< Back John Flowers Bentley (1810-1884): Stamford Polymath John Daffurn 2024 When Richard Newcomb gate-crashed the opening of the new, Bryan Browning designed, home of the Stamford Institution in 1842 he wanted to highlight the origins of the Institution four years earlier. Standing amongst the nobility and gentry of Stamford he stated that the Institution was “…originally projected and established by those who did not occupy the highest stations in life…” ( Lincolnshire Chronicle [ LC ] , 25.3.1842). That was indeed the case, as the provisional committee of the yet to be formed Institution, established at a meeting at Standwell's Hotel on 3 April 1838, comprised mainly of local shopkeepers ( Stamford Mercury [ SM ] , 6.4.1838). The interim chairman of this committee was Frances Simpson Jr, a soap-maker, and Thomas Fricker, the young editor of the Lincolnshire Herald and probably the most erudite amongst the group of grocers, ironmongers, curriers, jewellers and drapers, became its interim honorary secretary. The provisional committee pushed for a public meeting at the Town Hall which was held on 5 June 1838 where motions were passed to create an institution, with its attendant officers and committee. One motion thanked the provisional committee for promoting their cause and Francis Simpson, its chairman, responded: “…I feel Mr Mayor that it is a duty particularly incumbent upon me to make known to you the names of those of whom this provisional committee was composed; because, whatever good or ill may accrue from the institution we are about to form, (and I trust there can be none of the latter), will be attributable to those who had the moral courage to take the first steps towards its promotion and therefore their names shall not remain “ in umbra ” –shall not sink at once into oblivion– but, with your kind indulgence, I will now read them. First, let me mention that of Mr John Flowers Bentley, whose indisposition (which I hope will be of short duration) accounts for his absence from this meeting. He, it was, who first agitated this question, or, at least first mooted it to me…” ( LC , 22.6.1838) From instigator, to honorary secretary, to committee member, John Bentley’s association with the Stamford Institution spanned twenty-five years. John Flowers Bentley was baptised on 27 May 1810 in the village of Haconby, near Bourne. His father John Bentley Sr, the son of a farmer, was born in Swinstead, and his mother Sarah Flowers was born in Haconby. Within four years of John’s birth the family moved to the hamlet of Guthram Gowt, midway between Bourne and Spalding. There, Bentley’s father ran the New Inn and farmed some adjacent land. From 1815, John’s siblings were baptised in Bourne and, without a church in Guthram Gowt, that is the likely location of John’s schooling. There is no evidence of John Bentley’s education or early employment, but the life of Robert Sandall and a newspaper advertisement in 1863 provide clues for a hypothesis. Sandall was born a year later than John, in the neighbouring village of Rippingale, and was also a farmer’s son who eschewed work on the land. Sandall, who may have also been schooled in Bourne, became apprenticed to the bankers Eaton, Cayley & Co, and later joined Bentley on the provisional committee of the Stamford Institution. Many years later, in 1863, when John Bentley left Stamford, it was noted that he had been associated with the Eaton, Cayley & Co bank for almost forty years ( SM , 25.12.1863). If that statement is true, it might also place Bentley as an apprentice with the bank at the same time as Sandall. Were they also childhood school friends? After completing his apprenticeship, Sandall, at the age of twenty, moved to London before returning to Stamford to join the Northamptonshire Bank, on Stamford’s High Street, as a clerk. Bentley, on the other hand, if indeed working at Eaton, Cayley, may have remained with the bank for a while longer. However, by 1834 he was trading as a tobacconist on St Mary’s Street (Pigot & Co Directory , 1835). Within months of the publication of that directory, Bentley moved to the High Street where he had bought a property two doors away from the post office ( Stamford Borough Rate Book , 1836). He transferred his tobacco business, selling the finest Havana cigars, to the new shop, but also in March 1835 opened a glassware and crockery business on the same premises ( SM , 20.3.1835). The business seemed to prosper as Bentley regularly advertised his wares in the Stamford Mercury , but later in 1836 a curious advertisement appeared regarding the sale of shares in Reeth Consolidated Mining Company, a copper-mining company in Cornwall, stating that those wishing to buy shares should apply to J F Bentley ( SM , 30.9.1836). Is it possible that Bentley was also an investor? A year later, it was discovered that the managers of the mining company had issued a fraudulent prospectus and subsequently the shareholders lost their money. It may be a coincidence, but in 1837 Bentley discontinued his glass, china, and earthenware business, auctioned his stock at the Assembly Rooms, and advertised his property on the High Street to be let or purchased ( SM , 21.7.1837). Soon after the demise of his business John pushed for the formation of a scientific and literary society in Stamford, either because he wanted access to more information for himself or because he was driven to provide knowledge to a wider audience. The latter is more likely the case as is evidenced in his later life. Despite knowing that John spent a lifetime acquiring an extraordinary range of knowledge in science and nature through self-learning, the catalyst for this educational drive is unknown. Was he a star pupil at Bourne with a thirst for knowledge? Did he borrow books from Mr Rooe’s subscription library on the High Street? After the Stamford Institution was formed and its first home was established in Broad Street in 1838, John Bentley became its honorary secretary, taking over from Thomas Fricker who had always intended to stand down. Although Eaton, Cayley brought John back into the bank and provided him with an income it is possible that he resided at the Institute’s premises for at least eight years: at Broad Street (1841 Census) and on St Peter’s Hill (White’s Directory , 1846). Fig 1. First Stamford Institution site at 49 Broad Street (right) Fig 2. Stamford Institution, St Peter's Hill In 1840, Samuel Sharp, the stepson of Richard Newcomb, was elected to the committee of the Stamford Institution and became a close friend of John Bentley, especially in the field of geology. By 1842, Sharp had given up the idea of succeeding Newcomb as proprietor of the Stamford Mercury , instead taking over the bookshop and subscription library of Matthew Rooe, and later becoming an important Stamford geologist and antiquary. Evidence of John Bentley’s attained knowledge, his wish to absorb more current thinking, and his self-confidence came in 1844 when, either as a representative of the Stamford Institution or in a personal capacity, he attended the annual conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) in York ( Yorkshire Gazette , 28.9.1844). This prestigious association was formed in 1831 with the objectives of acquiring scientific knowledge, disseminating it through discussion, and furthering science by removing obstacles to progress. The BAAS met annually, for almost a week, at different British locations where papers were read, presentations given and debates held. Whilst John had some credibility as the Honorary Secretary of the Stamford Institution he was in the presence of, and certainly not equal to, a heady mix of the cream of British and European science. These noblemen, doctors, British and overseas professors, Fellows of various societies, together with amateurs interested in science, attended the various lectures split into four distinct groups, each with its own committee : Physics (including Mathematics), Chemistry, Geology, and Natural History ( Old England , 8.7.1832). On those committees sat some of the greats of British science, mathematician Babbage, astronomer Herschel, chemist Faraday and naturalist Darwin. Fig 3. Schönbein (left) and Faraday (right) at 1846 BAAS conference Bentley continued to attend these gatherings until 1850 when the conference in Edinburgh was his last (Reports of the Annual Conference of the BAAS, online at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ ). In Southampton, for the 1846 conference, Bentley was expecting to see Professor Schönbein of Basle demonstrate his, as yet unpatented, gun-cotton. The opening of this conference, attended by eight hundred persons, on Thursday 10 September was graced by the presence of Prince Albert who had sailed across from Osborne House. After the formal proceedings, the prince was introduced to Prof Sch önbein who privately demonstrated his gun-cotton by exploding some in the hand of Lord Palmerston, the Foreign Secretary ( Hampshire Advertiser , 12.9.1846). John had to wait until the following Tuesday to see this for himself, but Prof Schönbein did not appear, as he was in London trying to patent his invention. In his place, W R Groves Esq demonstrated a sample of the new explosive material, although the process of manufacturing the gun-cotton remained vague pending patent approval. On returning to Stamford, John recreated his own version, and gave a demonstration which was witnessed by the Stamford Mercury . The paper commented that Bentley “… (whose self-acquired knowledge of the principles of chemistry is as honorable [sic] to him as it is interesting to those who have the advantage of his acquaintance) …” had been experimenting and succeeded in mixing proportions of sulphuric and nitric acids to coat the cotton so that, once dried and lit, it exploded with a greater force than gunpowder and without giving off smoke or leaving a residue ( SM , 6.11.1846). He was not the only scientist in Britain or Europe that succeeded in such replication, but John pleaded in the Stamford Mercury article that Prof Sc hön bein be credited as the originator of the idea. Another of John Bentley’s interests, which he shared with Samuel Sharp, was fossil collecting and he would regularly visit the quarries around Stamford, especially those at Ketton and Collyweston. It was at a slate quarry in Collyweston that he discovered the fossil of a rare gastropod which was unique to the area. In 1851, the famous geologist John Morris and pal æ ontologist John Lyell registered the fossil’s name as Phyllocheilus Bentleyi , after its discoverer. In their later publication Morris and Lyell said that the name of the Collyweston gastropod “is complimented to J F Bentley Esq of Stamford who has enriched our knowledge of the fossils of that locality” ( A monograph of the Mollusca from the Great Oolite , p.15). Later variations were named Pteroceras Bentleyi and Malaptera Bentleyi . Fig 4. Phyllocheilus Bentleyi fossil The census of 1851 shows that John was no longer living at the Institution, but in Bath Row, next door to the public bath (probably no. 15), with one servant and with the stated occupation of bank cashier. Later that year the Great Exhibition was opened in London, housed in the Great Shalimar, a purpose-designed building erected by Brunel (later removed and renamed Crystal Palace). Six million people visited the Great Exhibition during the six months it was open, with towns all over the country running special excursions to satisfy the interest. Amongst its exhibitions was an “exceedingly fine specimen of honey in its comb” by Mr J F Bentley of Stamford ( SM , 13.6.1851). Whilst the breadth of John’s interests seemed to know no bounds, he was also a generous man with both his time and money. In 1836, he donated to the repair fund for the re-building of St Michael’s church and in 1853 for the repairs and re-pewing of All Saint’s church. Later in 1853 he was appointed as joint auditor of the Stamford Burial Board together with his friend Robert Sandall. To the Stamford Institution he presented two maps (1854), and two glass cases of stuffed birds (1860). This was in addition to the numerous presentations he gave to the Stamford Institution and to other societies in later life. Fig 5. Oxy-Hydrogen Microscope In 1856, after eighteen years of service as Honorary Secretary to the Stamford Institution, John Bentley decided to resign . During those years, he had organised meetings and talks, sought donations of books and artefacts, and given lectures to its members. His tenure was greatly appreciated and the committee arranged for a testimonial where he was presented with an oxy-hydrogen microscope ( SM , 4.1.1856). These microscopes enabled objects to be magnified up to two million times and displayed on a wall or screen, enabling John to present his collection to a wider audience. Bentley was then a forty-five-year-old bachelor, and after leaving his honorary position he remained an active member of the Institution, being elected to its committee in 1859, where he continued to influence the society, as he had done since its formation. In Stamford, John would have known Richard Yates, either through the bank, the Institution, or by visiting Yates’s draper’s shop next to the Portico on the High Street. In 1860, Richard’s wife died in childbirth at the age of twenty-nine, and a year later Richard married Anne Lovell in her parent’s town of Wells, Somerset. Anne’s sister Emma was a draper’s assistant, and it is possible that Anne, with similar skills, had been recruited to work at Yates’s draper’s shop where her relationship with Richard grew. Bentley’s possible connection with Richard Yates may have influenced his later life. In 1863, Bentley’s station in society moved up a gear. The Midland Banking Company (not to be confused with the Midland Bank) was expanding and J F Bentley Esq was appointed manager of its Peterborough branch together with its satellite branch in Ironmonger Street, Stamford ( SM , 25.12.1863). This was ideal for John who, although having moved to Peterborough where he lived at the bank’s premises at 25 Long Causeway, continued to have strong social links to Stamford. Bentley’s mind was always active and his drive consistent. In 1868, he applied for a patent for “improvements in the mode of sinking or forming wells and in the apparatus to be used therefor, part of which improvements are also applicable for the sinking of cylinders or caissons for other purposes” ( London Gazette , 20.4.1869). Later that year, at a meeting of the Peterborough Agricultural Society John demonstrated another invention, a portable steam engine water filter, that he had patented a few months earlier. Within a year a company, Coulson & Wear on Wharf Road, Stamford, was advertising ‘Bentley’s patented water filter’ as sole agent ( SM , 15.3.1870). Also in 1869, Richard Yates, the draper, died leaving his wife Anne as a widow and son Richard Lovell Yates without a father. Anne subsequently moved to Rose Cottage in Tinwell. Behind the scenes in Peterborough, John must have been working to form a new society, as in May 1871 the Peterborough Natural History and Field Club (later the Peterborough Natural History and Archaeological Society, and now the Peterborough Museum Society) was founded, and Bentley became its first president. Besides John Bentley, the other founders may have included Dr Thomas Walker, a Peterborough surgeon and past secretary of the British Archaeological Association, and Henry English who was appointed as the society’s first honorary secretary. Another person linked to the early days of the society, and whose name remains most associated with it, is John William Bodger. When the society was formed Bodger had just turned fifteen and was little over a year into his chemist apprenticeship. In the autumn of 1873, he replaced Henry English as honorary secretary and soon after also became the society’s treasurer and curator, holding at least one of those positions until his death sixty-six years later. In his obituary he was credited as being “the principal mover in the founding of the Society”, however, one wonders if this was an embellishment of a revered gentleman and so-called ‘Father of the Peterborough Museum’ , almost seventy years after the event ( Peterborough Standard , 17 February 1939). Would a fifteen-year-old in the Victorian era really have pressed the likes of Bentley and Walker into founding such a society? Or, was his father, who presented a paper on “Oxford Clay” to the society in 1872, the adult driver, with his son, who was already collecting geological specimens, in tow. It must be assumed that even if not a founder the young man was one of the original members and, in Bodger, Bentley may have recognised his younger self, taken him under his wing, and supported him as the replacement honorary secretary when he was seventeen. Fig 6. Former Midland Banking Company office at Church Street In what must have been one of the society’s first field trips, members took a train to Ketton on Whit Monday 1872, and from there walked to Collyweston, Easton, Wothorpe and Burghley Park. Some visited the slate quarry at Collyweston, where Bentley had discovered his gastropod fossil, while others concentrated on the botany of the area. After the morning session they retreated to the Blue Bell Inn at Easton-on-the-Hill where they had an “excellent luncheon, kindly given by the esteemed president of the society, Mr Bentley” (SM , 24.5.1872). The afternoon session took longer than expected and the party had to cancel their proposed visit to the museum within the Stamford Institution. At the Midland Banking Company, in 1872, Bentley called for tenders to build new banking premises at the junction of Church Street and Cross Street in Peterborough ( SM , 21.6.1872). After it was completed in the spring of 1873, it also became John’s home. Between 1870 and 1875, John Bentley’s workload increased dramatically due, one assumes, to his willingness to take on additional responsibilities and to those promoting his energy and skill. During this period, he seems not to have shirked any approach for his time. Besides his day job as a bank manager, covering Peterborough and Stamford, he assumed many other roles: Chaired monthly meetings as president of the Peterborough Natural History Society Committee member for the Peterborough Workman’s Exhibition Treasurer of the Peterborough Literary Society Chaired meetings of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Workers Chairman of Peterborough Gas Company Committee member of the Peterborough Science and Arts Classes Member of Peterborough Improvement Commissioners Member of Peterborough Urban Sanitary Authority On 5 February 1873, Samuel Sharp Esq, FSA, FGS presented the second part of his important paper on the “Oolites of Northamptonshire” to the Geological Society in London together with a large collection of fossils and other geological specimens ( SM , 7.3.1873). Sharp was praised for the collection by Mr Etheridge FRS, the Government pal æ ontologist, and Mr Woodward of the British Museum commented how valuable the collection was compared to others as the fossils were linked to their stratigraphical location. In reply Sharp stated that the collection was not solely his own, but also that of his friend and former co-worker Mr Bentley, of Stamford. A couple of months later on consecutive days, two significant events changed John Bentley’s personal life and shaped the town of Stamford. Firstly, on 8 May 1873, at St Clement Danes church in London, sixty-three-year-old bachelor John Bentley married thirty-year-old widow, Anne Yates of Tinwell. It is assumed that John knew Anne through her late husband Richard, but what was the motive for marriage by this confirmed and extremely busy bachelor? Was it romantic?... there were no subsequent children from the union. Or, was it a logical relationship based on mutual need? Busy John, now a pillar of society, wanting support and home management, and Anne desiring financial security and a father-figure for her nine-year-old son Richard Lovell. Secondly, a day later on 9 May 1873, at a meeting of the newly formed Stamford Freehold Land Society (SFLS), J F Bentley Esq was appointed as its president ( SM , 16.5.1873). It is possible that, as the Land Society’s first president, he was also its founder, continuing to demonstrate the leadership he had shown when instigating the Stamford Institution in 1838, and founding the Peterborough Natural History Society in 1871. The formation of the SFLS was a direct result of the impending enclosure of the Stamford open fields. It had been a long time coming and was one of the last local enclosure acts in England, receiving its Royal Assent in 1871. The fields totalling 1,700 acres ran in a semi-circle around the north of the town from Tinwell Road in the west to Deeping Road in the east. However, the enclosure did not occur until the allocation of land, the preparation of deeds and their conveyance was completed in 1875. The SFLS was formed in anticipation of the enclosure which would free up land for building domestic properties. Land societies were a form of building society: members joined for a fee and bought shares, the income from which was accumulated to buy building plots. The plots were then sub-divided and allocated to members by a ballot for priority. The advantages to its members were lower costs for the land and legal fees, and the ability to become a freeholder which secured the right to vote. Eight acres of land were allocated to St George’s church in an area called the North Fields. Although the conveyance of this land was not completed until 11 August 1875, an agreement was reached in 1874 for the SFLS to purchase the North Fields site for £220 per acre ( SM , 13.11.1974). There was some committee dissent regarding this acquisition due to the extravagant price demanded by the church and the distance from the town. However, under the chairmanship of John Bentley it was passed narrowly with a majority of eight to seven. Fig 7. Conveyance indenture for Northfield's plots An early conveyance (November 1875) for several of the plots can be seen in Fig 7, with an enlargement below it, showing the Northfields area split into 107 building plots. Over the years these plots were sold by the SFLS in what is now known as the Northfields Conservation Area and a variety of terraced houses and larger villas gradually filled the available land. Fig 8. Plot allocation on Northfield's estate After his marriage in 1873, John Bentley and his wife lived temporarily at Bank House in Peterborough. However, at the end of that year John rented Balcony House in Glinton, a substantial 17th century house, largely rebuilt in the 18th century, and now listed Grade II. The house was owned by the Giles farming family who worked the land attached to the house. This new location was convenient for John’s interests in Stamford and Peterborough, being roughly equidistant between the two. Fig 9. Balcony House, Glinton Bentley’s involvement with the SFLS, and in particular the Northfield’s development, gave him an insight into land management in that area. And, in 1876, when the heirs of James Torkington Esq decided to sell the site of a former brickyard John took the plunge and bought it at auction. In 1873, Stamford Corporation had named the rough roads around the brickyard as Recreation Road, New Cross Road and Conduit Road, bounded to the south by the already named East Street. The brickyard had ceased operating in 1874 and remained undeveloped until Bentley acquired it, knowing that it could provide housing between the new Northfield’s estate and the Eastgate entrance to the town. By 1881, two terraces (Templar’s Cottages and Woolston’s Row) and four villas had been built on the land. One of the villas (probably Merriott Cottage) was occupied by the builder Thomas Woolston, who one assumes built Woolston’s Row (1881 Census). Woolston later, in 1886, built a larger house (Laurel Villa) for himself on Recreation Road and adjacent to Woolston’s Row, but he was not a good businessman and in 1889 was adjudged bankrupt. Fig 10. Houses built on the brickyard site prior to 1881 The new buildings in the brickyard, especially Woolston’s Row, were built at a low level because of all the clay that had been removed from the site for the bricks. As a consequence, the houses were prone to flooding and in 1880 the Council was petitioned to solve this “pressing nuisance” ( SM , 3.9.1880). As the discussion between Bentley’s solicitor and the Council were held ‘in camera’ the outcome is not recorded, but in December 1880 two advertisements were placed for tenders to lay drainage pipes. One by the Council for Recreation Road and the other on behalf of Bentley for Woolston’s Row both running down to the main drain at the junction of East Steet and Eastgates. Between 1886 and 1888, and unfortunately after Bentley’s death, the roads of the old brickyard were adopted by the Corporation. One was named New Street but the other, which replaced Woolston’s Row, became Bentley Street, after its late owner J F Bentley: a lasting reminder in Stamford, even though nobody has recently been aware of the connection. Fig 11. 3-5 High Street, Leicester, after being taken over by Grand Clothing Co. The resignation by John in 1877, due to ill health, from his positions as Treasurer of the Peterborough Literary Institute and President of the Peterborough Natural History Society may have been the first sign of him slowing down. However, he was still a bank manager, active with other societies, and also a property developer in Stamford. It is not known exactly when John retired from the bank, but it probably coincided with its acquisition by the Birmingham, Dudley & District Bank in 1881. This is supported by his move away from the area in March 1882, when Balcony House was advertised to let by William Giles ( SM , 24.3.1882). The change in location away from both Stamford and Peterborough suggests that all work, public service and extramural activities had ended and that his body and mind were starting to decline. Anne and John Bentley joined Anne’s sister Emma in the centre of Leicester where Emma owned a substantial draper’s business, E Lovell & Co, at 3-5 High Street (the impressive Marlborough House). It was a large property in the heart of the city, later taken over by the Grand Clothing Hall Company (see Fig 11). On 10 February 1884, in the presence of his sister-in-law Emma, John Bentley died, and the cause of death was later given as senile decay. Anne Bentley continued to live in Leicester after John’s death, remaining close to her sister. Later she moved to Rothley, a village near Leicester, where her sister joined her, after retirement from her drapery business. It was from Anne’s Rothley residence, in 1914, that she presented an enlarged photograph of her late husband, John Flowers Bentley FLS, to the Peterborough Natural History Society. It is assumed that FLS signified his fellowship of the Linnean Society, which would make sense given his interest in nature and fossils, but the Linnean Society archivist is unable to verify his membership. The presentation photograph of John Bentley cannot be located, but it is possible that Fig 12 is a copy of the original. Fig 12. John Flowers Bentley Esq F L S © Peterborough Museum & Art Gallery Anne’s son, Richard Lovell Yates, emigrated to Australia sometime before 1889, where he married and had two sons. The first, Richard, was killed in action in Gallipoli during WWI. In what may signify more than anything about John Bentley’s character is that Richard Lovell, who was John’s stepson throughout his formative years between nine and nineteen, named his second son John Bentley Yates. John Flowers Bentley, a farmer’s son, had been involved in banking for almost sixty years, from possible apprentice to bank manager. In addition, he had been a shopkeeper, a public servant sitting on various committees, and a property developer. However, for almost his entire life he was driven by a search for knowledge across a wide range of subjects. He was a chemist, fossil collector, apiarist, geologist, naturalist, botanist and inventor: a polymath. John Bentley’s drive to acquire knowledge was matched by his wish to imbue others with that which he had learnt. This is demonstrated by his push for the Stamford Institution and the founding of the Peterborough Natural History Society, where he often shared information through presentations, at times using his testimonial oxy-hydrogen microscope. Now, in Stamford, his name lives on in the form of Bentley Street, and globally geologists know of him for the rare Bentleyi fossils. © John Daffurn 2024 A print version can be downloaded HERE Other articles about Stamford Institution: The formation and first home of the Stamford Institution (1838-1842) The Stamford Institution Previous Next

< Back The Bridge Gate at Stamford and John Frammesley Chris Hunt 2023 The date of the establishment of the final line of Stamford’s town walls is not known, so far archaeology has not provided us with an answer. And although surviving murage grants for the building or repair of a defensive wall exist between 1261 and 1352. Such grants do not provide us with the line of the town wall. Further uncertainty is raised as to the date of the completion of the first bridge over the River Welland on the St Martin’s High Street – St Mary’s Hill axis. A date post 1086 seemingly most likely, and even then the dog legged route of the Great North Road could have skirted the Danish Burg before the construction of the Town Wall and thus even after this road alignment would have not needed a Bridge Gate. The river with the bridge and its gate at Stamford provided a defensive pinch point on the main road through Stamford. The gate also served other purposes, for by the late Middle Ages a room above it was used as a meeting place almost certainly linked to a Guild and where the town’s Alderman and Burgesses met in a Common Hall. Also, by this date the town’s gaol adjoined it on the west side. The Bridge Gate carried on these functions until its demolition in the late 1770’s and the construction of the present Town Hall on St Mary’s Hill. It could be said that the most famous English bridge from the medieval period was London Bridge over the River Thames, with its gate, drawbridge, chapel and shops. This was the site where the heads of traitors were displayed to remind the populace and visitors to the City that they should remain loyal to the monarch. Such judicial executions were finally formulated through the Treason Act of 1351/52. A person was guilty of high treason under the Act if they: Planned or imagined, the death of the king, his wife or his eldest son and heir. Violate the king's companion, the king's eldest daughter if she was unmarried or the wife of the king's eldest son and heir. Commit war against the king in his realm. Adhered to the king's enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in his realm or elsewhere. Counterfeiting the Great Seal, or the Privy Seal. Counterfeiting English coinage or imported counterfeit English coinage. Killing the Chancellor, Treasurer, one of the king's justices, a justice in eyre, an assize judge, and Justices, while performing their offices. The convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, quartered (chopped into four pieces). His remains would then often be displayed in prominent places across the country, very much serving as a warning to others. It was common for the “quarters” to be sent to either major cities or towns which were seen as perhaps not totally loyal to the monarch. In March 1450 rebellion was in the English air and to defuse the situation King Henry VIth banished the Duke of Suffolk for five years. This was seen by some as a signal that this would herald the end of Henry’s regime and was an impetus for the London mob to take to the streets. As a result on March 21st 1450 there was an abortive rising, John Frammesley, a London vintner’s servant, was accused of sedition and treason and was arrested for chanting in the streets a rhyme picked up by the populace:- “By this town, by this town, For this array, the king shall lose his crown.” This was enough for Frammesley to be hung, drawn and quartered. His head was placed on London Bridge along with other traitors. The King’s Council in June 1451 sent one of his “quarters” to Stamford to be placed on the Bridge Gate, which quarter is not recorded. So why Stamford? The reason of course has not survived. It might just simple be that the town being on the Great North Road was a place where plenty of travellers would have seen John Frammesley’s remains and been reminded of the danger of rebellion. Another reason could be that Stamford was a seen as a potential source of trouble. After all it was part of the estate of Richard Duke of York whose death later propelled his son Edward to the Battle of Towton and the Crown. Of course we shall never know. So when you next cross the town bridge remember that the remains of a traitor were displayed above the entrance to the town. Chris Hunt, February 2023 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Rate Book 1836 Alan Rogers 2017 STAMFORD IN 1836: A TRANSCRIPT OF THE RATE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOWN. INTRODUCTION: THE TOWN OF STAMFORD IN 1836: BOROUGH RATE BOOK In the Town Hall archives at Stamford is a survey of the whole borough (including St Martin’s parish) of 1836. It consists of six separate books giving the rateable value of every property in the six parishes of the town. The books are standard with printed columns with name of occupier, name of owner, nature of the property (house, garden, shop etc), its location in the town (usually by street but not street number), and rateable value. The survey was conducted by two eminent land agents in the town, Bryan Browning (architect, responsible for Barn Hill House, Bourne Town Hall and Folkingham Castle [1] ) and William Hack [2]; but there were also others involved, for several of the books have a note to say that these pages were ‘examined by EWC’. The books are well preserved and written on the whole clearly although the scribe, who seems to have copied from original schedules, had some peculiarities of handwriting which on occasion makes it difficult to determine a name exactly - especially capital letters. Many first names are abbreviated and are not always clear; and ‘Mr’, ‘Mrs’ and ‘Ms’ are not always distinguishable. It would seem that occasionally the surveyors guessed at the spelling of a name or used a variant spelling different from (for example) the contemporary Pigot’s Directory (1835). Mallory Lane is often (but not always) given as ‘Mannerly Lane’. The books have had pencil additions from time to time and some entries have the writing ‘qu’ against them [query]; some blanks have been filled in in pencil, names of occupants and especially owners have been changed, and valuations changed (almost always downwards); these are in italics in this transcript as far as they can be read. It is not known when these changes were made. Not all these pencil additions are legible. The assessors or the copyist have made one or two errors in transcription - these are noted in the footnotes. [1] Royal Commission of Historical Monuments, Stamford 1976 p lxxxiv for brief biography; it seems Browning had not yet moved into Stamford’; he is not in Pigot’s Directory of 1835. [2] Searches have not yet revealed anything about Hack. While most of the books have page numbers, some do not. We have added page numbers to our transcript where they do not exist in the original for ease of reference. On occasion, the writers have made an error in the page numbering - these are indicated in the footnotes. The enormous value of this record - a house-by-house survey of the whole town with occupant, owner and usage in 1836 - cannot be overestimated. Not all the owners of course were resident; and it is possible that some of those listed as occupiers (i.e. the actual ratepayers) may perhaps be tenants who have sub-let the property, but on the whole it would seem that they were in fact real occupants. And the nature and location of each property is also of great value. This was just before the major expansion of the town in the later nineteenth century, but new building can be seen at the bottom of Empingham Road near Rock Terrace (Stamford New Town). This survey can be compared with the very detailed Knipe’s map of 1833. In addition, the location of some of the properties in the streets may be identified by comparing this survey (especially the large number of properties listed as belonging to Browne’s Hospital) with the full and very detailed survey of all the Hospital’s properties in 1845 [also available as a .pdf from the Stamford and District Local History Society]; in this 1845 survey, each of Browne’s Hospital properties is located with a map giving the owners of adjacent properties. This transcript was typed by Peter Tomalin of Lyddington from a photocopy of the rate books held by the Stamford Survey Group (now the Stamford and District Local History Society); but some additional material was provided by John Hopson, Hon. Archivist to the Borough Council. It has been checked by Alan Rogers and John Hartley. We are immensely grateful to these people and to the Borough Council for helping with making this available. The importance of the borough archives and their accessibility for promoting the history of the town cannot be over-estimated. In this format, these records can now be searched easily for personal names or inns or other features of Stamford’ s early nineteenth century history. page Parish of All Saints 1 Parish of St George 29 Parish of St John 49 Parish of St Martin 65 Parish of St Mary 78 Parish of St Michael 83 A PDF of the transcript of the Rate Book can be accessed HERE Previous Next

< Back Black Sabbath Plays Baston 1970 It might come as a surprise that Black Sabbath with their original line-up of Ozzy Osbourne on vocals, Tony Iommi on guitar, Geezer Butler on bass and Bill Ward on drums, played on Saturday July 11 th 1970 in a Marquee on the Baston Playing Field. A Barbecue and Dance was organised by the Baston Community Association and for 12 shillings and 6 pence (62½ new pence) you would have heard a band that became the founders of Heavy Metal music and led by the legend that is Ozzy Osbourne. SOURCE SLEAFORD STANDARD (FRIDAY) JULY 10 TH 1970 p4/c8-10 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Agreement between Stamford Town Council and Little Casterton for the use of the Stamford Horse Drawn Steam Fire Engine 1904 By Chris Hunt Introduction The following transcript is from a four paged signed copy of a Legal Document between Stamford Town Council and the inhabitants of Little Casterton (Rutland). Memorandum of Agreement made this seventeenth day of December one thousand nine hundred and four. Between the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Stamford acting as the Urban District Council for the Borough of Stamford and hereinafter called the Town Council of the one part and The Parish Meeting of Little Casterton in the County of Rutland, hereinafter called the Parish Meeting of the other part. Whereas the Town Council has recently acquired from Messrs Shand Mason and Company of London a Steam Fire Engine with the necessary appliances and equipment which said Steam Fire Engine for the purposes of identity has the word “Stamford” painted thereon. And Whereas the Parish Meeting has with the consent of the County Council and in conjunction with other Parish Meetings and Parish Councils agreed to pay the Town Council a yearly contribution for the use of the said Steam Fire Engine for the purpose of extinguishing fires occurring within the district of Little Casterton aforesaid during the period hereinafter mentioned. Now it is mutually agreed as follows: - 1) The Parish Meeting will during and throughout the continuance of this agreement pay to the Treasurer for the time being of the Borough of Stamford for the use of the Town Council the yearly sum of Two Pounds six shillings and three pence without any deduction the last mentioned sum, to be paid by two equal instalments on the first day of September and the first day of March in each year during the continuance of this agreement the first of such instalments to be paid on the first day of September one thousand nine hundred and four. 2) In consideration of such payments the Town Council agrees with the Parish Meeting that at all times during the period of five years from the date hereof on demand therefore being made to the Captain Superintendent or other Officer of the Stamford Fire Brigade or upon notice given or left at the Stamford Police Station of a fire however caused happening to any house, building, stack, agricultural produce or premises within the Parish of Little Casterton, the Town Council will, except as provided by Clause 4 of these presents, with all due promptitude by day or by night cause the said Steam Fire Engine properly equipped, manned and horsed to be sent to any such house, building, stack, agricultural produce or premises for the purpose of extinguishing or dealing with such fire. 3) NO charge or payment of any kind so ever shall be made or paid to the Town Council by the occupier of the premises where the fire occupier of the premises where the fire occurs or at which the said Engine shall be used or employed for the use of such Steam Fire Engine, but such occupier shall be liable to pay to the Town Council the reasonable and proper charges of the Brigade for their attendance and service at such fire and for the use of the horses employed in drawing the Engine from Stamford to the scene of the Fire and home again and the damage done to any hose or other appliance not forming part of the equipment of the said Engine. 4) Provided always that the liability upon the Town Council to supply the said engine aforesaid shall be suspended in all cases where owing to a prior call or claim (either in or out of the Borough) the Engine for the purposes of extinguishing or dealing with a fire have been taken or sent into another Parish with whose Parish Council or Parish Meeting the Town Council shall have entered into an agreement similar in all respects to these presents. No pecuniary liability shall rest upon or be incurred by the Town Council for any delay in despatching the said Engine to any fire nor shall the Town Council be called upon to make compensation for any damage which may arise from any cause whatever in connection with the despatching of the said Engine. 5) The Town Council will cause the said Engine at all times to be kept in a thorough state of repair and if the Engine shall at any time during the said period of 5 years become disabled or useless, the Town Council will forthwith hire another Engine pending the reparation of the said Engine, and the terms and conditions therein contained shall be applicable to the Engine so hired. 6) In case the said sum hereby agreed to be paid as aforesaid or any part or instalment thereof shall remain unpaid for 28 days next after the day fixed for the payment thereof it shall be lawful for but not obligatory upon the Town Council by notice in writing signed by the Town Clerk and directed to and served upon the Clerk to the said Parish Meeting to determine and put an end to this agreement and from and after the giving of such notice the respective rights and liabilities of the parties hereto shall cease and determine. The power hereby given to the Town Council shall be ancillary to their remedy for recovery by action at law of the said sum or any part thereof payable by the Parish Meeting as aforesaid and it shall be at the option of the Town Council either to exercise the power hereby given of determining this agreement or of proceeding by action for recovery of the said sum or any part thereof as this Town Council shall decide. 7) At the expiration of the said period of 5 years or upon the determination of this agreement the Parish Meeting shall have no claim upon the Town Council in respect of the subject matter of this Agreement nor to any matter or thing herein contained or referred to. 8) If any dispute or difference shall arise between the Town Council and the Parish Meeting touching any of the matters contained in this agreement such dispute or difference shall be referred to two justices of the Borough (not being members of the Town Council) whose decision shall be final and binding upon all parties. 9) The said Steam Fire Engine shall be and remain the absolute property of the Town Council. In Witness whereof the Common Seal of the Town Council was hereunto affixed and the Presiding Chairman and two Members of the Parish Meeting at a meeting of the said Parish Meeting have hereunto set their hands and seals as the act of the Parish Meeting. Testing the Shand Mason Horse Drawn Steam Fire Engine at Bath Row on March 28th 1904. Notes. 1) The above document had the Common Seal of the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Stamford affixed at a Meeting of the Town Council, on February 6 th 1905 in the presence of George Higgs, Mayor of Stamford. The original document was countersigned and sealed by Charles Ormston Eaton, the Presiding Chairman of the Parish Meeting of Little Casterton, and by Mr Arthur Templeman and Mr Albert Broughton, two of the Members of the Parish Meeting, at a Parish Meeting held on December 17 th 1904 in the presence of Mr Henry Green. 2) The Town Council at this time offered villages around Stamford the opportunity to make legally binding agreements, for the use of the town’s fire-fighting equipment. This was made more possible as a result of the Town acquiring a second Messrs Shand Mason and Co. horse drawn steam fire engine in 1904. 3) The Mayor, Mr George Higgs (1852-1918) was a merchant of multiple shops in the East Midlands operating as a wholesaler and retailer, selling tobacco, briars, cigars and cigarettes and tobacconists’ sundries. starting with a tobacconist shop on St John’s Street in Stamford. By the turn of the century, he had expanded his business with shops in Newark, Nottingham, Sleaford, and three in Lincoln. He was a Kesteven County Councillor and served on several Committees and Charities within the town. His wife was a descendant of Sir Isaac Newton in the female line. 4) Charles Ormston Eaton (1827-1907) lived at Tolethorpe Hall. Born at Ketton Hall, he attended Harrow School and graduated from Trinity College, Cambridge. He was a director of the Stamford, Spalding, and Boston Bank which after his death became part of Barclays Bank in 1911. He purchased the site for the Roman Catholic Church of St Mary and St Augustine in Stamford, assisted in financing its building and paid for the organ. Chris Hunt December 2025 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Andy Capp Daily Mirror Cartoon Character Born Near Stamford in 1956 By Chris Hunt Although there is some debate as to the actual year that Andy Capp, all be it a cartoon character, was born. What is certain, is that in an interview printed in the TV Times in June 1975, Andy’s creator, Reg Smythe (1917-1998), claimed that he was born in 1956, somewhere on the A1 between Stamford and Grantham. This was before the days of the Stamford By-Pass, so perhaps a blue plaque is needed on the old Great North Road, somewhere within the Borough boundaries. His international reputation has waned over the years; however, Andy Capp still appears in the Daily Mirror and the Sunday Mirror. The British Cartoon Archive claims he has been syndicated into around 1700 newspapers, in 51 countries and translated into 14 languages. He is truly an international character. Chris Hunt December 2025 A Print version is available HERE Previous Next

< 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