streets of Stamford that Saturday it would be true that John Clare was at a turning point in his life? The previous day he had had two poems published in the Stamford Mercury which would be picked up by other regional papers around the country. He had met his London editor for the first time and whilst with Edward Drury he wrote some more poems that appeared in his first volume. Talk of the forthcoming book of poems resulted in Drury’s advert the following week in the Mercury including the line: - Shortly to be published by E.Drury, Poems, Songs, and Sonnets, Descriptive of Rural Life by John Clare a Northamptonshire Peasant. TO A PRIMROSE Welcome, pale primrose starting up between, Dead matted leaves of oak and ash that strew, The every lawn, the wood, and spinney through, Mid creeping moss, and ivy’s darker green, How much thy presence beautifies the ground, How sweet thy modest unaffected pride, Glows on the sunny bank and wood’s warm side And where thy fairy flowers in groups are found, The schoolboy roams enchantedly along, Plucking the fairest with a rude delight While the meek shepherd stops his simple song, To gaze a moment on the pleasing sight, Overjoyed to see the flowers that truly bring, The welcome news of sweet performing spring THE SETTING SUN This season how beauteous to the musing mind! That now swift slides from my enchanting view. The sun, sweet setting you are hills behind, In other words his visit to renew, What spangling glories all around him shine, What nameless colours cloudless and serene, (A heavenly prospect brightest in decline), Attend his exit from this lovely scene. So sets the Christian’s sun in glories clear, So shines his soul at his departure here, No cloudy doubts nor misty fears arise. To dim hope’s golden rays of being forgiven, His sun sweet setting in the clearest skies, In safe assurance wings his soul to heaven. Source Stamford Mercury November 12th 1819 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

the plague and parish registers < Back Stamford and the Plague, 1604 Aubrey Plowman 1980 The following article written by Aubrey Plowman, first appeared in issue 4 of the Stamford Historian in 1980. It grew out of the Stamford Survey Group's project on population changes in Stamford from the middle of the 16th century to the early 19th century. The article describes in vivid terms the greatest plague to hit Stamford during this period. It also provides an interesting example of how parish registers can be used to build up a picture of how the plague developed and spread within the town. Stamford and the Plague 1604 Author’s note: The events set out in the following pages took place in Stamford over 450 years ago and, unpleasant though the subject-matter be, the fact that no previous detailed account of it has been made makes it necessary to record it, in order that another small segment of the town’s history can be fitted into its rightful place. It would have been quite easy to have reduced the article to cold statistics, but I decided against this on the grounds that what happened in the year in question involved people – our ancestors. Further, I have used someone’s ancestor to help me in this attempt to recreate a picture of events of that tragic year of 1604. The months of the year used in this account are based on the modern calendar and not that of the period, hence the references in the history books to 1603 as being the year of the plague. Aubrey R Plowman An entry in the baptism register of the parish church of St Michael’s Stamford, for the year 1579, reads, ‘John Eame was born at St. Leonard’s in the plague time’. A vague statement, but then, at the time it was written, the parish clerk would not assume that further comment was necessary. The reference however is probably to the outbreak of plague that took place in the town four years earlier, in 1575. Many things are said to have plagued man, but perhaps the only true plague was the ‘Black Death’ or bubonic plague. Its origins have never been clearly defined, but at least three pandemics of plague have ravaged vast areas of the world, leaving many millions dead in their wake and causing the social and economic structures of whole continents to collapse. It raged through Britain and Ireland about the fourth century, known then as the ‘Plague of Cadwalader’s time’. The second pandemic was that of the Middle Ages, ‘The Black Death of 1348-50. In the late nineteenth century, it was active again; in India, as many as four million perished. It made an attempt to gain a foothold in this country in the early 1900s but without success, and mercifully claimed only a handful of victims. The plague of the Middle Ages was the largest and most protracted of these pandemics. The disease itself arrived in Britain from France during the summer of 1348. For two years it raged unchecked, leaving towns and villages devastated. In the spring and summer of 1349, it probably carried off about one in three of the population in Stamford. The ‘Black Death’ was at its peak from 1348 to 1349, but it was to be another three hundred years before this country would see itself free of this dreaded disease. In the 150 years before 1665, there were only a dozen years in which London was free of plague. In 1603 30,000 dies in a great outbreak of plague in the capital city, and throughout this period, generation after generation would come to accept the plague as just another burden to contend with in the continual struggle for survival.With man’s ability to adapt himself to living with the constant threat of the plague, it would be reasonable to assume that when, at the beginning of February in the year 1604, a death from plague was reported in Stamford, very few of those who were aware of the fact would be unduly alarmed or concerned at the news. If indeed the townsfolk in general were not too worried about this particular death, this was not quite the attitude taken by the town’s officials. For the plague had already threatened, or even perhaps been present in the town for some months, although this was apparently its first victim. At a meeting of the council members on the second December 1603, it was agreed that a ‘Cabbin should be erected and built where persons infected with the sickness called the ‘Plague’ should be kepte and mayneteyned and that for the charges thereof, the fourthe part of a fifteen should be presently collected and gathered’ (i.e. for the living plague victims). Such action may have been in anticipation of the plague arriving in the town, for it precedes the first recorded plague by at least two months. The cabin can be seen marked on Speed’s map of 1610. One who might have been aware of the circumstances regarding that death was Reginald Waters, doctor and gent’, but although the death took place within his own parish, it is probable that he did not pay a great deal of attention to the matter. Why should he? Although a death caused by the plague was not an every-day event, it certainly wasn’t all that rare. The plague had been claiming victims for as long as he could remember, although there had been nothing serious in the town for some years past. A few deaths had been attributed to the disease in 1581, but not since September 1575 had these been a serious epidemic, and even that outbreak had not been widespread. And in any case, Reginald Waters, no doubt, had far more interesting and important matters to think about. The period 1603-4 came to be very important in the life of Reginald Waters. He, like others of his time, had already experienced his share of calamitous moments. His first wife had dies in 1594; he re-married the following year, but their first-born, Dorothy, lived only for 17 months. However, the past few years had seen things change for the better, and he now had two sons, John and William, aged five and three respectively. He lived a fairly comfortable life, with servants to tend his needs. And now a further momentous event took place; he had been elected Alderman of the town. To hold a position of authority in the town was nothing new to Reginald Waters. He was admitted as a freeman in 1588 and in 1589 was elected to the council, but was dismissed in 1590; he was re-elected in 1598 and remained in office until his elevation to Alderman in this year of 1604. The duties required of an Alderman kept Reginald Waters quite active. The town had lost a lot of its former prestige in the fields of commerce and learning, but had not fallen completely into a backwater. Assistance in preventing this fate came chiefly from the town’s close association with the Cecil family particularly Lord Burghley, Elizabeth’s Lord High Treasurer of England. There were also the town’s connections with the Fens, the use of the river Welland and the Great North Road, all factors that helped in keeping the town alive. And also, there are indications that, since 1595, the population was once more on the increase. So most of Alderman Waters’ day was routine: meetings of civic or charity committees and entertaining of visiting dignitaries. And there was always the hope of more worthy tasks. His predecessor William Salter – now the town clerk – had attended upon King James, passing through the town on his journey from Scotland to London. And so, perhaps, Reginald Waters dreamed of some such memorable juncture. But during that February of 1604 the Alderman and the town went about their day-to-day occupations, and by the end of the month it is more than possible that most had already forgotten the ‘victim’ of the plague that the beginning of the month had brought. In March a very small outbreak of the plague was reported within St George’s parish, resulting in four or five deaths, and although – as the days passed – it gave no indication of spreading, the Alderman put into force the collecting of taxes as agreed by the council at the meeting of December the second 1603. Also at this time, the Council, fearing that prominent people would leave the town ‘because some houses in the town were affected with plague’ and that therefore those who remained would have greater burdens in helping the sick, and that the markets would ‘fail, be defamed, disgraced and foresaken’; and that visitors, seeing houses shut up, would think the plague worse than it was and wouldn’t stop to buy things, agreed to levy fines on those who left the town. But as the month of March continued there was nothing to indicate the plague’s intention to spread. At the beginning of April however, the disease claimed another victim. The Alderman would have been advised. The death took place outside the town wall, at the White Friary. But before many more days had passed. The plague was active once more, this time in St Michael’s parish, on his own doorstep, and as April drew to its end, another eight had fallen prey to the dreaded plague. Alarming as this was, what proved more terrifying was that the disease was on the move and spreading at a disturbing rate. The plague turned into an epidemic with such speed that within a space of four weeks, of the 82 deaths recorded in the parishes of St Michael and St George, at least 75 were recorded as being a result of this scourge. And yet at this time the rest of the town was still virtually free of the pestilence. In order to appreciate the pace at which the plague spread, it would be worth pausing at this stage in order to consider the causes of the plague, the conditions on which it thrived, and the terror associated with it. Writers dealing with the subject argue as to its origins, but all accept the connection between the disease and the black rat. In his book Man against Germs , A L Baron describes the plague as the reluctant germ, in that it was a disease of the black rat, and that it was spread by the parasite, or flea, leaving the cold dead body of the rat in search of warmer conditions, found in man, a suitable substitute. Most of us can conjure up mental pictures of the Black Death of the obscure Middle Ages. The cloaked scurrying figure, the white, suspicious, peering face; one would still have heard the rattle of wooden carts, and seen the awesome mark of the red cross on the doors of plague-infected houses. Only a witness of the day would be able to see the terror in the eyes of those involved, or hear the cries of sufferers. The Black Death had changed its name to the more simple ‘plague’, but nothing else about the disease had altered. Very few of those who suffered at the hands of the plague would know the luxury of medical attention, but most would easily recognise the symptoms: the pallor and shuddering of the afflicted, the ominous blotches on the skin, and the dreadful black boils. From the appearance of the first symptoms until the inevitable death took no longer than five days. Nine out of every ten cases would not expect to survive. What caused the plague was still not known, at this time. Most God fearing people still thought of it as retribution for the evils of the world, as can be seen from the entry written in St George’s register ‘The first that died of the visitation of the sickness of God’. The Elizabethan Prayer Book contained special prayers about plague, saying that it was a judgement from God. Within the first week of June, deaths were being reported from all parts of the town, including St Martin’s. Husbands, wives, sons and daughters, perished as the plague devastated home after home. The household of Robert Thomas lost three sons and two daughters inside of 15 days; the Martin family lost one son and two daughters within two days; and Robert Miller and his son both died within two days. The list is almost endless. By the time the month was ended another 134 burials had been recorded. Throughout this time the authorities were unable to offer any assistance to the inhabitants of the town, and by now Alderman Waters had his own household to attend to. The 12th June saw the plague within his quarters. A servant of the house was down with the sickness, and there was Susan, his wife, to consider; the birth of their fourth child was expected any day. And, despite all his skill and education there was very little he could do but wait and hope. As the hours and days slowly passed, the servant’s condition worsened and by the 17th of the month he was dead, but the rest of the household appear to have escaped the plague’s first attempt to gain a hold. Three days later, his wife gave birth to a son, Perry, and for the time being the Alderman’s personal crisis was over. But not for others of his own class; Mary Wolf of St Mary’s parish buried five of her servants inside of three days. She saw the death of her son William, and, on the last day of June the plague claimed Mary herself, together with another member of her household, Jane Tailor. And there were others Reginald waters would no doubt be acquainted with. Seth Hyman, William Clarke, Robert Ramsden, a former Alderman, all had their own share of grief. By t he time the epidemic reached its peak in July, business activities in the town would have been almost at a standstill. Markets that supplied most of the town’s food requirements would by now have almost ceased to operate, adding further misery to the poorer members of the community and the region around. The mortality rate was very high within the working-class areas of the town. The high density of their buildings together with the overcrowded living conditions made them ideal breeding-grounds for this particular disease. The more-wealthy, with their spacious dwellings and a much higher standard of cleanliness, enjoyed some measure of isolation and therefore better protection from members of their own class. Apart from the high mortality, many more townspeople would have been incapacitated by the plague, creating problems about such employment that was still available; even finding labour for the grim task of disposing of the dead would not have been easy. Further, despite the levy imposed by the council, many a family would have left the town at the outbreak of the plague, some never to return. But perhaps the chief cause behind the town’s chaotic state was the general fear of association. In fact, for most it was a time to keep oneself to oneself. In the meantime, Alderman Waters may have considered himself fortunate. As the days of June passed, the death rate in his own parish began to drop, and there had been no other serious attacks from the plague since before the 17th. But as the month drew to a close, a second servant went sick with the all too obvious symptoms of the disease, the nightmare started all over again: the constant watching and waiting and always, with him, the fear that the plague would seek out those most dear to him. On 1st July the second servant died and, to add to the Alderman’s anxiety, his new born son, Perry, was also in poor health. The 11th of the month saw yet another tragedy, as the family mourned the death of the child [1]. August brought hope to the greater part of the town in the central and eastern sectors. The worst part of the epidemic was over, but not for those living in the parish of All Saints and possibly St Martins. Here the plague was still raging. All Saints recorded 31 deaths in August compared with only four in St George’s parish. But the end was in sight; as the summer waned, so too did the plague, and September saw the town’s mortality rate almost back to pre-1604 levels, and the survivors setting about the task of bringing their town back to sanity and its normal status. Recorded burials for 1604 total 621. Almost 600 of these took place from April to September. Church registers for the year bear witness to the turmoil the town was in. Some of the parish register totals differ from those in the Bishop’s Transcripts. Dates are not always in order, indicating that the clerk at the time made notes elsewhere and entered them into the register at a later date. In the case of St Martin’s there are no dates given for any entry in the burial register for the whole of 1604. This inaccuracy in the individual registers could signify a greater mortality rate than that of the accountable total. The town’s average annual burial rate for the ten year period prior to 1604 was 64, so that at least ten times the average number of deaths is recorded in this year of calamity. A close look at he table of parish totals – shown at the end of this article – reveals a distinct pattern to the movement of the plague. The initial outbreak almost certainly took place along the boundary line of the parishes of St Michael and St George. If this is correct, then a study of the town map of the period may well disclose a likely area, possibly a high density poor area in the vicinity of the present day St George’s Street. From these two parishes, the epidemic then moved into St Mary’s parish and perhaps St Martin’s, followed by St John’s, and finally into All Saints parish. The town in general took almost forty years to recover its population losses, some parishes taking longer than others. St Mary’s recovered its losses in under 35 years, whereas St Michael’s took nearer 60 years. Surprisingly, there were more marriages during the plague year. St Michael’s recorded 14 ceremonies, all taking place between September and December, after the plague had largely died out; compared with an average of only four per year for the three years before, and the three years after the plague year. Most historians of the town have mentioned another major epidemic of plague in or about 1642, with deaths computed in the hundreds. Generally, authors of these works have tended to copy one another. That the plague was active in the town at that time is not disputed. Richard Butcher, Town Clerk and historian – though not in office in 1642 – should have been in a position to verify the fact. But William Harrod writing later, could find no further evidence to substantiate the figures quoted, and concluded that the Civil War had disrupted the keeping of parish registers. It is quite true that some of the parish churches have either no registers or those that do exist are incomplete. But where they were kept, they give no indication of an epidemic on the scale of that of 1604. Finally, what of Alderman Reginald Waters? Well, he survived the plague, as did the rest of his family. Later on, his wife presented him with two daughters, Grace and Elizabeth. He continued as a council member until 1614, but was never made Alderman again. His year of office was memorable, and his name has now gone down in history – but perhaps not quite in the way he would have wished. Footnote [1] There is no firm evidence that Perry Waters died as a result of the plague. Research sources Parish church registers, Bishops Transcripts, Hall Book The totals are for all recorded deaths and not just those of the plague. The totals for St Martin’s are correct, but the lack of dates in the church register made it necessary for me to estimate the monthly totals. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Melbourn's Tied Houses 1869-1971 Chris Hunt 2024 The lease of the All Saints’ Steam Brewery on All Saints’ Street in Stamford was acquired by Herbert Wells Melbourn in October 1869; it was previously held by Elmer Brown. Herbert was the son of a prosperous Ingham farmer (Newell Wells Melbourn) and was only twenty-one-years-old when he obtained the business. The brewery was built in 1825 by William Brown Edwards, a former partner in the brewing firm of Harper, Hunt and Edwards, in whose family it remained until 1857. The lease was then acquired by Frederick George Phillips who held it until October 1859 when it passed into the control of Elmer Brown. Between 1869 and 1872 the brewery was managed by Herbert under the title of H.W. Melbourn & Co. and it was not until April 1872 that Melbourn Brothers was formed by Herbert and his brother George Toynee. George and a third brother, Newell, carried on the family tradition of farming in the Lincoln area. The firm remained under this title until it was acquired by the Earls of Liverpool and Gainsborough in 1971. In 1876 the brewery was completely re-equipped and production was increased; previously annual production was around 3,500 barrels per year. By 1900 this had increased to 9,000 barrels and so by the turn of the century production was around 300,000 gallons, close to 2.5 million pints per year. This was possible through investments in depots at Lincoln, Grantham, Leicester and Holbeach, the acquisition of tied houses and of course increases in the free trade. It must be remembered that there was a great deal of competition in Stamford, with Hunt Brothers on Water Street, Joseph Phillips also on Water Street, and Lowe’s which became Lowe, Son & Cobbold, on Broad Street/North Street. And, of course, there were a number of home brew pubs or, as we would call them today, micro-breweries. In 1872 the brewery had only fifteen tied houses, of which seven were in Stamford: the Hit or Miss. The Old Chequers, the Parting Pot which on being rebuilt in 1887 became the Victoria, Rolt’s Arms, Royal Oak, Star and Garter and the White Swan. There were four inns close to the brewery in the surrounding villages: Collyweston – the Slater’s Arms, Easton-on-the-Hill – the Carpenters Arms, Nassington – another Carpenters Arms, and the Foundry Arms at Ryhall, plus inns at Brigstock, Lincoln, Sleaford, and Weldon. The Hit or Miss on Foundry Road had been tied to the All Saints’ Brewery since 1860 when Elmer Brown held the lease. However, Melbourns didn't acquire the pub until March 1870. Another Elmer Brown pub was the Rolt’s Arms, part of Corporation Buildings on Scotgate. This pub was named after the unsuccessful anti-Burghley parliamentary candidate in the 1847 election and was leased from Stamford Borough Council and ceased trading in 1908. The Old Chequers had been a William Brown Edwards tied house since 1839 and remained so through the time of Elmer Brown; the lease was allowed to lapse in 1887. The exact financial arrangements between Elmer Brown and Herbert Wells Melbourn are not known. Obviously, the brewery lease was transferred in 1869 but the exact arrangements around the public houses are uncertain. By 1884 the number of tied houses had grown to thirty-one, with inns in Lincoln, Grantham and Sleaford and their surrounding villages and hamlets. During this period two leases had been allowed to lapse, the Royal Oak and the White Swan in Stamford, and of the additional eighteen houses thirteen were acquired on lease and the remaining five were purchased. In 1880 W. C. Crowson, brewer of Oakham, retired and from the subsequent sale the Wheatsheaf at Oakham and the New Inn at Preston in Rutland were purchased. The freeholds of the Crown at Dyke, the Corner Inn at Collyweston, and the Royal Oak at Heckington were also acquired. With the agricultural depressions of the 1880s and 1890s and the improvements in farming technology there was a movement of rural labour from the villages to the ever-industrialising market towns and, as a result, village tied houses were less profitable in comparison with those in cities such as Lincoln or market towns like Stamford. It was not uncommon for the licensee to carry on another trade from their property to make ends meet. This applied moreso in villages but also applied in some of the smaller town pubs. As a result, although there was no marked increase or decrease in the number of tied houses, new ones were acquired in towns, whilst some of the more rural inns were sold or their leases allowed to lapse. When properties with an alcohol licence became available for either purchase or lease there was often a degree of competition by brewery companies to acquire them as tied houses. Melbourns failed in 1880 to purchase the White Swan in Stamford when it came up at auction, having previously held the pub on lease. However, the Pineapple on High Street, Stamford was acquired in 1890. So, every opportunity was followed to acquire inns on lease and it should not be a surprise that some belonged to the Burghley Estate and that these were often attached to the overriding lease that the company held for the Brewery. For instance, in 1897 they acquired what had formerly been known as Wheatley’s Vaults on Ironmonger Street, which they renamed Melbourn’s Vaults. Then in April 1899 the Bull & Swan Inn in St Martin’s became tied to the brewery, followed in 1911 by the Boat & Railway Inn at the bottom of St Mary’s Hill, formerly a Hunt Brothers’ pub, which remained with the brewery until its closure in 1962. Not all of these could even mildly be called economically-viable businesses. One was the Exeters Arms on Water Street, situated where Saxon Court now stands. It was a Melbourn’s tied house only from 1923 to 1932. It had been a home-brew pub with one mash tun and one fermenting vessel with a capacity of eight barrels from at least 1880 until it ceased brewing in late 1920/early 1921. In 1931 the town’s magistrates were actively reducing the number of licensed houses in the town. The Exeters Arms was one of them and compensation of £600 was finally agreed; the Burghley Estate received £165, Melbourns £375, and the tenant £60. It was not until after Herbert’s death in January 1927 that any noticeable changes were made in the firm’s policy towards tied houses. By this date the four depots had closed and deliveries were made by motor lorry and less use made of the railway network. The firm was now in the hands of trustees who initiated a cautious expansion of the business through the acquisition of freehold properties. The Boot and Shoe at South Luffenham in 1927 and the Plough at Great Casterton in 1931, which had previously been leasehold properties, were bought. Other freehold acquisitions were the Brewery Inn in Stamford in 1929, the Crown Inn at Great Casterton in 1931, and the Five Bells at Morton and the Six Bells at the Witham-on-the-Hill in the same year. On purchasing the Brewery Inn, the trustees considered retaining the wooden brewhouse on site for emergencies, which although not used since 1923 was still equipped with a mash tun and a fermenting vessel(s). Sense prevailed and the brewhouse was demolished in 1930. The Royal Oak at Heckington was completely rebuilt during this period. Its location on the A17 with its large car park made an ideal stopping point for travellers on their way to and from the coast. During the Second World War the Stamford Hotel was requisitioned by the Air Ministry and the Stamford Hotel Tap was leased to Melbourn’s from 1942 to 1948 before reverting to a free house. In 1947 Herbert’s widow, Fanny Elizabeth Melbourn, died and the firm passed into the hands of Herbert’s great-nephew and great-nieces. Under this new management further tied houses were obtained: The Plough at Sleaford (1947), The Black Horse at Grimsthorpe (1954), the Five Bells at Edenham (1955), and the Red Lion at Haconby (1958). All bar the Black Horse were acquired as freehold properties. The 1960s brought rationalisation and consolidation. A number of uneconomic inns were sold or the leases allowed to lapse. Two pubs were sold to developers, the Plough at Sleaford in 1958 and the Pineapple at Stamford in 1961. The Pineapple had been held from 1890 on lease from the Newcomb Estate and was subsequently bought in 1920 for £1,000. The finance from such sales was used to purchase new outlets, to improve existing properties, and to acquire adjoining sites to some inns with a view to future developments and in at least one case to enlarge the inn’s car park. The sale of the Pineapple had raised £10,000. In the late 1950s and early 1960s the Stamford Brewster magistrates were again demanding a reduction in the number of licensed houses in the town. Two of the Melbourn houses affected were the Sun and Railway in 1958 and the Star and Garter in 1966. Both of these inns were small, uneconomic and needed extensive repairs. It was suggested by some that the Star and Garter would collapse if either of the adjoining buildings was demolished. With the growth in Stamford with its new housing estates, council housing in the east and the Jelson estates in the west, an attempt was made by the brewery to exchange licences in the centre of town to have a pub on the town’s outskirts. An attempt was made to get the franchise to build what became the Danish Invader but this was unsuccessful. Probably the most surprising survival was the Hit or Miss on Foundry Road, which remained a beer house till 1961 when it finally acquired a full licence. During the 1960s not only were the much larger national brewery companies buying up small breweries, they were also entering into contracts with firms like Melbourn’s to sell their lagers and bottled beers. Melbourn’s had for many years sold bottled Guinness along with their own brands of pale ales. But brewing lager was clearly beyond the capabilities of the All Saints' Street site. The firm therefore entered into a number of trading agreements. Through this process the Strugglers at Lincoln was acquired on lease in 1963 from Bass Charrington. Terms were also made with Whitbread, which added the Wheatsheaf at Greetham, also in 1963, and the White Swan at Woodnewton in 1968. When in 1971 the business was acquired by the Earl of Liverpool and the Earl of Gainsborough, the firm of Melbourn Brothers had thirty-two tied public houses. These covered an area from Ingham in the north to Woodnewton in the south, and ranged from the small village inn to large coaching inns – both in the ancient and modern meaning of the word. Some had been recently modernised whilst others were badly in need of repair and required extensive alterations to bring them up to modern standards. The Brewhouse was also in need of investment, with its equipment being almost entirely Victorian, and so it was no surprise that brewing ceased in 1974. This short paper is based on research carried out in the late 1970s when surviving records were still held on the brewery site. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford Library Catalogue 1907 By Chris Hunt In these days of computerised digital online catalogues, we forget that at one time the only way to access information was via the printed or written word. In the case of Stamford Public Library, before World War One, it was possible to buy a small booklet containing a full list of its holdings, and this extended to a small printed book. In 1907 the paperback edition sold for three half pennies (old money) and was printed by Dolby Brothers. The previous year’s edition was printed by Taylor and Downs and could be bought in hard back as well. The 1907 the catalogue was split into eight parts: Fiction and Light Literature; Voyages and Travels; Science, Arts and Politics; Theology and Philosophy; History and Biography; General Literature; Poetry and the Drama, and a List of Books on Open Shelves. Whilst Francis Peck’s Annals of Stamford (published in 1727), British Museum Publications and Pictures of Nuremburg were available on request. Stamford Library still has a copy of Francis Peck’s Annals of Stamford in its Local History Reference Collection; the 1979 EP reprint is on open shelves and is available to borrow. By the time of the Annual Report in May 1907 the Library had enrolled 1,047 people. During the previous 12 months, 28,279 books had been issued of which 25,169 had been works of fiction. The total holdings of books on March 31 st 1907 were 2,312, and in addition the Reading Room had 275 periodicals. Chris Hunt January 2026 Note The following document is r eproduced by kind permission of Lincolnshire Libraries. The original was printed by Dolby Brothers in 1907, and is part of the local studies reference collection at Stamford Library, www.better.org.uk/library/lincolnshire/stamford-library A print version can be downloaded HERE A full printout of the library catalogue can be viewed & printed HERE Previous Next

< Back MEDIEVAL AND EARLY MODERN STAMFORD TAXATION RETURNS Professor Alan Rogers 2012 This paper includes transcripts of some of the more important taxation returns which survive for both parts of Stamford and the vill of Bradcroft from 1332 until 1524. The source for each of the transcripts has been given 1. 1332-33 SUBSIDY This tax granted by parliament in 1332 became the basis of most parliamentary taxes until the seventeenth century. This is the assessment for Stamford and Bradcroft taken sometime between 16 September 1332 and 6 June 1333 (6 Edward III). The tax was levied at one tenth on assessed property in towns like Stamford with Bradcroft, and one fifteenth in rural areas including Stamford Baron. It does not seem to have been collected by parishes as were all later taxes and levies. The original is in the National Archives (TNA) E179/135/15. I have used the transcript available at http://www.historicalresources.myzen.co.uk/LINC/lincstam.html but have checked it against the original. [1] the name usually used for Peterborough 2. THE POLL TAX OF 1379. The poll tax was a tax on all persons over the age of 16 ( excedent’ etatem xvj annorum ) except married women and ‘true mendicants’. It was granted by parliament in the last year of the reign of Edward III and collected during the early years of Richard II; it resulted in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1381 and was abolished then. Two documents are transcribed here. 2a: Lay poll tax c1379 The first is the return of lay persons. The original is in the National Archives (TNA) at E179/135/76. I have used the transcript published by C C Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381 (Oxford University Press/British Academy, 2001, pp 28-29, but have checked the original (thanks to Dr Paul Dryburgh of TNA). The document is very fragmentary and undated – it must date after May 1379 The tax was collected by parishes as were most of the other taxes from this time onwards. Most first names have been standardised. Note: this list is incomplete. We know from TNA E359/8B that the total number of Stamford poll tax was 1218. This list contains only 197 names, some 16%. Only four of the ten parishes are complete and two others have a small portion of the taxpayer list. [2] menuwe merchant : The normal meaning of this term is ‘small merchant’, but in the case of the three merchants so named in this list (and there would almost certainly have been others in the missing part of the assessment), it clearly relates to substantial traders. The reason for its use here is that the poll tax graded the tax for merchants into great merchants (20s), sufficient merchants (13s 4d) and lesser merchants and artisans (6s 8d or less). The assessors were saying in effect that these merchants should pay at the lowest rate,although all three were in fact traders on a substantial scale [ 3 ] souter, suter – shoemaker [4] shoemaker or leather worker [ 5 ] I feel sure this should be dyer, not dyker; he was Alderman of the borough [ 6 ] maker and or seller of blankets [7] I take this to mean fletcher [ 8 ] This may be Maidenhead – the original is obscure; there was an inn in Stamford called the Maidenhead in the 16th century in St Martin’s parish [ 9 ] see note 2 above [10] many spellings – often Stainby. Some words used: souter, suter - shoemaker corvisor – boot and shoemaker horner - worker in horn huckster – small street trader menuwe merchant – see note above sherman – shearer of woollen garment 2b: Poll tax on St Michael’s nunnery c 1377 The second document is a return of the nuns at St Michael’s nunnery. The original is TNA E179/238/77 – it is undated but clearly refers to the poll tax. Alice Copuldyke was presumably Prioress at this time. Most of the surnames are those of local towns or villages. Schedule of nuns of St Michael extra Stamford: Dna Alicia de Cobildik, Margaret de Redings, Isabella de Malteby, Isabella de Alyngton, Beatrix de Blisworth, Katerina fiz Alayn, Johanna Fischiner?, Margas de Swinstede, Katerine de Welton, Anna Marmion, Isabella Purlay, Margaret de Manton, Editha de Grantham, Margeria de Manton, Maria de Spalding, Agnes de Wrangle, Iveta de Tatersale, Emma de Tallington, Agnes de Halington, each at 12d 3. INCOME TAX 1450 In 1450, an income tax was levied on the richer sort of people at a rate of 6d in the £. Only a fragment of this survives for Stamford in TNA E179/276/44. This tax does not seem to have been collected by parishes. It is probable that the first twenty or so names are those of the First and Second Twelves (the town council). It is damaged and in parts illegible; the figures in parentheses below have been calculated from the rest of the document. What can be read is as follows: 4. 1524 SUBSIDY In May 1523, parliament granted Henry VIII a tax, assessed on the value of their land or goods. The return for Stamford dated 24 January 1524 survives in TNA E179/136/315. It is very full but the document is obscure at places. The tax was collected by parishes; strangely there are two entries for St Stephen’s parish (Holy Trinity) outside the east gate; it may by then have been divided between two of the larger parishes. Some of the wealthiest taxpayers were required to pay their tax up front – these are marked ‘antic’ [anticipated payment] [ 11 ] It appears he paid ‘£6 antic’ but the text of the document is illegible at this point St Mare paryshe 5. TAXATION LIST 1581 For the taxation list of 1581, see Alan Rogers, John Hartley and Abigail Gomulkiwicz 2020 William Cecil’s Survey of Stamford 1595: a town in turmoil Abramis publications, Bury St Edmunds A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next