< Back Licence to Construct Buildings in the Churchyard for the use of the Rector of St George's Church, Stamford in 1295 O. etc. in Christo filio Magistro Johanni de Ferybi rectori ecclesie sancti Georgii Staunford nostre diocesis salute etc. Cum domos seu aream ecclesie tue non habeas assignatis, ejusdemque ecclesiecimiterium tantum in se spatium continere noscatur quod domus tibi et successoribus tuis necessarie in eo edificari non possunt absque prejudicio seu gravamina alieno, prout per inquisitionem auctoritate nostra super his factam accepimus evidenter, tuis supplicationibus favorabiliter inclinati ut in eodem cimiterio pro te et successoribus tuis domos necessaries construere et inhabitare valeas tibique hoc facere possint similiter succedentes, concurrente ad hoc consunsu procuratoris sancti Fromundi patronum dicte ecclesie et parocianorum, liberam faculttatemquantum in nobis est tibi concedimus per presents, ita tamen quod in eodem cimiterio locus sepulture nequaquam artetur, quodque per inhabitationem per hujusmodi edificial aut futuris temporibus locus ipse humationi relictus minime conculcetur, et ecclesie ambitus non claudatur, nec aliud dedecus pretext edificationis seu habitationis hujusmodi sequitur vel attempetur ibidem. Datum apud Theyden IX kalendas Augusti anno domini M.CC . nonagesimo quinto. SOURCE Lincoln Record Society Volume 60. The Rolls and Registers of Bishop Oliver Sutton 1280-1299 Edited by Rosalind M. T. Hill Volume V Memoranda, May 1294 – MAY 18TH 1296 p100-101. TRANSLATION by Google O. etc. in Christ, to his son Master John de Ferybus, rector of the church of St. George, Stamford, in our diocese, health etc. Since you do not have houses or the area of your church assigned to you, and the cemetery of the same church is known to contain only such a space that houses cannot be built for you and your successors in it without prejudice or encumbrance to another, as we have clearly received through an inquiry made by our authority on these matters, favourably inclined by your supplications that you may be able to construct and inhabit necessary houses for you and your successors in the same cemetery and that your successors may do this in the same cemetery, with the consent of the procurator of Saint Fromund, patron of the said church and parishioners, we grant you free authority as far as is in our power by means of presents, so that in the same cemetery no burial place is ever encroached upon, and that by inhabitation by such a building or in future times the place itself left for burial is in no way trampled upon, and the church grounds are not closed, nor is any other disgraceful pretext for such a building or habitation followed or attempted there. Given at Theydon on the 9th of the Kalends of August in the year of our Lord 1295. NOTES. Clearly from the requested Licence, St George’s Parish did not have what we would now call a Rectory otherwise there would have been no need for Bishop Sutton’s permission for its construction. In 1295, St Fromond Priory in Normandy held the advowson of St George’s, and which they held until the French wars during the reign of Edward 3rd. The Licence was endorsed at Theydon Mount in Essex. Bishop Sutton stayed at the Old Temple in London during July and August 1295, there are however a few documents which were issued at Theydon Mount in Essex during this period. Bishop Sutton presence would have been required in London at this time for a Parliament, which sat on August 16th 1295 and the subsequent ‘Model Parliament’ from November 27th to December 4th 1295. Chris Hunt September 2025 A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back St John's Parish Stamford Owning Land in Ufford 1860 By Chris Hunt The parish of St. John, Stamford, has a small portion of land lying in Ufford, Southorpe and Newbery fields, the yearly rental of which, formerly amounting to £6 0s 0d, has been distributed on St Thomas’s day (December 21st) to the poor ratepayers. This year there will be for distribution £12 19s 0d, which Mr. Hayes, the occupier, has been paid into the hands of Mr. Walker, one of the overseers. The advanced rental was obtained during the overseership of Messrs. J.Ford and H.Moore by re-letting the land by auction; so that the poor of St John’s will have a greater gift distributed amongst them this year than in any previous year from the same source. Source Stamford Mercury Friday December 14th 1860 p4/c2 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Water Supply Issues in Stamford (Washing Clothes and Making Beer) 1550. Submitted by Chris Hunt It is ordained that no manner of person or persons shall wash any clothes at any conduits, nor within the waters of St John’s well, or at Peter’s well, upon pain of every time so taken to forfeit 4d and 3d to them that shall present such offender to the Alderman. Also that no common brewer shall fetch any water at the conduits before six o’clock in the morning upon pain of 12d. (Order of) John Fenton Alderman. November 14th 1550, Source Stamford Mercury Friday November 21st 1873 p4 Hall Book 2A/1/1 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Search Results Back to Home page 121 items found for "" Events | The Stamford Local History Society | United Kingdom EVENTS In keeping with the aims of the Society, visits to local places of interest are arranged during the summer months. In addition, the Society may at other times of the year arrange commemorative displays in the town. Visits Summer 2024 - Longthorpe Tower, 25 July ​ Summer 2023 - Milton Hall - Ketton Cement quarries and works. ​ Prior years have included Guided tours of Apethorpe Palace and Burghley House Roof Displays and Events Summer 2023 The Society has supported and ha s led some Heritage Open Day events in 2023 and prior years. These have included: Walks and Talks along the Stamford Canal Sites of the Town’s World War Two Air Raid Shelters A Dry Pub Crawl Around St Martin’s Stamford’s Medieval Walls and Gates Walking Ermine Street and Ryhall Road Prior years have included Commemoration of hundreth anniversary of WWI at the Stamford Arts Centre Family History | Stamford Local History Society | United Kingdom FAMILY HISTORY In conjunction with Stamford Library, volunteers from the Society assist the public in utilising all of the freely available digital platforms to trace their ancestors. Our Workshops The Society hosts weekly family history and research sessions at Stamford Library, making use of online databases and the library’s Local History Collection. These include but are not limited to the following: You can seek advice on searching for Military Records, using Census information from 1841, finding Births, Marriages and Deaths, and delving into past newspaper articles. The workshops take place on Wednesday mornings between 10.30 and 12.30 and are led by officers and committee members of the Society. These sessions are free to both members and non-members and a Lincolnshire Library Card is required. Stamford. Elizabeth Pulley. Murder Most Foul | Stamford History < Back Stamford. Elizabeth Pulley. Murder Most Foul Chris Hunt 2022 On March 16th 1860 there occurred in High Street, St Martins, a murder most foul when Elizabeth Pulley, ‘spinster of that parish’ was murdered in her own home and valuables stolen by a near neighbour, Henry Corby. Although first thought to be an unfortunate accident. Having failed to cover-up his crime by attempting to burn the body of the deceased, but when evidence was found that pointed towards his involvement and the body exhumed he was arrested and charged with her murder. Before he was committed to trial he took his own life in Stamford Gaol. This crime was not just of local interest, articles reporting the case appeared in local, regional and national newspapers. The Victorians loved to read about gruesome murders. The last public hanging did not place till eight years later. There must have been some who were disappointed that Henry Corby took his own life, which ironically he did by hanging in his prison cell. Printed broadside ballads were a common sight being sold on the streets, on market days and at fairs. They were quickly printed on cheap paper whenever publishers saw a profit. The murder of Elizabeth Pulley was just such an opportunity as can be seen from the following transcribed document which was printed by Taylor, Printer, Brick Lane, Bethnal Green (London). Although undated the original dates from 1860. Although we can read it from a moral viewpoint, it could be suggested that it falls into a ballad sub-genre best described as Gallows Literature. THE LAMENTATION OF Mrs. ELIZABETH PULLEY Who was Murdered, Robbed, and Burnt at Stamford _______________________________________ The cruelest murder e’re was pen’d, Has in that place been found. Elizabeth Pulley, a lady was, To the poor was good and kind, Who was robbed & murdered by a wretch To a cinder burnt we find. The gold rings from her finger, The murderer took away, The writing-desk and a bank-note, With a hundred pounds they say. The silver-plate and other things, Both gold and silver coin, He took from Lady Pulley, Who was so good and kind. The white-locks from off her head, The murderer he must tear, For amongst burnt clothing and other things, Was found much human hair. The carpenter that did her work, Henry Corby, was his name. And for that horrid murder They took him for the same. He must have had a heart of stone, To do that dreadful deed, For of all the murders that ere was done, This is the worst, indeed. To a cinder burnt the lady, Oh, what a cruel one; In the ashes was found her tooth, Likewise her finger bone. Oh, the deed was laid to Corby, A carpenter by trade; And since the murder has been done, He many a debt has paid. Two young men that was in his shop, On a shelf, they by chance did see, The writing-desk and the gold rings, Which belonged to Mrs Pulley. For Elizabeth and Thomas Pulley, On the gold rings were their names, Which those young men saw in the shop And to the police they told the same. For murder they took Corby, And charged him with the crime, And remanded he has been At Stamford different times. Upon the nineteenth day of April, Just at the break of day, Fast to a bar of the window, Corby hung himself, they say. And those that read these verses, Cannot help to shed a tear, For on a slate he had wrote these words, Unto his wife and children dear. From public-houses, my dear boy, I pray you keep away, And try to assist your mother, Much as in your power lay. Do try to help one another, Through this wide world of care, Farewell to you, my loving wife, Adieu my children, dear. Taylor, Printer, 93, Brick Lane, Bethnal Green A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next George Longstaff and ClayTobacco Pipe Manufacture in Stamford | Stamford History < Back George Longstaff and Clay Tobacco Pipe Manufacture in Stamford Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 Brief History of the Clay Pipe industry The manufacture of clay tobacco pipes began in England in the 16th century soon after the introduction of tobacco from North America by Sir Francis Drake . [1] London took the lead in producing pipes, followed by Bristol, and the industry quickly spread throughout the country, so that b y the mid-17th century clay pipe making was a well-established trade nationally. [2] The South West of England, particularly Devon, Cornwall and Dorset, was the primary source of the white earthenware clay used throughout the pipe making process. Pipe smoking was common amongst all classes but the fortunes of the industry fluctuated early on in response to opposing factors such as the punitive tobacco tax of 1604 and the granting of a charter to the Worshipful Company of Tobacco Pipe Makers in 1619, [3] as well as to disruption by the English Civil War. [4] After smoking was temporarily supplanted by snuff in fashionable circles in the 18th century, [5] there was a resurgence of pipe making from about 1820. [6] However, a s cigarettes, cigars and wooden pipes subsequently became more popular, the industry went into terminal decline and few clay pipe-making businesses survived into the 20th century. [7] Clay Pipe Making in Stamford Pipe making reached Lincolnshire around 1640 [8] and clay pipes may have been being produced in Stamford by 1665. [9] The earliest trader of pipes in Stamford was Francis Barnewell, a surgeon and tobacconist, but it is unlikely that he made pipes himself, more probably bringing them in from London. [10] The first recorded pipe-maker was William Whitehead who was active in 1673 [11] and worked in the trade for about twenty years. [12] Several other pipe makers followed for short periods. [13] Robert Collington (d.1733), a grocer, imported clay from the Isle of Wight and Thanet [14] for the local pipe makers up to about 1716 [15] and later set up his own pipe-making business.[16] He may have been the only pipe maker working in Stamford at that time. Production of clay tobacco pipes in Stamford occurred mainly during the periods 1650-1745 and 1815-1895. [17] Between these times, because of falling demand, no pipe makers were recorded in the Stamford Hall books, either as freemen or apprentices, from about 1745 until 1817. [18] After Robert Middleton (1789-c.1860) entered the trade in 1817, [19] he and his family became the sole makers of pipes in the town until 1849. [20] His business on North Street was then taken over by George Longstaff. [21] George Longstaff (1815-1875) George Longstaff was the principal clay tobacco pipe-maker in Stamford during the third quarter of the 19th century. Born in 1815 in Spalding, he was the fifth of ten children of Henry Longstaff and his wife Ann (nee Sewell). All five sons became pipe makers, with at least four of them, Thomas Staveley, Charles, George and Sewell becoming masters and William and James being employed by other master pipe makers. George learnt his trade in Spalding before moving to Stamford, where he married Mary Larks (d.1916) at All Saints Church in 1846. They had eight children. [22] On taking control in 1849, George acquired Robert Middleton’s kiln, workshop and two-storey house on North Street. It was the only kiln operating in the town at the time [23] and he was assisted in running the business by his wife Mary and younger brother Sewell (b.1828). Robert Middleton’s youngest son, also called Robert, stayed on and worked for the Longstaffs for several years, most likely until at least 1863. [24] Other former Middleton employees who stayed on included William Henry Taylor and Robert Andrews. [25] Peter Cole and James Lees may also have worked for George Longstaff for a while. [26] It is evident that the business thrived as George submitted plans in 1873 to extend the kiln. [27] Although the Longstaffs remained in the same home, their address changed to 15 and 16 Elm Street after the east end of North Street was renamed East Street in about 1868 and the small lane between East Street and Broad Street became Elm Street. [28] Another of George’s brothers, Willliam (c.1817- bef.1881), was also working as a pipe-maker in Stamford in 1851, but for whom is uncertain. It is not known from where George Longstaff obtained his raw materials but one nearby source of tobacco pipe clay was the extensive pits at Northampton whose black or grey-coloured clay was exported to neighbouring and more distant counties. When such supplies were exhausted, the business may have used Devon clay. [29] Longstaff was not known to have used the brownish-coloured local clay, although Samuel Saunders who was a pipe maker in Stamford Baron in the late 17th and early 18th centuries occasionally did so. [30] George Longstaff marked most of his pipes 'GL' on the sides of the spur [31] and he was the only member of the family to add his personal insignia apart from Thomas Staveley Longstaff who stamped 'LONGSTAFF' upon the bowls of his pipes. [32] After George’s death in 1875, aged 59 years, his widow Mary took over the running of the business until at least 1892. However, by then, the industry was in sharp decline and falling demand forced her to cease manufacture and close down the kiln. [33] Efforts by the Longstaff Bros, probably George and Mary’s sons, A. and Jabez, to revive the business in 1896 proved futile [34] and most pipe-makers had shut down by end of the 19th century. The Longstaff’s brick-built clay pipe kiln was discovered in 1972 during building work on North Street, at the rear of Stamford School. [35] Fate of Clay Pipes The lifespan of clay pipes was relatively short. C onsidering the huge numbers produced, along with their fragility and disposable nature, it is unsurprising that intact or fragmentary examples are regularly found in rubbish dumps, on agricultural land, and in parks and domestic gardens, often carried there in midden waste or soil imported from elsewhere. [36] There have been major finds of clay tobacco pipes at several sites in Stamford, including that of the North Street kiln, the River Welland and Stamford Racecourse. [37] A small number of these pipes were made by George Longstaff. Clay tobacco pipe found in the Stamford area [Photo Nicholas J Sheehan] A print version can be downloaded HERE ------------------------------------------------------ [1] National Pipe Archive. Worcester and Clay Tobacco Pipes. http://www.pipearchive.co.uk› publications [2] Carpenter, Daniel. Clay pipe making. Heritage Crafts . April 26, 2017 [3] Oswald, Adrian. The Evolution and Chronology of English Clay Tobacco Pipes. Archaeological News Letter. Vol 7. No.3. September 1961. p.55 [4] National Pipe Archive [5] Oswald [6] Wells, Peter K. The Pipemakers of Lincolnshire. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.123 [7] Carpenter [8] Wells, p.123 [9] Comrie, A C. The Clay Tobacco Pipe Industry in Stamford. In: Davey, Peter (ed.). The Archaeology of the Clay Tobacco Pipe I. Britain: the Midlands and Eastern England. B A R British Series 63. Oxford: BAR Publishing, 1979. p.187 [10] Comrie, p.187-8 [11] Wells, p.160 [12] Comrie, p.188 [13] Comrie, p.188 [14] Comrie, p.193 [15] Comrie, p.188 [16] Wells, p.161 [17] Comrie, p.187 [18]Comrie, p.188 [19] Comrie, pp.194-5 [20] Comrie, p.188 [21] Wells, p.161 [22] Hammond, Peter. The Longstaff Family of Tobacco Pipemakers. Society for Clay Pipe Research Newsletter 70. Autumn/ Winter 2006. pp.11-14 [23] Comrie, pp.194-6 [24] Comrie, p.195 [25] Comrie, p.197 [26] Comrie, p.199 [27] Wells, p.161 [28] Comrie, p.198 [29] Moore, W R G. Northamptonshire Clay Tobacco-Pipes and Pipemakers. Northampton Museums and Art Gallery, 1980. pp.4-5 [30]Comrie, p.192 [31] Comrie, p.223 [32] Hammond, p.13 [33] Comrie, p.193 [34] Comrie, p.200 [35] Wells, p.161 [36] Comrie, pp.219-21 [37] Comrie, p.201 Previous Next The Bridge Gate of Stamford and John Frammesley | Stamford History < 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 Sufferings of the Early Quaker Community in Stamford | Stamford History < Back Sufferings of the Early Quaker Community in Stamford Chris Hunt 2023 Hidden amongst Quarter Sessions Records are cases against the non-conformist religious communities between 1662 and 1689. With the restoration of Charles II, Parliament introduced a number of Bills which when enacted allowed the courts to challenged the rights of religious dissenters. The established Church saw the Quakers as a challenge, not just a threat to their religious primacy, but also due to their refusal to pay tithes and ecclesiastical taxes. Starting with the Quaker Act in 1662 and the Conventicle Act in 1664, there began a period of official persecution in England and Wales. The persecution of Dissenters was relaxed after the Declaration of Indulgence in 1687 and 1688, and finally stopped under the Act of Toleration in 1689. Unfortunately, the Stamford Quarter Sessions records from the 17th century which have survived suffer from water damage that make them in most cases unreadable. However, Joseph Besse, published in 1753 a detailed nationwide account, entitled, ‘A Collection of the Sufferings of the People called Quakers’. This work has been re-published in recent years, understand the title of the ‘Sufferings of Early Quakers’. Within it are recorded two entries for Stamford. ANNO 1682 In November was a Meeting at a Place called St. Martin’s belonging to the Town of Stamford; to which came an Informer named Hawkins, of Market Deeping, and another Person whom he had hired to assist him. These brought with them some Parish Officers, and without producing any Warrant carried those that were met before a Justice, and made Oath, that William Collington, of Stamford, preaching in that Meeting, when indeed he had not, but the Meeting was held throughout in Silence: However the Justice certified the Mayor of Stamford according to the Information sworn before him, whereupon the Goods of the said William Collington were seized to the value of £20. ANNO 1683 Jane Redsmith, a poor Widow, for a Meeting at her House in Stamford, had all her Goods in Stamford, had all her Goods taken from her to the Value of £10 0s 0d. Taken also from William Collington and Elizabeth Moll, for being at the same Meeting, Goods worth 15s 0d. Are there any other Court Cases? Clearly until the damaged rolls are restored these two entries remain our only court records to the Quakers in Stamford in the 1680s. Chris Hunt (February 2023) A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next Ketton Gas and Coke Company (limited) | Stamford History < Back Ketton Gas and Coke Company (limited). Chris Hunt 2021 Today, unless you live in a very rural village, you take a gas supply as the norm. Of course, it has not always been the case. In September 1965 forty-odd miles off the Lincolnshire coast Natural Gas was discovered and so began a speedy decline and demise of the Coal Gas industry, which was colloquially called Town Gas. The production was of course not dependant on the size of the settlement, but more on the ease of obtaining cheap coal balanced by customer demand, or should that be a population that could afford the cost of the product. It was not until the first decade of the 19th century that the technology for the safe production and distribution of gas was available. This led to the world’s first gas company in 1812, the London and Westminster Gas Light and Coke Company. Initially outside of Britain’s coalfields the only places where cheap coal was available, were ports, riverside sites and towns supplied by canals. A major factor was that the use of gas for street lighting was so much cheaper than the use of oil lamps or candles. In Stamford’s case it was not until June 1823 that Royal assent was given for a Company for lighting the streets of the town which were first lit in March 1825. Locally to Stamford there were gas works at Easton on the Hill, King’s Cliffe and Ketton. Cheap coal only being available with the coming of the railways to these villages. The Ketton Gas and Coke Company (Limited) was incorporated in 1862. The Company was capitalised at £1,250 made up of 250 £5.00 shares. In November 1862, it was reported in the Stamford Mercury that a few shares were still available from the Company Solicitor, a Mr. John Dabbs of Stamford, and it further stated that ‘there is reason to believe that an ample Dividend of a permanent character will be realised’. The chosen site close to Ketton Railway station had been purchased and a contract had been entered into with Mr. George Bower of St Neot’s to provide the engineering equipment. The Directors of the Company had plans and specification drawn up for the building work which were made available between November 7th and 14th 1862 The tenders to be in the hands of the Secretary at the Office in Stamford by 1.00pm on November 15th or by 6.00pm on the same day at the White Hart Inn, at Ketton. Notice was given that the Directors would be meeting at the Inn on the same day to consider the Tenders and that those Tendering were invited to attend. Mr. Bower had also entered a Tender for the building work as on November 21st 1862 the Company announced that his Tender had been accepted, that the work would commence immediately with completion in ‘about two months’. George Bower, 1826-1911, was an industrialist and developer of gas appliances, whose products were sold at home and abroad from his iron foundry in St Neots. By 1880 he had also provided Gas Work equipment locally to gas works at Easton on the Hill and Kings Cliffe, and locally to the Marquis of Exeter at Burghley House, the Great Northern Railway at Essendine, Apethorpe Hall and Shillingthorpe Hall. The Ketton Gas and Coke Company must have initially been seen as a successful venture for in June 1865 five of the £5.00 shares were sold at auction by Mr. William Langley at the Assembly Rooms in Stamford for £6 2s 6d per share (a profit of 22.5% over three years). This success was short lived as at auction held by Mr. Richardson in March 1867 at the George Hotel, twenty fully paid up £5 shares went unsold as they only achieved £4 7s 6d and were bought in. If share prices are a guide to business success it would seem that the Company was not seen as a firm investment for when sixteen fully paid up £5 shares were offered by auction in January 1869 they sold for prices varying from £3 6s 0d to £3 10s 0d. In comparison shares in the Stamford Gas and Coke Company which had a face value of £50 were selling for £83 or £84 each. Clearly by 1891 the Company was in difficulty as in the August of that year the then Company Secretary, a Mr. H. B. Barnett, issued a notice that a meeting would be held on September 1st to consider the ‘Financial and General Position of the Company, and determine whether the business of the Company ‘shall be continued or wound up voluntarily or otherwise, and to transact such other Business as may be necessary’. The decision was made to issue a Winding-Up Petition for the Company which was duly advertised in the London Gazette on September 25th 1891. On October 20th 1891 the Ketton Gas Works and Plant were offered for sale by auction. This included the Gas Manager’s House, Retort and Purifying Houses, Purifier, Scrubber, Condenser, Meters, Mains, and other Effects, on a site of approximately 600 square yards. It therefore comes as a surprise to discover that the sale of shares in the Company were still being advertised in the Stamford Mercury in May 1899 when thirty fully paid £5 shares were offered at auction. Clearly Ketton still enjoyed a gas supply for in May 1908 the Gas Works and Plant were again offered for sale as a going concern. The site was described as having a Stone-built and Slated Manager’s house, Stone-built and Tiled Retort and Purifying Houses, Gasometer, Purifier, Scrubber, Condenser, Meters, Mains, and other Effects. The purchaser was Mr. J.H.Silcox, the managing director of the Pontardawe (Swansea) Gas Company for £360. New ownership under new management resulted in a degree of investment for when finally the ‘fixed and loose plant’ was sold in April 1916 some of the equipment was relatively new. What effect the Great War had on the supply of coal, a labour force to run the plant, or the demand for gas is uncertain. Messrs. Richardson, the auctioneers, split the machinery into Lots, including a Gasometer in excellent condition with 6,000 cubic feet capacity, a new 3¼h.p. 1915 Gas Engine by Crossley with fitted water cylinder, a Gas Engine by Robinson of Manchester, a new 1914 Exhauster by Bryan, Donkin & Co., a Scrubber, a set of Condensers, a 1914 Station Meter by Willey & Co., a Winch for raising the Purifier Box Top, two Retorts Beds (one of three beds and the other of one bed) with lids, a Boiler, two Water Tanks, eighty nine new slot and ordinary Gas Meters, and thirty one Gas Cookers (1914). Along with other numerous Gas Fittings and other effects. The site was sold separately and in 1923 the cottage, retort house, outbuildings, along with about three miles of gas mains; was bought by Mr. Sivers of Ketton for £250. So ended Ketton’s gas supply until the arrival of natural gas sixty odd years later. Ketton Gas Works 1886 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next Women's Suffrage in Stamford: Fight for the Vote 1913 | Stamford History < Back Woman’s Suffrage in Stamford Fight for the Vote 1913 Chris Hunt 2023 On Saturday July 12th 1913 the talk in Stamford was of that evening’s meeting on the Meadows where the issue of female suffrage and the right to vote was to be discussed. Reporters from the three local newspapers were in attendance, the Stamford and Rutland Guardian , the Stamford & District News and the Lincolnshire, Rutland & Stamford Mercury . Today we remember the Suffragettes, the militant wing of the movement for Votes for Women. There was however a non-militant organisation, the Suffragist’s, who allowed men to join their organisation, and it was them who organised the meeting on the Meadows as part of the 1913 Great Pilgrimage for women’s suffrage. Groups of women, with some men, marched from all parts of the country to London. Where on Saturday July 26th 1913 in Hyde Park a crowd of over 50,000 heard speeches calling for Votes For Women and those present unanimously passed the motion: - “That this meeting demands a Government measure for the enfranchisement of women.” As to the meeting in Stamford. The Guardian reporter summed up the day as follows:- The announcement on local hoarding, in eye-aching red and green, that a number of ladies belonging to the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies would address the people of Stamford on Saturday evening, in the Meadows, created keen interest, and their arrival was awaited by a huge assembly. The party, known as the Great North Road section, is one of a number marching through the country to London, and they are identified with a strictly law abiding and non-party organisation. Leaving Newcastle on June 18th, the contingent under notice has been subjected to what can only be described as hostility and rough treatment in some places, notably, in Mansfield and such occurrences can only be described as despicable seeing that the ladies are pursuing their agitations for the vote – the merit or de-merit of the demand we are not concerned with – by perfectly peaceful and legitimate means. On the other hand they have been the recipients of extraordinary kindness and hospitality. The National League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage did not allow the march of the pilgrims to proceed without protest, and consequently men paraded the streets bearing sandwich-boards, upon which placards declared that women do not want votes. The Pilgrims made it quite clear that some women want them badly. The Suffragists, neatly attired in walking costumes, and wearing sashes of red, white and green, numbered about a dozen and carried banners setting forth the nature of the cause they are advocating. A motor car preceded them, containing Miss Norma Smith, who made the necessary arrangements at each place. The party left Grantham on Saturday morning (July 12th 1913), and on the way to Stamford held successful meetings at Colsterworth and Great Casterton. Their arrival here took place about 7.30 and an eager and expectant concourse of people gathered in Red Lion Square and lined Scotgate. As the Suffragists accompanied by several Stamford ladies who supported their cause, marched to the Meadows their reception was by no means unfriendly. Several of the ladies carried bouquets of flowers and altogether they presented a very attractive appearance. No time was lost in starting the speech making and very soon the trollies forming temporary platforms were surrounded by a dense throng of people. The crowd in the Meadows and lining the river bank must have numbered between three and four thousand, and very wisely, the police force was strongly augmented by constables from the adjacent district (Kesteven Constabulary). The arrangements for coping with any rowdyism were excellent, and Supt Theaker, the head of the Stamford force, who was consulted regarding the arrangements by the Union representatives, is to be congratulated on the way in which such a huge assembly was handled. It will be well recollected that upon the occasion of a Suffragette meeting in the Square a few months ago there were disgraceful scenes, and on Saturday evening it was soon evident that a number of those present were bent on creating a noise. Rushes were made for the platform occupied by Miss Garlick and her friends, but the police were able to prevent any mischief. Verbal interruptions were frequent, but these were of a good-natured character, and the ladies powers of repartee were fully demonstrated. It was a case of give-and-take, and the sallies evoked hearty laughter. Strangely enough all the opposition was centred on one trio of speakers. The speeches from the other platform proceeded without interruption to the end. Miss Garlick presided over the unruly assembly, and the other speakers were Miss Beaver and Miss Meikle (Leeds). On the other platform were Mrs Gerald Dowson as “chairman,” accompanied by Miss Norma Smith (organising the pilgrimage from Sheffield to Huntingdon), and Mrs W.E.Dowson of Nottingham. Miss Garlick, like the other speakers, placed the Suffragist arguments very eloquently. Some facts revealed concerning their Union included the information that it has a membership of 47,000, fresh adherents having been obtained at the rate of a thousand a month for some time past; that their methods are perfectly peaceful and law-abiding; that they are no way associated with the militant section, and that their express purpose is not only to assure the people of the country, but once again to assure the Prime Minister and all Members of Parliament that women do want the vote, notwithstanding the fact that on the way there that evening they notice a few tired-looking gentlemen carrying placards bearing the strange device, “Women Don’t Want the Vote.” She made it clear that the Union to which she belonged did not favour the militant methods. Miss Beaver spoke well, but was soon interrupted, and her mention of Mrs Pankhurst’s name was an error. It raised a storm of disapproval, and the hubbub after this was on the increase. The speaker urged that if women were not deemed intelligent enough to have votes, then some men who now possessed them scarcely knew how to use them. This remark did not mend matters and the interruptions continued at intervals. However, Miss Beaver managed to make some excellent points. Miss Meikle had not the best of attention and at the outset of her remarks, when interrupted, wrote notes on a tablet until the noise ceased. Towards the close of the meeting turf was thrown, and the addresses, which lasted for about an hour and a quarter ended amid much animation. The descent of the speakers from the trollies was the signal for a determined attempt to rush them, but the police succeeded in forming a strong bodyguard. As the ladies approached the bridge a desire was somewhat apparent to push them, along with the police, into the Welland. A number of townsmen however, went to the assistance of the officers and the ladies were got safely across the bridge, the entrance to which was then barricaded by the majority of the police while the suffragists made their way to the different residences which were affording them hospitality for the night. The following Wednesday afternoon (July 16th 1913) there was another suffrage meeting in the town. This one was organised by the Stamford branch of the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association. This was held in the Bede House garden, Broad Street, which was addressed by the Countess of Selborne, President of the Association. This meeting being held in the week was a much more refined occasion, with tea and cake, and no need of police protection. The meeting was as political and the Guardian was there to report on the speeches. The Rev. J.R.H.Duke, rector of Thornhaugh presided over a good attendance, and was supported on the terrace by Lady Selborne, Misses M.Evans (Hon. Secretary of the local branch, D.Evans, Young, Hart, M.Kellett, Sunderland-Taylor, Williams, and Duncombe (Honorary Secretary of the Oakham Branch), along with Mr T.Sandall and a number of local clergy. The chairman, in a brief series of remarks, said that by all rules of ordinary logic women should have votes upon the same terms as men. At present they had municipal votes and could fill the office of Town Councillor, Guardian, and even Mayor. There was no reason why they should not take an equal interest in the greater affairs of the empire. Municipal questions largely concerned building, drainage, and roads, which was not really women’s business, so that the Parliamentary vote would enable them to deal with questions with which they would be more at home. As to property and taxation, it had been well said that representation and taxation should go hand-in-hand; there should be no objection against the contention that if women had to pay their share towards the upkeep of the country they should be given the chance of helping to decide how it should be expended (hear, hear). Besides, women were more economical than men, whilst they were quite as intelligent, if not more so in many cases. Women were conservative in the ordinary sense and would do more than men in the assistance of art, and the preservation of the memorials of the past. They would, as voters, strengthen the Conservative and Unionist side of the House of Commons, and might be reckoned on to protect the Church from attack, particularly the Welsh portion. To say, as some did, that if women had votes they would be under the influence of the parish priest was ridiculous. As to the militant methods of some women, there was no reason why so many others who favoured peaceful advocacy should be deprived of the privilege they claimed. He regarded the “cat and mouse” Act as a bad piece of legislation. The government had practically invited outrage, and one prominent supporter told those who asked for women’s suffrage that they would not get it until they made themselves a nuisance. Could it be wondered at that some took his words seriously? In conclusion, Mr Duke asked the Countess to address them. Her ladyship, he said, bore an honoured name, one which was respected all over the county. She was the daughter of a great statesman, and sister to Lord Roberts and Lord Hugh Cecil, who were staunch supporters of the Church. Lady Selborne, who was warmly received, said she was very pleased to visit Stamford, which was the only place represented by her father, the late Marquis of Salisbury, in the House of Commons, up to the time he went to the House of Lords. When she was asked to come and speak here, she felt that she would like to do so, for his sake (applause). He was always a supporter of the principle of giving votes to women and furthered the cause when County Councils were instituted and women were granted the power to vote in those elections. Thus, she felt that the work of their Association would have had his approval. Women had just as great an interest in all public questions as men possessed, and it was the theory of democracy that those that contributed to the State should have a voice in the choice of legislation and in the selection of the government responsible for the public business of the country. If women were granted the vote it was not likely that the powers of government would ever be put into their hands, and they would always be content to leave it to men to deal with, even if they ever possessed the right to become Members of Parliament. It was the business of women to choose and not to govern. Women had great influence in politics, and any Bill which had their support always made its way to the front. The speaker dealt with the great influence exercised by women, and its power of good or evil. Women with votes would know that with political power they would also have responsibility and they would therefore deal with any question with more care and thought than was the case at present. If women had the vote they would not be so likely to rush into politics in an emotional way just when some question cropped up that specially interested them. It would be far better to have voting women than influencing women. The passing of a reasonable measure entitling women to vote would prevent much of the present evil of militancy, which was depriving the cause of a great deal of sympathy. In several of our colonies, America and Norway, women had been granted the vote, and the system was a success. In Sweden and Denmark the granting of the vote was being favourably considered. It was somewhat remarkable that in no other country but ours had the agitation for votes for women resulted in militant methods. But any violence was due to Ministers saying one thing and meaning another. They should have said “No” at the outset, instead of making promises and not fulfilling them. In the House of Commons Women’s Franchise Bills had passed their second reading, and it was generally understood that when this was the case the principle of a measure was approved. But despite this women had not yet been granted a vote. The speaker considered that the Prime Minister, had he taken more care, could have drawn up the Franchise Bill so as to admit an amendment. This would have saved a great deal of bitterness and controversy. But the militant outrages formed no reason why the female sex generally should not be granted votes, for the women who had resorted to extreme measures did not number more than about 50, and it was unfair to keep a million and a half women disfranchised because of the faults of a few. Women had as great an interest in the affairs of the country as men, and what was sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander (applause). The best argument of all in support of votes for women was that it was a success, whether in County Councils or other departments of public life. Her ladyship, in conclusion, urged the members of the branch to continue the good work they had undertaken, and go forward with all possible activity. They should read up the subject, for it was only by being themselves convinced that they could convince others. Let them persuade their friends to join the Association, and thus strengthened, go on until their aim was accomplished. In proposing a vote of thanks to the Countess for her address and to the chairman, Miss Evans said that Stamford had a special claim upon her ladyship’s kindness, for she did not come among them as a stranger but as the daughter of the late Lord Salisbury, who in bygone years ably represented Stamford in Parliament. Her visit would rouse this branch to do even more for the cause of women’s liberty. Some said it was unwomanly to work for that cause, but how could it be when there were so many women who could not protect themselves, and who were working under labour conditions that urgently called for reform (applause). Other people said that a vote was no protection, but if this were the case why was there so much battling concerning the proposal to abolish plural votes? Miss Evans was congratulated on an able speech. Once the meeting finished those present were entertained at tea. How different to the earlier meeting held on the Meadows? In the same week that the Stamford and Rutland Guardian reported on the Suffragists meeting on Stamford Meadows and the meeting of the Conservative and Unionist Women’s Franchise Association there appeared in the same paper the following poem entitled:- THE SUFFRAGETTES We collected in our thousands, By the Welland’s flowing stream, To beguile the evening hours, Listening to the suffrage scheme. I am not disposed to offer, Views upon the female vote, But I wish to tell the scoffer, Things I would have him note. When he cast his senile “booing”, In a helpless woman’s face, He was eloquently showing, Much degeneracy of race. Pity him his lack of reason, Scorn for those who urge him on, This is Stamford’s senseless season, Chivalry is past and gone. Is there one who this attended? Could have faced, on yonder dray, With a courage, cool, and splendid, Asses with so loud a bray? (by) CYNICUS As to the Stamford & Rutland Guardian’s editorial comment. It stated:- All things considered, the Suffragist’s meeting at Stamford, on Saturday passed off remarkably well. For the credit of the great majority it must be made clear that those who disturbed the meeting and initiated the horseplay were simply out for a lark and cared nothing for common sense or argument. There was a chance of a Saturday night spree and that was all they wanted. Some, it was obvious, had had recourse to something stronger than water and so their share of the clamour need not be taken much notice of. Several of the interjections during the speeches were by no means devoid of wit and had the interruptions been simply verbal the meeting would have been quite enjoyable. But the foolish josting and turf-throwing was quite another story, and proved the caddish propensities of a certain section of the crowd. The speakers were ladies of education and should have been treated as such. However, as we have said, no great harm was done, and perhaps the occasional disorder was but the vent for those of vinous tastes. The Stamford and District News also reported on the event and although their report is similar there are a number of incidents reported that did not appear in the Stamford & Rutland Guardian . As they passed the Post office there was a slight attempt to “boo” them, but this soon subsided, and escorted by members of the Police Force the ladies were escorted down St John’s Street and Castle Hill to the meadows. Two trolleys belonging to Mr B.W.Aldwinckle were standing one on each side of the footpath between the two bridges, and speeches were delivered simultaneous from the two vehicles, to an assembly of between 2,000 and 3,000 persons. During part of the rally, at one time the crushing was so bad that numbers of little children near (one of) the wagons were escorted by the police out of the crowd into places of safety. Several of the men possessing a greater sense of justice and fair play than some of the others appealed to the disorderly ones to be quiet, but this had no effect, and the disorder continued, during which there was singing (including a verse of a hymn) and shouting, while a few piece of turf were thrown at the ladies. As to the scenes on the Meadows, the disturbances led to an appearance of two of the agitators at the Magistrates Court under the news banner, Disorderly Scenes at a Suffragette Meeting. Stamford Men Summoned. Amusing Evidence. Clearly the editor, or the compositor, or the reporter should have picked up that the Meeting had been held by Suffragists and not Suffragettes. The whole report mentioning Suffragettes. Two men were ordered to appear before the Magistrates on Saturday (July 19th 1913) on charges of improper conduct on the occasion of the Suffragettes meeting in the Meadows last week. They were Robert Stafford, 3 East-street, who was summoned for using indecent language, and Naaman Briggs, of 1 Zebra Cottages, against whom there was a charge of being drunk and disorderly. With regard to Stafford, P.c. Holgate stated that the man was very much under the influence of drink, and was creating annoyance by swearing and shouting. One man went to him and asked him to be quiet, whereupon defendant said words telling him in effect, to get out of the way. The defendant pushed about, and a man of about 50 years of age was knocked down. If the crowd had come that way, the constable feared the man would doubtless have been seriously injured. Supt. Theaker informed the Court that Stafford had been before the Magistrates seven times previously, and said he desired to press the case, as the language used by the defendant could only be described as vile. A fine of 10 shillings, with 7 shillings costs was imposed. The man Briggs created some amusement by a quaint saying. Asked whether he was guilty of being drunk and disorderly on the occasion referred to, he said, “I reckon I had a drop of beer, but I was not disorderly.” After P.c. Pacey had been sworn, Briggs said “Now, what did I say?” but he was told to be quiet. The officer told the Bench that the defendant, who was very drunk, was shouting and pushing about among the crowd. He called out “Mrs Pankhurst , ***** her.” Someone near asked him to be quiet, whereupon he expressed the hope that the suffragists would be in a much warmer place than the defendant, said the constable, continued this sort of thing for something like twenty minutes, pushing both women and men about, and although witness spoke to him he took no notice whatever. Defendant: What did you say when you brought me the summons? Didn’t you say go straight home when you spoke to me? The Constable: I never said anything of the sort. Defendant: None of your “guyfly.”(Laughter) I did nothing but shout Mrs Pankhurst! The Clerk: You can only ask the witness a question. Defendant: Was I drunk? The Constable: Certainly. Defendant: Then why didn’t you lock me up? The Constable: I gave you a chance to get home. Defendant: If I was drunk I couldn’t have got home. Briggs added that he went out shopping before he went home at half-past nine. Turning to P.c. Pacey, he said “Tell a straight tale.” Supt. Theaker, who was also present at the Meeting, supported the evidence of the constable, and said, that the man was frequently asked to go home by several in the crowd. Defendant: That was Daddy Hopkins. (Laughter). The Inspector: continuing said the defendant’s conduct was very bad indeed. There were several there who were rather disorderly, but he didn’t take much notice of that; in a case of this kind, however, where very bad language was used he considered it his duty to bring it before the notice of the Bench. The Chairman (to the Defendant): Have you anything to say? Defendant I expect I have got to pay, but I don’t want to pay much. (Laughter). I ain’t ??? a deal. (Laughter). This is the first time I’ve been here, and it would take a different suffragette meeting from that to get me here again. (Laughter). Defendant added: I saved the women. They were pelting at me instead of the women. (Laughter). While the Magistrates were considering the verdict the defendant caused further amusement by asking, “Have they done with me now, here? The Justices imposed a fine of 5 shillings, including costs, and the Mayor expressed the hope that this case would be a warning to him in the future remarking that if he kept from the drink he would be all right. Defendant: But I started young sir. (Laughter). Supt. Theaker: Are you going to pay? Defendant: No; shall you trust me? He was allowed a week. The Great Pilgrimage was a protest march in favour of votes for women and against militancy and was arguably the single most influential non-violent event in the fight for votes. It created an environment across the country, especially where meetings were held, of open debate of the subject rather than the newsworthy reports of broken windows, arson and hunger strikes. Previously it was as if any disaster could be blamed on the Suffragettes. Stamford was no different. Back on Thursday May 22nd 1913 two separate fires one at the Wesleyan Chapel on Barn Hill and another in the stables behind the Stamford Hotel created rumours in the town that those ‘damn suffragettes’ were involved. Suddenly in the minds of some, a woman should not be allowed out with a box of matches. Stamford had a population of around 9.500 people in 1913, between 2,000 and 3,000 attended the meeting on the Meadows that Saturday evening. Let us hope that the majority supported female suffrage. Sources 'By the Way’ Comment Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p7/c1 Suffragettes Poem Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p7/c2 Unionist Women Franchise Meeting Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p8/c1&2 Suffragists Visit To Stamford Stamford & Rutland Guardian July 19th 1913 p8/c4&5 Women Suffragists in Stamford Stamford & District News July 16th 1913 p5/c2 Stamford Men Summoned Stamford & District News July 23rd 1913 p5/c1 Suffragettes On Tour Stamford Mercury July 18th 1913 p4/c4 Notes: Stamford & District News published on Wednesdays Lincoln, Rutland and Stamford Mercury on Friday Stamford & Rutland Guardian published on Saturdays The first names/initials of the women at the Conservative and Unionist meeting were added from the Stamford & District News of July 23rd 1913 p7/c1. For more background information on this topic the recently published book by Jane Robinson; Hearts And Minds. The Untold Story of the Great Pilgrimage and How Women Won the Vote , is a MUST read. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next Nora Blake: Young Stamford Pacifist | Stamford History < Back Nora Blake: young Stamford pacifist K Hansell, N J Sheehan 2021 Following the World War One exhibition at Stamford Arts Centre in November 2018, the Society was contacted by Paul Markwell regarding his mother Nora Blake. As a thirteen-year-old schoolgirl in Stamford, Nora wrote the winning essay in a national competition for children of ex-servicemen. Her achievement was reported in The Stamford and Rutland News on Tuesday May 8, 1934, and the essay was reproduced in full in the next issue of the newspaper. Stamford St George’s School Girl’s Prize Essay 1934 Nora Blake (aged 13) War War! The very word makes me shiver. Although the Great War ended before I was born, I know enough about it to realise that all countries concerned are still suffering from its results. We are all paying the penalty. No country can spend four years in destruction, blowing millions of pounds in the air in the form of shells, without suffering from chaos. The whole of the industrialised world was disorganised, and as a consequence many soldiers who survived from the war without serious consequences came back only to find it impossible to secure employment. Also thousands of families mourn the loss of loved ones, and thousands more have the care of those who were disabled, the blind, the crippled, the insane. Truly war levies a terrible toll. Without dwelling unduly on the horrors of war, or its far-reaching ill effects on the community, I think that all will agree that the great task of this generation is to arrange international affairs so that another war is avoided. Politicians during the war, I understand, talked a lot about it being a war to end war and since 1918 the League of Nations has had a meeting in Geneva with this end in view. Disarmament Conferences have been held and there has been much talk between nations. But, while every country agrees that war should end, the nations have not been able to form any plans to satisfy all. Every conference has closed without achieving any tangible result and this is a very disappointing state of affairs. After sixteen years of conferences we find that the nations mistrust each other and are afraid to put down armaments. Suspicion is the order of the day and we find nations arranging to spend more money on defence services. All are seeking security but will a competition in armaments give security? Let us consider this question. This makes us think about the next war. I think that there will be as much difference in the next war and the Great War as there was between that and the Napoleonic Wars. I think death will come from the air in the form of gas and poison bombs. Attacks will take us by surprise and the result will be that large cities, with all their inhabitants, will be wiped out in a few hours. It seems very possible to spend all out lives in defence and yet be unsafe. What is the alternative? Just this. All lovers of peace must continue to work for gradual disarmament, even if their cause seems hopeless. All education should have this end view. Public demonstrations of a warlike nature should be avoided. Children should not be taken to torchlight tattoos and boys should not be encouraged to play with toy soldiers. An international army, having all the armaments of the world, should keep peace in the same way that the police force keeps civil peace. It is very rarely that a policeman has to fight but the knowledge that he is there, backed by the powers of justice, is generally sufficient to keep us safe from robbery and violence and I think that is the ideal for all peace lovers, for the world to be policed. Now, no idea was ever realised easily. Rome was not built in a day and all the countries of the world will not become suddenly reasonable. But if all people who believe, as I do, will work and pray for “The Day”, it will come. It may not be in our time. But good citizens are always content to work for a future generation. In our school we have a book on citizenship which has on the cover a figure of the head of Jesus. It has two faces. So, in school, we learn the history of the past. We find that great progress has been made and that the world is much better to live in than it was in the middle ages. When we compare conditions with what they are today, we should be optimistic for the future. Shades of the great reformers of all times encourage us to carry on with the good work and not to doubt the ultimate result. It also seems to me that all nations are waiting for someone to take the lead. They are like children. I frequently hear children say “I will if you will” but no one wants to that the initiative. I believe that if France would only begin, Germany would be glad to follow and vice versa. I wish one country would have the courage to tell the world “We will disarm by 1950”. If the country could be my own, I should be very proud. I for one would be willing to take the risk. If I am to have a sticky finish, I should like to know that my country has done the right thing. If the world persists in arming, a future war is inevitable. It may not be in my time, but as a good citizen, that is no consolation. I am aware that all I have said is idealistic, but nevertheless, all good peace-loving people must work for peace on these lines, looking with the eye of faith for the glorious dawn of the day when “Swords shall be turned into plough-shares and spears into pruning hooks” The Winning Medal Nora Blake was the third of the four children of Frank and Vida Blake, with an elder brother John, sister, Olive and a younger brother, Ken. They were all born and brought up in Stamford. Nora left school at 15 and went to work at Martin-Markham Ltd where she met her future husband, Len Markwell. In later life she was known as "Jill". Len and Jill moved to Ryhall in 1956 where they lived for over 50 years. Jill Markwell continued to write for pleasure, often poems that she would send to friends. She was always very proud of the medal that she won in the national competition when she was 13. Jill sadly passed away in May 2009. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next Stamford in 1868 | Stamford History < Back Stamford in 1868 Chris Hunt 2018 1868. J.Clapton. Esq; Mayor. February 25th, owing to the failure of his health, the Earl of Derby resigned the premiership, and on the 28th, Mr Disraeli became Prime Minister. In March, the entrance lodge to Burghley High Park, near the race course, was commenced. May 4th, Viscount Ingestre (son of the Earl of Shrewsbury) elected Member of Parliament for Stamford, vice Viscount Cranbourne elevated to the peerage by the death of his father, the Marquis of Salisbury. On the 8th a spirited race was rowed on the river Welland between Stamford Bridge and the Railway Bridge, between the crews of an outrigger and a four-oared gig, and attracted crowds of spectators. The colours were light blue and white. The “light blues” won by a length. On the 23rd June, William Unwin Heygate was elected Member of Parliament, in place of Viscount Ingestre, elevated to the peerage. July 31st, close of the last Parliament elected under the Reform Bill of 1832. August 6th, an Anglo-Saxon cinerary urn was found on the Essendine Railway in the parish of St George. September 18th, a steamer on board which was Lord Burghley, eldest son of the Marquis of Exeter, was wrecked in Queen Charlotte’s Sound, New Zealand. No lives lost. October 14th, about 5.00am, a very destructive fire broke out at Mr Joseph Phillips’ brewery, in Water-street, and was not got under control for some hours, during which time it destroyed the malting-rooms (which contained several hundred quarters of malt) and the ale stores. The damage was very heavy. The town engines were present and also one from Burghley, one from the works of Messrs. Ashby and Jeffery, and Mr Blashfield’s L’Extincteur. On the 17th, a stone coffin, of the Roman period, containing two skeletons and fragments of pottery, a bone pin, &c., was found on the farm of Mrs Gilchrist, between Stamford and Tinwell, about half a mile from Ermine-street. November 11th, the London Gazette contained a proclamation for dissolving the seventh parliament of Queen Victoria. The Second Reform Bill having deprived the borough of Stamford of one of its members, Sir John Hay was on the 16th returned as Stamford’s only representative in Parliament. Mr Andrew Gray, a shipping agent from London, was proposed and seconded; he made a speech and then his candidature was withdrawn. On the 2nd of December, the Disraeli ministry resigned, on the account of the result of the election. Showing a majority of one hundred and twenty-one to the opposition. On the 4th, Mr Gladstone was commanded to form a ministry, which was sworn into office on the 9th. Source:- The Annals of Stamford 1837-1887 by Arthur J. Waterfield printed and published in 1867 by Haynes & Son, 51 High Street, Stamford. Note: - 1868 was the year of parliamentary elections in Stamford. Two by-elections in May and June followed by a General Election in November when the borough returned for the first time just one Member of Parliament. The reduction from two being as a result of the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1867. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next Restoration and Rebuilding of Browne's Hospital | Stamford History < Back Restoration and Rebuilding of Browne's Hospital 1870 David Wallington 2012 A report of 1869 stated: The Hospital buildings are in an advanced state of decay and dilapidation and with the exception of a small part are hardly fit for habitation. There was pressure to completely clear the site which occupies land between Broad Street and North Street and erect new buildings, but local opinion forced a rethink and the current two storey building on Broad Street was retained. James Fowler (known widely as Fowler of Louth) was appointed architect. Fowler was born in Lichfield and trained under Joseph Potter, the Cathedral’s architect. His career spanned the years of the Gothic revival and following his move to Lincolnshire he was active in building or restoring churches, vicarages and public buildings as well as being responsible for designing three alms-houses: Browne’s, Allenby Almhouses in Fotherby and Orme Almhouses in Louth as well as adding buildings to Holy Trinity in Retford and Gospelgate Bedehouses in Louth. It is therefore not surprising that Fowler should turn to Minton for the tiled floor in the passage between the Common Room and Chapel and to Skidmore of Coventry for the gas fittings and art metalwork. Francis Skidmore took over his father’s firm in 1845 and initially repaired church silverware. But he was soon designing church furnishings and was a pioneer in the gas lighting and heating of churches. He exhibited at the 1851 Great Exhibition and was widely used by George Gilbert Scott for the then fashion of metal screens separating chancels from naves. Of these the best known are the screens at Lichfield (still in place), Hereford (now in the V & A) and Salisbury (parts of which are being rediscovered). One of his largest commissions was the huge fleche on the top of the Albert Memorial in London and the wonderfully intricate metal fencing around that memorial. Sadly his obsessiveness with detail led to bankruptcy and because of the loss of his firm’s records he remains an obscure Victorian innovator and entrepreneur. His gas fittings have largely disappeared but we are fortunate that at Browne’s we have three examples of light fittings adapted for electricity: two in the passage and cloisters and one (lamp standard) on the eastern side of the lawn. Inside we have a rare example of two gas fittings still in place on the balcony of the chapel and a part of another fitting in the Confrater’s Room. A lot of the metal work on the doors of the old building and on the accommodation for the residents is clearly also from the Skidmore Manufactory. A tentative examination of Fowler’s work suggests that he turned to Skidmore when working on other projects in the county. It somehow seems fitting that in the 19th Century Browne’s Hospital turned to Coventry for work on the alms-houses as William Browne had developed links with it when developing his wool trading business four hundred years previously. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next David Cecil's Will and David Cecil's Wife: Two Notes | Stamford History < Back David Cecil's Will and David Cecil's Wife: Two Notes Professor Alan Rogers 2012 William Cecil, Lord Burghley was obsessed with his family history. He continually sought and obtained information and produced several contradictory pedigrees; so any light that can be thrown on earlier generations of Cecils is valuable. David Cecil of Stamford, his grandfather, Alderman (i.e. mayor) and MP for the town, was a particular concern; for someone had charged Lord Burghley with being the son of an innkeeper (a story which is still repeated). This is not true: the basis for it is that David was given the Tabard in Stamford by John Dyccons glover, councillor and Alderman of Stamford in the 1490s and almost certainly father-in-law of David Cecil, to be used for his (Dyccons’) will. A full biography of David Cecil will be published shortly in Nottingham Medieval Studies (Alan Rogers, ‘The Parliamentary representation of Stamford, 1467-1509’). This note concerns two matters; his will and his wife. David Cecil’s will David Cecil made two wills. One is dated the Conversion of St Paul (25 January) 1535 [i.e. 1535/6] (PRO PROB 11/29 fol 2d-3) and the other (strangely) is dated the Conversion of St Paul 1536 [i.e. 1536/7] (to be found in British Library Cotton iv 29; it has been wrongly indexed as referring to the rector of St Peter’s church, Stamford, which is why it has been missed to date). It seems clear that the Cotton version was a draft and inaccurately dated, for it was the 1535/6 will which was proved in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury in March 1541/2, not the will dated 1536/7. There are a small number of differences between the provisions made in the two drafts. The sequence varies, and some items in the draft will are split apart. One clause in the draft is repeated twice in the final version. Two additional clauses relate to an extra payment to St George’s church and to the sale of swans for the benefit of David’s soul. The final will is then slightly longer than the draft will, with 39 clauses instead of 35. The wording of each clause varies from time to time. Richard Cecil remains sole executor to both; in the draft will, he is subject to the supervision of John Haryngton of Exton but this is not stated in the final will. The witnesses are very different. WILL OF DAVID CECIL January 1535/6 PRO Version In the Name of god Amen. In the ffest off Conversawn off seynt Paule Anno dni millesimo quingentesimo tricesimo quinto I David Cyssell of Stamford in the Countie of Lyncoln Esquier being of good and perfytt Remembrance in mynd, also well and perfitly deliberat make my testament and last Wyll in this maner and fourme following First I bequith my soule to almightie god and to our blessid lady seynt mary mother of mercy, and to all the glorious company of hevyn, and my body to be buryed in the parishe churche of seynt George of Stamford aforeseyd. Item I give to the high aulter of seynt George of Stamford ijs. Item to our ladyes works of lyncoln xijd. Item I will that my wyfe shall have all the plate that was hers before that I maryed her and also all other goodes of household that was hers at oure mariage. Also I give to my seyd wyffe Twenty ky[n]e and a bulle of myn owne goods in recompence of suche catell as she brought to me. Item I give to my seyd wyfe two horses and two mares. Item I give to my seyd wife Thirtie seme of malte and Ten scyme of Wheate and Ten scyme of barley and Threscore shepe, that ys to sey, ffouretie old shepe and Twenty lambes. And also I give to my seyd wyfe Twenty Lodes of wood. I give to my seyd wife two fetherbeds, one in the Nursery and an other in the Closet where she lyeth in. Item I give to my seyd wyff the bed and bedsted with the hengings of silke as yt stonds complete in the gesse Chamber by the strete. Item I give to my seyd wyfe a marke of Swannes markyd with laduls streght up and down the byll and the legges and she to enyoie yt to her and her assignes for ever. Item I give to Richard Cissell my eldest sone two complete fetherbeddes one over the Closett and another over the parlour as they stonde holy. Item I gyff to my said son Richard my best gown and the Chosse. Also I gyff to David my secounde sone two fetherbeddes complete, one at the steyrhed with sperver and other appertenances and ( del ) an other fetherbed. Item I give to my seyd wyfe all my londs in Stamford in Nassyngton and els where for the terme of her lyff and after her departing I will that all my seyd londs do remayn to my seyd sone Richard Cissell and to his heires for ever. Item I give to my doughter Joane Twenty pounds sterling in mony or in mony worthe and that to be delyvered to Joane my wyfe being her naturall mother, to be in save custody of her seyd mother for the preferment and promocion of her maryage. Item I give to the fowre ordurs off freyers of Stamford to praye for me vjs viijd to every one of the seyd orders. Item I give to Jone my doughter the one half of household stuff at Dowsby as in brasse, pewter and bedding hangings lynyn and other stuf remayning at Dowsby and all this stuf to be in custodye of Jane my wyf unto the tyme of mariage off Joane my seyd doughter. Item I give to Richard Cyssell my sone all my titill and interest that I have in the Chantre londes that ys gyven for the fynding of a prest to singe for Sir Davyd Phillip in seynt Marys churche in Stamford. Also I give to my seyd/// sone Richard all my tytle and interest that I have or may have in the Tabert of Stamford and in all other places the whiche John Dycons left to be song for by a prest in seynt mary churche aforeseyd for his soule and all crysten soules. Item I give to David Cyssell my secounde sone Twenty quarters of barley to be delyvered to hym by myn executour by four and of this side the feast of seynt Marten in Wynter next to folowe the dey of my departing from this lyfe and to be taken out of my Croppe that growith or may growe in Tynwell feelds. Item I will that two of my merke of swannes herebefore not bequeathed be solde by myn executour and the mony takyn for them to be dispoased for my soule. Item I will that all the hangings, tabulls, trestells and formes and other ymplyments in my halle, in my grete parlour and in my galery on the south syde of my house do contynew as they are and also do remayne ther as standers or heirelowms for ever. Item I bequeth to my wife ffyfty quarters of malte. Twenty quartetrs of barley. Ten quarters of wheate and xl lodes of wood. Item I give to my seyd wyfe two cuppes of sylver parcell gilte with covers, and a pece called the horne all gylt. Item I give to my seyd wyfe a pece gilt with the whetesheef in the bottom, the whiche I gaffe her before our mariage. Item I will that she have all her goods off household that were hers at the daye of oure mariage in as good state and repare as they were the same daye. Item I give to my sone Richard my best gowne and the choyse. Item I will that Anthony Vyllers have the secound gowne, my best dublett and my velvet Jackett. Item I wille that David my sone have my blake gowne of clothe lyned with damaske, a dublet of satten stoked, with a Jackett and my grene coate. Item will that Sir William Huddeston sing for my soule and all Crysten soules the one hole yere in the churche of seynt George in Stamford and to have v li for his stypent.fyve pounds sterling. Item I will that ther be given for the helth of my soule that three days xx li, that ys to sey at the daye off my buryall,, at the vijth daye and at the xxx ti daye. Item I give to the high aulter off seynt George for tythes and offerings not perfatly donne vjs viijd. Item I will that my detts be payd of my goods laufully knowen and axed. Item I will that every servaunte of myn household have blak coats. Item I will that Richard Wyer have a fetherbed. Item I ordeyn and make my seyd sone Richard Cissell my sole executour, to dispoase the resydue of my goods above or otherwise not given nor bequeathed for the honor of god and for the helth of my soule after the laudable maner that he can do or devyse. These being wytnes Sir Thomas Wenstare notary, John Bocher and Richard Wyre with many others. Probate at London 16 March 1541 David M. Loades , The Cecils: privilege and power behind the throne, London: The National Archives, 2007, following S T Bindoff , The House of Commons, 1509-1558, vols i-iii, Members, London: Secker and Warburg, 1982 , dates the probate copy to 25 January 1535 but as can be seen, it is dated 25 January (the Conversion of St Paul) 1535/6. The will was proved in March 1541/2. COPY OR DRAFT WILL OF DAVID CECIL dated January 1536/7 BL Cotton Ch iv 29 In the Name of god Amen. In the ffest off Conversyon off Saynt Paule Anno dni millimo cccccmo tricesimo sexto I Davyd Cyssell off Stannford in the Countie of Lincoln Esquyer being off good and perfytt Remembraunce, In mynd also well and deliberate make my testament and last Wyll in maner and fforme ffoloyng. First I (bese del ) bequeth my soule to almyty god and to oure blessyd lady mother off mercy and to all the gloryouse Company off hevyn and my body to be buryed in the quere off Saynt George off Stannford aforesayd. Also I gyff to the hye aultar off Saynt George for tythes and offeryng not perfytely done vjs viijd. Item to oure ladyes werks off Lincoln xijd. Item I wyll that my wyffe shall have all the plate that was hyrs before that I maryed hyr. Also I gyff to my said wyffe ij coppys off sylver parcell gylte with covers, a pece callyd the horn all gylte. Also I gyffe to my said wyffe a pece gylt with the whetesheffe in the bottom the which I gaffe hyr before our maryage. Also I wyll that she have all hyr good off howshold that were hyrs at the day of oure maryage in as good state and repayre as thei were that same day. Also I gyff to my said wyffe xxti ky[n]e and a bull off myn owne goods in recompence off such catell as she brought to me. Item I gyff to my said wyffe ij horsys and ij marys. Also I gyffe to my said [sic] l quarters of malte xxti quarters of Barleye, x quarters of wheite xlti lods of woode. And lx shepe that is to say xl old shepe and xx lambys. Also I gyff to my said wyffe ij feytherbedds one in the Nursery and one other in the Clossett wher she lyethe. Also I gyff to my said wyffe (ij fetherbedds del ) the bed and bedsteid with the hyngyngs of sylke as it standeth complete in the gesse Chamber bye the strete. Also I gyff to my said wyffe a marke of Swanys merkyd with ladull streight upp and down the byll and the legge and she to enioye it to hyr and hyr assignes for ever. Also I gyff to Richard Cyssell myn eldest son ij complete fetherbedds one over the Clossett and one other over the parlure as they stand holly. Also I gyff to my said son Richard my best gown and the Chosse. Also I gyff to Davyd my second son ij feyther bedds complete, one at the stayr hed with sperver and other appertenances and ( del ) an other fether bedd. Also I wyll that Davyd my said son shall have my blakke gown off clothe lyned with damaske and a dublett off saten stokked, a jackett and my grene cote. Also I gyff to Antonye Villers my second gown, my best dublett and my velvett jackett. Also I gyff to my said wyffe all my lands in Staunford in Nassington and els’ where for the term of hyr lyffe and after hyr departyng I wyll that all my said lands do remayne to my said son Richard Cycell and to his heyres for ever. Also I gyff to my doughter Jone xx li sterlyng in money or money wurthe and to be delyveryd to Jane my wyffe beyng hyr naturall mother, to be in save custodye off hyr said mother for preferment and promocion off hyr maryage. Also I gyff to every one off the four orders off frers off Staunford to pray for me vjs viijd. Item I gyff to Jhone my doughter the one half off howsehold stuffe at Dowsebeys as in brasse, pewter and beddyng hangyngs lynen and other stuff remaynyng at Dowsebye and all the stuff to be in custodye off Jane my wyffe unto the tyme off maryage off Jhone my said doughter. Also I gyffe to Richard Cyssell my son all my tytle and interest that I have in the Chauntre londs that be gyven for the fyndyng off a preste to syng for Sir Davyd Phylypp in saynt Marys Churche in Staunford. Also I gyff to my said sonne Richard all my tytle and Interest that I have or may have in the Tabert of Staunford and in all other placys the which John Dycons left to be song for by a preste in saynt marys Church aforesaid for his soule and all crysten soulys. Also I gyff to Davyd Cyssell my second son xxti quarters off barley to be delyveryd to hym by myn executour before and over this half ffest of Saynt Martyn in Wynter next to ffolowe the day off my departyng from this lyffe and to be taken out off my Cropps that groweth or may growe in Tynwell ffelds. Also I wyll that my detts be payd off my goods laufully known and askyd. Also I wyll that all the hangyngs, tabulls, trestylls and fformes and other Implyments in the hall, in my greit parlure and in my galery on the south syde off my house do contynew as they are and also do remayne theyr as standerds or heyre lomes for ever. Item I wyll that Sir William Huddylston shall syng for my Soule and ( del ) all Crysten souls by the space of one yere next after my departyng in saynt George Churche in Staunford and shall have v li for hys stypend. Also I gyff to every off my servaunts a blakke cote off clothe and to Richard Wyre my servaunt a fetherbed. Item I wyll that theyr be gyven for the helthe off my soule and all Cristen souls at iij days xx li, that is to say at the day off my buryeng, at the vij thday and the xxx ti day. The Residue off my goods unbequethyd I gyff and bequeth unto Richard Cycell my son whom I make my sole executour, he to have ( del ) occupie and enioye my said goods to the payment and contentacion off my detts and the fulfyllyng and performacion off thys my testament and last wyll. Also I ordeyn and make Mr John Haryngton of Exton supervisour off this mye testament, to whom I gyff and bequeth an horse. Thes beyryng wytnes Sir David Smyth parson off Saynt George my gostly ffather, Mr Andrew Gannow, John Alen, Sir William Sherman vicar of Maxsey, Sir Wyllam Huddilston and other. There are no signatures or any other markings – no endorsements except those of the Cotton collection. This document is on paper, clearly written. It is either a copy of the will or a draft; we need to compare it against the probate copy to see if there are changes. There are a few deletions which could be the result of miscopying or drafting errors. Loades, following Bindoff, dates the probate copy to 25 January 1535 but as can be seen this one is dated 25 January (the Conversion of St Paul) 1536 – i.e. 1537. The will was proven in March 1541/2. The description of the house is the main feature of this will. David Cecil’s first wife Lord Burghley recorded David Cecil’s first wife (his grandmother) as Alice, daughter of John Dyccons of Stamford, and this has been repeated in every pedigree so far. That she was the daughter of Dyccons seems certain although there is no direct evidence. Dyccons asked Cecil to use the proceeds from the Tabard for masses for his soul, and the town council gave to Cecil the waits’ badges which Dyccons as councillor held. But the gild book of St Katherine’s gild (which is strictly contemporary) records that in November 1497, David Cecil and his wife Agnes were admitted to gild (Gonville and Caius MSS 266/670 fol 39d; see Alan Rogers 2011 Act Book of St Katherine’s Gild 1480-1534 Bury St Edmunds : abramis publishers). There is no other known mention of her name; she entered the household of Lady Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry VII and died in that household in 1507 (St John’s College, Cambridge, SJCC D91.19 fols 30, 34) – well before William Cecil was born. We can only assume that Lord Burghley was misinformed. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next Previous 1 2 3 4 5 ... 11 Next

SNIPPETS A depository for small articles, notes, titbits and other miscellanea of local interest. The Archive of St Michael's Church Honorary Life member of the society provides a glimpse of the numerous documents often collected by local churches. John S Hartley 14 November 2023 Read Snippet A List of Stamford Aldermen from 1398 to 1457 Despite many early records from this period having been destroyed or lost a Steward of Stamford Town preserved a list of sixty aldermen. Chris Hunt 1 January 2022 Read Snippet Radcliffe and Browne's School, Stamford-Prize Volume A school prize binding Chris Hunt 1 January 2021 Read Snippet Blackstone & Co Works Rules 1916 An interesting insight into industrial work rules during WWI Chris Hunt 1 January 2018 Read Snippet Drowning on Broad Street Landlady found face down in cistern Chris Hunt 1 January 2017 Read Snippet Rate Book 1836 In 2017 Alan Rogers published his transcript of the 1836 rate assessment of Stamford. This important document lists all of the property in the town and names the owners and the tenants. Professor Alan Rogers 1 January 2017 Read Snippet Browne's Hospital Property A transcription of a survey of all of the properties owned by Browne's Hospital in 1845. Contains descriptions, site plans and names of tenants. Professor Alan Rogers 1 January 2014 Read Snippet Stamford and the Gough Map The earliest known image of the town Chris Hunt 1 January 2014 Read Snippet Transcript of Bert Bailey's WWI Diary The WWI diary of a Stamford man P Massey & K Hansell 1 January 2014 Read Snippet Hearth Tax Returns for St Martin's, Stamford - 31st July 1663 The earliest surviving hearth tax return for any part of Northamptonshire. Professor Alan Rogers 1 January 2014 Read Snippet

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 Don’t Meddle with my Business! A sixteenth century warning Professor Alan Rogers 2012 The following letter, a transcript of an original in private hands and unpublished until now, throws light on both the workings of Stamford Town Council and its relationship with central government. It is also particularly interesting in showing how a key supporter of the Tudor monarchs protected his interests vigorously. Context: On 15 January 1553/4 it was announced that Mary Tudor, the new queen of England, was to marry Phillip II of Spain. Almost exactly six months earlier, on the death of her half-brother Edward VI, there had been a failed attempt to overturn Henry VIII’s Act of Settlement of 1543 and place Lady Jane Grey on the throne. Any suspicions and reservations which may have remained from Mary’s delayed accession were exacerbated by this marriage announcement. Inadvisably, Sir Thomas Wyatt, apparently outraged that an English monarch should consider such a marriage, tried to raise enough support to prevent the union of the two sovereign states. Initially, it appeared he had succeeded, and he moved with a small army from the west towards London reaching Ludgate and Temple Bar on 8th February, 1554. However, the many promises of troops, made by erstwhile supporters, did not materialise. The forces he had brought with him from his native Kent melted away and, crucially, royal resistance was active, determined and effective. So Wyatt had no alternative but to surrender at the gates of the City of London and trust to the mercy of the monarch and her advisers. Tried for treason on 15 March at Westminster, he was executed on 11 April. John Russell, first earl of Bedford, our letter writer, lord privy seal and at the heart of the government, was more than aware of all that was going on. Though now well advanced in years, born about 1485 and nearing seventy, he had profited substantially in every sense from a close friendship with Henry VIII. Russell had been created earl of Bedford in January 1550, just three months after he refused to move troops to Windsor to help the then protector the duke of Somerset. Russell had been using them to suppress rebels in the south-west where he had very substantial land-holdings. This proved the critical decision in the power struggle between Somerset and Northumberland; Somerset’s protectorate fell apart less than a week later. Not only did Russell reap a title from Northumberland as a result, he acquired yet more property, notably Somerset’s Long Acre estate to west of the City of London, formerly the kitchen garden of the abbey of Westminster and including Covent Garden which lay just to the north of Cecil property on the Strand. A convinced supporter of state over church, he then found himself called upon to support Northumberland’s advocacy of Lady Jane Grey as queen of England which he did most reluctantly. But Bedford moved quickly away from that faction backing Lady Jane Grey in the summer of 1553, and joined Sir William Cecil and others uneasy with what was being forced on the country. He preferred to continue his long-established relationship with the Tudor dynasty. Thus he was one of those who proclaimed Mary queen on July 19, 1553. Given that he had known her since the 1530s when his wife was one of Mary’s ladies and that he had been her supporter when such a course was dangerous, he had excellent credentials and was quickly pardoned for that reluctant support of Lady Jane Grey. Perhaps anxious to prove his loyalty beyond doubt, and to all, he insisted six months later on commanding loyal forces at the key river crossing of London Bridge during Wyatt’s rebellion. So by February 1554, when this letter was written, Bedford was back in favour, a significant figure at court, a great landowner and, ultimately the founder of a great dynasty. He writes a letter both of reassurance and warning to the town of Stamford with which he has the closest of links. Just a couple of weeks or so earlier Sir Thomas Wyatt had been arrested and was now safely lodged in the Tower of London, awaiting trial. Hence Bedford writes, “But thankes be given, unto god, all things arre nowe in good quyetnes here.” From his privileged position, at the heart of government, he knows all is well under control and secure, and that troops from Stamford will not be needed. No doubt the news of Wyatt’s surrender had already reached the town, but this letter came from the highest echelons of government – Stamford should have been well aware that the steward of their town knew exactly what was happening where it mattered. But clearly Bedford’s letter had another purpose: no one should consider usurping Bedford’s role in Stamford. In his letter he makes it clear he is in charge in Stamford also. The heading of the first meeting of the town council after Mary’s accession and after their equivalent of an annual general meeting, reads: Staunford Monday namely the vjth day of the month of November in the first year of the reign of the foresaid queen [1553] before Henry Lacy gentleman deputy of John Russell knight Lord Russell Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Bedford and one of the Council of the lady queen, head steward there ..... There can be no doubt of John Russell’s standing in the town; he had been head steward of the town since 1543 and his letter witnesses he did not regard his stewardship as a sinecure. The Alderman or Mayor, William Campenet a draper, and (Russell assumes) his fellows, have together made him aware what has been going on within the town, and he is grateful to them. But also one can almost hear the earl rumbling, “What does Lord Willoughby think he is up to? He’s trying to exercise my responsibilities. We’ll have nothing of this.” Above all else, he writes, “the Manridden is under my leading.” This unfamiliar, and interesting word, essentially archaic though resurrected by a few historians recently, is defined most usefully by the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning “the men whom a lord could call upon in time of war” and thus “a supply of men for military purposes”. So it is absolutely clear that Bedford would himself have expected to call out the Stamford muster (and possibly other local forces) as steward of the town of Stamford. It presents us with a rare example in Stamford of the steward taking action and actual responsibility. Normally he, and others, had presided in absentia, using the services of a local deputy, over the swearing in of the town’s chief officer and magistrate, the alderman. While he had been steward of the town for just ten years Russell’s links with the area were far closer. As the third husband of Ann Sapcote, and thus related by marriage to the Semark family of Thornhaugh his links to David and Richard Cecil, William’s grandfather and father were close. When Bedford died a year after this letter was written, in early 1555, Sir William Cecil in his mid-thirties was already well-established in the royal secretariat. Knighted by Edward VI in 1551, Cecil was poised to become Elizabeth’s secretary just three years later. It would be interesting to uncover the links between the rising courtier, the young William Cecil, and the experienced royal servant, Russell, during the key period from 1535 to 1550. The Letter Note: a single oblique stroke shows where the text reaches the end of a line; the double oblique indicates an oblique stroke used by the writer as a form of punctuation. Capital letters and spellings are as in the original. After my veary hartie commendations // I have receaved /your letter understandinge by the same that youe / thinke my Lord Willoughbye will muster men shortly / in Stampforde to serve the quenes ma[jes]tie // wherefore / I gyve youe harty thankes that you wold gyve / me advertisement therof // But thankes be given / unto god, all things arre nowe in good quyetnes / here so that his lordship shall not neede to / muster Anye men // Nevertheles when so / ever his lordship or any other shall muster men / there // I will that none within that my Office / do stirre or go with them, what so ever they be // / for the Manredden [1] is under my leading / to do the quenes ma[jes]ti service when oratyor/ shall serve [2] and no man shall have to / do therewith but I // and so I byd you all harty / fare well from the Court at West mynster / the xjth of February 1553 Your loving frend J Bedford [Signature in another hand, presumably Bedford’s] The Address and endorsement [on reverse] Handwriting as main letter: To my veary loving frendes Mr Alderman and his Bretherne of the Towne of A new hand: Febr 1553 John Bedfords letter of thankes o Stamford for letting himto understand of my L[ord] Willoughbys musteringe & that they shold refuse to go with him or any one but with him self [1] See Introduction above for this archaic term. [2] Obscure phrase in this context, but possibly meaning “when the summons occurs”. A print version can be downloaded 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 V Bomber Crash at Barnack Chris Hunt 2017 HANDLEY PAGE VICTOR B.2 BOMBER No XM714 On the night of March 20th 1963 a Handley Page Victor B.2 Bomber No XM714 of 100 Squadron took off from Wittering on a training flight. It crashed east north-east of Wittering in the Parish of Barnack and of the crew of six only one person ejected and survived. The plane was a write off. The plane stalled after take-off and spun into the ground. A fire warning was indicated for the No.2 engine, this occurred at about 800 feet. During the fire drill the airspeed was allowed to drop and the aircraft began to judder violently. It then flipped over, entered a spin at between 4,000 and 5,000 feet and crashed. The co-pilot ejected and survived with compression fractures but the rest of the crew were killed. The fire warning was found to be false. The co- pilot – Flight Lieutenant Brendan Jackson remained in the RAF and retired in 1993 with the rank of Air Chief Marshall. There were two squadrons of Victor B.2 Bombers at Wittering during the 1960’s. 100 Squadron from May 1962 to September 1968 and 139 (Jamaica) Squadron from February 1962 to December 1968, they were both part of the Quick Reaction Alert force of the RAF. Two nuclear armed aircraft were permanently on 15 minutes readiness to take off. They were parked within 300 ft of the westerly runway threshold and in times of higher tension, four bombers could be stationed beside the runway. If the aircraft were manned they could all be airborne within 30 seconds, with an incoming missile warning from RAF Fylingdales of only four minutes before impact this ensured if the country came under attack, the bombers would be scrambled and be able to retaliate. Each plane carried an Avro Blue Steel Missile, this was a British air-launched, rocket- propelled thermonuclear stand-off missile and was the primary British nuclear deterrent weapon until the introduction of the Polaris missile armed nuclear submarine fleet. Basically. the missile was a pilotless, winged aircraft. It was powered by a rocket engine, burning a combination of hydrogen peroxide and kerosene. Fuelling the missile before launch took nearly half an hour, and was quite hazardous. On launch the rocket engine's first chamber would power the missile along a predetermined course at around Mach 1.5 and then once close to the target, the second chamber of the engine would accelerate the missile to Mach 3. Over the target the engine would cut out and the missile would free-fall before detonating its 1.1 megaton warhead as an air burst weapon. The crash occurred about 100 yards north of the Bainton Road reaching almost to the village cemetery. The area was soon cordoned off with RAF Police and crash teams from Wittering; civilian police were also on hand. Fire brigades from Stamford and Peterborough also attended the scene. It was reported in the press that the RAF armourers on hand were there to deal with Very lights. Trees were set on fire and for a time the whole village was covered in a black cloud as a result of the burning fuel. Local residents were interviewed by the Stamford Mercury reporters who spoke of debris from the crash as near as fifty yards to Station Farm. The cockpit canopy landed the far side of Pond Farm falling through the roof of a stone outbuilding and No 10 Bainton Road was in direct line with the crash. A Barnack villager reported that the sound the plane was different to normal and was gliding in when it hit the ground. To some there was a renewed fear of further accidents and the continuation of night flying did nothing to quell those fears. At the inquest which was held in Peterborough on May 16th 1963 the sole surviving airman (Flight Lieutenant Brendan Jackson) informed the inquest jury that No 2 Engine Warning light came on at about 800 feet and they commenced the normal fire drill. They could not see the engine in question so the only indication of the fire was the warning light. The Base was informed of the incident and the crew were warned to check their parachutes. At this stage the aircraft suffered severe buffeting, ‘an intense vibration caused by aero-dynamic reasons or by mechanical failure in the engine’. Shortly after this the nose of the plane reared up and it went into a spin. The Captain gave the order ‘Get Out, Get Out’ and the Flight Lieutenant ejected at about 2,000 feet, before leaving the plane he heard someone at the rear say I can’t move. The design of the plane meant that although the pilot and co-pilot had ejector seats the rest of the crew had to bail out. This was not an easy procedure due to the restrictive nature of the interior of the plane and the danger of being caught by an engine when bailing out. A witness on the ground stated that there was no fire on board the plane prior to the crash. Three of the deceased were buried with full military honours in Wittering Cemetery. Flight Lieutenant Jackson’s stated at the inquest that:- “I think the captain very courageously stayed at the controls when he could have used his ejector seat, because of the knowledge that the rest of the crew could not get out.” The question of course is whether on the night of the accident the plane was carrying a Blue Steel Missile with a nuclear warhead attached? Considering the high status level at the time it was the norm for aircraft in the air to be carrying a weapon. The missile’s warhead was primed in-flight so although in a crash scenario nuclear material could be released into the environment; there was little or no likelihood of a nuclear explosion. Of course it could have really been a training exercise carrying a dummy missile on what was a relatively new plane. The pilot - Flight Lieutenant Alexander Galbraith - heroically stayed with the plane making the ultimate sacrifice and saving numerous lives on the ground and the village of Barnack. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Men of Stamford in the Hundred Years War David Large 2021 Introduction to the paper “Men from Stamford, Lincolnshire, Commanded by Edmund of Langley Duke of York (1341-1402): Comparison of Names in the Poll Tax and the Soldiers’ Databases.” This paper is one of a series published in the ‘Soldier Profiles’ section of ‘The Soldier in Medieval England’ website. This major UK medieval history project was developed by Professor Anne Curry and Adrian Bell (Southampton and Reading Universities), supported by a grant from the Arts and Humanities Research Council. In summary, the team collated and digitised 250,000 records of soldier service records held in archives in England, France and elsewhere, naming the men who fought in the Hundred Years War, and made them available in a searchable Database. The aim has been to shed more light on the men who fought in the war, both the archers and the men at arms. https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/the-project/ https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/ MEN FROM STAMFORD, LINCOLNSHIRE, COMMANDED BY EDMUND OF LANGLEY, DUKE OF YORK (1341-1402): COMPARISON OF NAMES IN THE POLL TAX AND SOLDIERS’ DATABASES. Recent work on soldiers named ‘Large’ compared names found in both the Poll Tax and in the Medieval Soldier Databases, in combination with the network connections and landed interests of the captains and commanders of the campaigns in which they served. This provided innovative, new insights into the likely places of origin of the soldiers, which, until now, have been generally unknown. In some cases, other family members and occupations of men who fought in the Hundred Years War, have emerged (See ‘Using the Poll Tax to identify Medieval Archers?’ )[1] The following study examines the Medieval Soldier database from the perspective of an English town in the last quarter of the 14th century, Stamford in Lincolnshire (in the Part of Kesteven). Lincolnshire is in the east midlands of England. The Parts have long been an administrative subdivision of the county. ‘Kesteven’ is said to derive from the Celtic ced (a wood) and the OId Norse stefna (a meeting place). The name Ceostefne became Kestevene by 1194, well before the period of interest in this piece of work. [2] Stamford was selected for this preliminary study because the 1379 Poll Tax list for the town appears intact, and because the castle, manor and town of Stamford had been held for many years by Edmund of Langley.[3] If it were to be the case that men were recruited, or volunteered for military service from one of the estates held by a Lord of the Manor, then it might be possible to find evidence of this by comparing names entered in the Poll Tax for the place, with names on the Soldiers’ database. A study of this type may provide useful pointers towards men who fought in the Hundred Years War with France, from the point of view of a community rather than individual soldiers, researched previously.[4] Edmund of Langley Edmund of Langley (born at Kings Langley Palace, Hertfordshire), lived from 1341-1402, and was the fifth born, but fourth surviving, son of Edward III, King of England, Lord of Ireland and duke of Aquitaine (1312-1377) and his wife, Philippa of Hainault. The first son, William of Hatfield (Yorkshire) died in early infancy in March 1337. Edmund of Langley’s three surviving older brothers were Edward the Black Prince (1330-1376), who predeceased his father; Lionel of Antwerp, 1st duke of Clarence (1338-1368), and John of Gaunt, the first royal duke of Lancaster (1340-1399) who was the father of Henry (Bolingbroke), later King Henry IV (reigned 1399-1413). All of Edward’s surviving sons had military careers during the Hundred Years War. Edmund’s three younger brothers were Thomas of Windsor (1347-1348), William of Windsor (1348-1348), and Thomas of Woodstock, 1st duke of Gloucester (1355-1397).[5] Edmund of Langley was created earl of Cambridge in 1362 when he reached the age of 21, and on 6 August 1385, during the campaign of Richard II to Scotland, was also made the 1st duke of York.[6] He married (i) Isabella of Castile, with whom he had two sons and a daughter, and (ii) Joan Holland (a niece of Richard II), his second cousin once removed, who had no issue.[7] As the son of a king, Edmund was given a number of possessions by his father, including the manor of Stamford, details of which are as follows: “Edmund Langley, fifth son of Edward III, became lord of Stamford: although he was only six years old when his father granted him all of Earl Warenne’s castles, manors and lands beyond the Trent, with the castle and manor of Fotheringhay, Northamptonshire. In 1363 Edmund was given by his father a grant in fee of the castle, manor, and town of Stamford, and of the manor of Grantham.”[8] John de Warenne (7th earl of Surrey) had been lord of Stamford before Edmund succeeded to the title, and in 1342 (16 Edward III) Warenne was “to provide 40 men at arms, and a hundred archers for his service in France; requesting him to be at London in person on the octaves of S. Hilary, there to treat & agree with his council touching the wages for those soldiers in that expedition.”[9] Edmund also acquired lands, estates and manors in Yorkshire, Tynedale (Northumberland), Wiltshire, Essex, Buckinghamshire and Norfolk.[10] In November 1374 he was appointed, together with John de Montfort, duke of Brittany, to be the king’s lieutenant in the duchy of Brittany.[11] His other responsibilities included Governor and Constable of Dover Castle between June 1376 and August 1381,[12] Warden of the Cinque Ports,[13] and Keeper of the Bailiwick of the Forests of Rutland and Leighfield in May 1388.[14] Edmund held two estates in Hertfordshire, the county of his birth: the manor of Hitchen,[15] and the manor and motte and bailey castle of Anstey, East Hertfordshire, of which very little remains.[16] Whereas Langley was commissioner of the Peace for Kent and Wiltshire between 1377 and 1380, it was John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster who held this role for Hertfordshire, for Lincolnshire Kesteven and elsewhere. These appointments were granted to Langley after the date of the 1369 campaign, which was his first.[17] Amongst his other appointments, Edmund held the office of Steward of England between March and August 1399.[18] When he died in 1402, the manor of Stamford passed to his oldest son, Edward of Langley, 2nd duke of York, who was killed at the battle of Agincourt in 1415, without issue.[19] Duke Edward was succeeded by his nephew, Richard, the three- year-old son of Richard, earl of Cambridge, who was Edmund of Langley’s second son, beheaded for treason against King Henry V just as the 1415 expedition was due to set sail. Young Richard (1411-60) was created 3rd duke of York the following year, and in 1459-60 challenged Henry VI’s right to the throne.[20] Langley’s military campaigns occurred during the period 1369 – 1399, only a few years before his death in 1402. He took part in expeditions to Spain with his brother, Edward, The Black Prince in 1367-1369, and later to France during the 1370s. In 1370, Edward the Black Prince laid siege to Limoges, together with Edmund of Langley and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, thereby meaning that three of the sons of Edward III were present together during this campaign. The town was sacked, allegedly with heavy loss of life of its citizens.[21] Langley’s leadership has been described as undistinguished in comparison to his eldest brother, particularly for apparently contributing to the failure of an expedition to Portugal in 1381.[22] Nevertheless, as the son of a medieval king, he clearly had an important role in military matters. Edmund of Langley’s soldiers and the Poll Taxes of 1377-1381 From the point of view of this study, the period of Langley’s military involvement spanned the time from ten years before to twenty years after the Poll Tax lists were compiled, 1377-1381. It follows that the names of some of the men who offered for service under his command might be found in the Poll Tax records for their towns and villages where he had major landed interests, both before the campaigns in which they fought, and afterwards if they survived. Amongst his other campaigns, Langley raised a retinue to fight under the command of his eldest brother, Edward, for one year in 1369 in Aquitaine, as described in the section on this site on Roger Large, soldier.[23] It has been acknowledged by professional historians that discovering the origins of the military personnel serving as archers “is no easy task as military sources of the period rarely, if ever, provide this information.”[24] The Poll Tax lists for Langley’s other Lincolnshire manor, Grantham, have not survived, and so no comparisons with the men from Stamford are possible. Comparing the names of men on Poll Tax lists from places within the estates of Edmund of Langley with those on the Medieval Soldier database, could become part of a further and much larger study, especially when comparing them with areas in which Langley had no interests.[25] According to the surviving records of the Poll Tax, in 1379-1381, the town of Stamford included 196 taxpayers, made up of 170 males, including 42 male servants, of whom all but 2 were without a surname, and 19 female servants, also recorded without a surname. Names of wives were not included, although widows were since they were taxed as individuals. Many occupations were also recorded. The population of Stamford in the Poll taxes illustrates a growing trend of using the trade of the individual as the surname, although we can never be certain whether it was the individual who followed the craft or whether the trade name had been inherited from an ancestor who had followed the craft. Thus, there are examples in the surnames of the tax lists of the medieval spelling of carpenter, skinner, cooper, mason, tailor, glover, tanner, chaloner ( maker or seller of blankets ), baker, fletcher, barber, goldsmith, litsterer ( dyer ), cooper ( maker of barrels ) and others.[26] The Poll Taxes were levied in 1377, 1379 and 1381, all using slightly different criteria. The tax of 1377 was collected during the last parliament of Edward III, when those of fourteen years of age and above were liable to pay one groat (4d., four old pence). According to Carolyn Fenwick, who transcribed the original poll tax records into 3 volumes, the second Poll Tax in 1379, which has been the source of information about Stamford, was probably granted between 27 April and 27 May that year. This tax was to be levied on all lay men, both single and married, and single women, who were aged 16 years and above and was on a sliding scale related to personal wealth. Married couples were taxed as one unit, a change from the arrangements in 1377. The tax was to be between 4d. to 10 marks (£6 13s. 4d.), payable in two instalments. Genuine paupers were excluded. Parliament decreed that individuals liable for taxation should be taxed only in one place. Accounts were to be kept by treasurers appointed for the purpose and county sheriffs were ordered to assist in the collections.[27] For the tax of 1379, the age was raised to sixteen years. In 1381, a third Poll Tax was levied in which the age of payment was fifteen years and over, with a tax of between one and sixty groats (twenty shillings) But the majority paid at the one shilling rate and the tax was on individuals as in 1377, with the special arrangements for taxing married couples as had been the case in 1379.[28] However, an additional challenge in the evaluation of the Poll Tax records concerning the male population of Stamford who might potentially be available for military service arises, namely the difficulty of taking into account men who were not liable to taxation, and whose names did not therefore appear in the records. This would apply equally in other towns and villages in England. As noted previously, the Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381 taxed men and women, dependents and servants, individually. Excluded were the clergy, the populations of the Palatinates of Chester & Durham, the Tin Miners of Devon & Cornwall (Stannary Men), men of the Royal Mint in London and Canterbury, distressed areas and the Cinque Ports. Mendicants (Orders of Friars) were also exempt.[29] Most of these groups were not relevant to Stamford, but members of the Clergy, including Friars, were. In addition to its six Parishes, the town of Stamford had Friaries of five orders, Augustinian, Dominicans Franciscans, Carmelite and ‘Friars of the Sack’ (also Augustinian), who were originally received in London with the Franciscan order.[30] Since none of these men were eligible for taxation, their names and numbers were not included in the tax records of the town, but we could assume they were not likely to be relevant to military service anyway. We also lack the names of the indigent poor, numbers of whom may have been significant in Stamford, given the work amongst the poor of all the Friaries. It is not possible to consider the entire population of Stamford, therefore, since no complete record of this exists for the late 14thcentury. So, for present purposes, 130 male tax payers were included in the study, for whom both a first name and surname were clearly recorded in the Poll Tax list. Each name was cross-referenced against the Medieval Soldier database, which in its first version as used in this paper, contained around 250,000 service records (some men of course served more than once, so this figure reflects fewer individuals). The database is made up of names found in muster rolls (both for expeditionary and garrison service, for which the majority of evidence comes from the English garrisons in Normandy in the fifteenth century) and names of those taking out letters of protection and appointing attorneys, methods by which those intending to serve sought to protect their interests whilst away from home. For a detailed description of the datasets used for the online database see ‘The Soldier in later Medieval England: The Datasets described.’[31] A connection with Edmund Langley was considered potentially significant in view of his undoubted links with Stamford, and the likelihood that some of the men under his command may have been drawn from the parts of the country where he held manors, and had significant landed interests. This, at least, is the hypothesis under consideration in this study. As for the soldiers themselves, males volunteered for paid service in the armies of the crown. Commissions of array were also used to raise defensive troops within the kingdom, all men between the ages of 16-60 years being eligible as long as they were physically fit and well,[32] BUT the Medieval Soldier database only includes the names of those with paid service, which was most commonly outside the realm. The men who made up the companies of soldiers were formed into ‘mixed retinues’ of men-at-arms and archers, mostly mounted, rather than being on foot. They had been recruited by captains who were in a contractual relationship with the Crown, and drawn from across the whole of England and Wales.[33] In the Medieval Soldier database, the names of soldiers were recorded as follows: surname, first name, rank, place of service, the captain and commander under whom they served, the year of service and source reference. It should be noted, however, that letters of protection and appointments of attorney generally concern only men of higher status who had something that needed these legal protections. Archers did take out letters of protection, although in smaller numbers.[34] Soldiers from Stamford A discussion about men from Stamford recorded on the Poll Tax lists who may have enlisted for military service now follows. (There is always some danger in assuming that the individuals in the two sources are the same individual but this study assumes that the name matches are close enough for some confidence in this case.) The men have been assigned into one of two Groups: Group 1 The first group of Stamford men includes 9 individuals from the tax-paying population of the town whose names were found both in the Poll Tax lists of 1379 and on one single occasion in the Medieval Soldier database. They are shown in the Table, where the men are listed in the chronological order in which they served. Group 1: Men of Stamford, Lincolnshire, from the 1379 Poll Tax, against the Medieval Soldier database. Listed in order of the year of action from 1371 – 1400. § a ‘ dyker ’ was a man who dug ditches §§ a ‘ chaloner ’ was a maker or seller of blankets. The word also appears as a surname (Robert Chaloner). The men paid tax as shown: two of them paid 4d, six paid 6d. and the last, paid 2s. This is a very small group of taxpayers from which to draw any useful conclusions about the tax paid and the rank assigned, but there is no obvious connection between the tax recorded and the subsequent military rank. Thus, the man at arms paid 6d. whereas the archers paid 4d or 6d and in one case, 2s. Single examples of names are considered highly significant in the search for men who offered for military service from the Stamford area of Lincolnshire, and they may serve as useful examples should a more extensive study ever be conducted around this theme. These cases are exactly comparable to that of the archer, Simon Large, who paid 4d tax in 1379 at the ‘villa de’ Groby, Leicestershire, and whose name was found only once in the entire Poll Tax records for England, and on one occasion in the Medieval Soldier database.[35] Large fought under the captaincy of Sir Michael de la Pole, later 1st earl of Suffolk, on the campaign commanded by Thomas Woodstock (1355-1397), earl of Buckingham and later 1st duke of Gloucester, who was Langley’s younger brother. As can be seen from the table, 6 of the Stamford men were archers, 1 was a man-at-arms, and in the remaining 2 cases, the rank was not recorded, although archers were enlisted in the greatest numbers so we could perhaps assume that is how they served. Particular attention is drawn to the case of Thomas de Walyngton , who served under Langley and John de Montfort, duke of Brittany, in a Naval Expedition in 1375. A comment about the surname appears below. This endeavour was in fulfilment of Edmund’s appointment, with de Montfort, as joint king’s lieutenants in Brittany. Their force embarked from Southampton in early 1375, with plans to attack the French fleet before St. Sauveur-le- Vicomte, in the Cotentin in Normandy. Unfavourable winds forced them to disembark near St. Mathieu, where they captured the town, before marching to St. Pol de Léon, which they successfully stormed. Further sieges took place before a truce was agreed at Bruges in June 1375. Edmund then returned home with the English fleet.[36] This brief summary of events supplements the evidence that Thomas de Walyngton served under Edmund of Langley on the expedition of 1375, and that he came from Stamford, where Edmund was lord of the manor. Robert Prat , merchant, served under the retinue captain, Sir Ralph de Ferrariis, Keeping the Sea in 1371-1372. William Cony paid 6d. tax, and one example of the name is recorded in the database, showing service as an archer under Sir John Darundell and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, in the Naval Expedition of 1378. This is the same campaign, captain, commander and year as that in which John Large, archer, fought.[37] John Bytham , tailor, enlisted as a man-at-arms under the command of Richard Fitzalan [4th earl of] Arundel (1346-97). As Admiral of England, Fitzalan, with Thomas de Mowbray, defeated a combined fleet of Spanish, French and Flemish ships off the coast near Margate in March 1387, the circumstances and date implying that Bytham took part in this naval battle.[38] William de Salteby, described in the Poll tax as a dyker ( ditcher ), served as an archer under Thomas de Mowbray, 1st duke of Norfolk and earl of Nottingham, in 1389-1390 in the Standing Force in Scotland (East March). He could have had more than one role during his period of military service. As a dyker or ditcher, he could have had an important additional role, because the English troops often dug ditches in the field of battle to unseat mounted enemy troops and cause foot soldiers to stumble and fall during their advance. This is exactly what would be expected of men with useful trades to offer their captains, as has been the case in battles and wars before and since. Mowbray had distanced himself from the court in 1387-1388, becoming one of the lords’ appellants by accusing a group of the king’s closest advisers of treason. In early 1389, Mowbray was reconciled with the king (Richard II), and became warden of the east march towards Scotland, a post which included the custody of the border castles of Berwick and Roxburgh. In addition, he was awarded £12,000 a year, agreeing to recruit 400 men-at-arms and 800 archers to serve with him for the months of June and July 1389.[39] It is virtually certain that William de Salteby was one of Mowbray’s archers during in this campaign. No definite connection has been found between Langley and Mowbray other than the evidence that Mowbray had fought alongside Admiral Fitzalan in the naval battle of 1387, and that he had royal apartments at Eltham and at Kings Langley Palaces, the latter having been the place where Edmund of Langley was born.[40] Two other men named Salteby, Robert and John, appear in the same campaign according to the muster roll.[41] These three men may have been related, but only William’s name appears in the Stamford tax lists. The others may have lived nearby, but in places where the Poll Tax lists have not survived. In terms of local geography, Saltby, the village from which the surname was derived, lies 20 miles north west of Stamford, and 9 miles south west of Grantham. Edmund of Langley held the manors of both Stamford and Grantham, although Poll Tax lists have survived only for Stamford. It could be argued that the Salteby men enlisted in one or other of the larger towns in their vicinity where they may have found employment. Richard Gardner served in a Naval Expedition sometime during the reign of Richard II 1377-99, but the muster roll does not identity when exactly. Robert Chaloner , maker or seller of blankets, archer, served under Henry IV (in Scotland in 1400), two years before Langley’s death. John Cupper , an archer fought under the captaincy of Thomas de Radcliffe, commanded by Henry IV, in Scotland in 1400. The names of the two archers, Chaloner and Cupper , both fought in actions led by the king, in the same year and in Scotland. Their names were found at the same TNA reference and on consecutive membranes, suggesting they may have enlisted in the same place, presumably Stamford, Lincolnshire, where Henry’s father, John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, had been commissioner of the Peace for Lincolnshire Kesteven. This indicates another network connection of the commanders for other archers enlisting from Stamford. Roger Walker paid 6d. tax and enlisted as an archer under the captaincy of Sir Harry Ferrys for Henry IV’s expedition to Scotland in June 1400. The captain has not been researched in detail, but he may have been a member of the Ferrers family, Lords of Groby, Leicestershire, who used the first name Henry. Duplicate, identical entries were found for Walker in the Muster Roll, and for this reason, his name has been included in Group 1 rather than Group 2. His case also shows that men of Stamford offered for military service in more than one retinue and under more than one captain, which, although not particularly surprising, would be of interest in the general understanding of enlistment practices in the late 14th and early 15th century. These 9 individuals out of the 130 tax-payers of Stamford (6.9%) are men whose names appeared only once on both Poll Tax and Medieval Soldier lists, strongly suggesting they were the individuals, archers and men-at-arms who enlisted from this Lincolnshire town during the period 1371 to 1400. Only one of them served under Langley in person. Group 2 The names of the following 16 men recorded in the Poll Tax lists for Stamford were found on the Medieval Soldier database on more than one occasion. Twelve show a clear-cut connection with Edmund of Langley on one of these entries. They are included here partly because one of the entries in the Medieval Soldier database show service under Langley, and partly because they may have been Stamford residents. However, the complexity of this group of men warrants a description rather than including them in a table. Several attempts to tabulate the group were made, but none was satisfactory or easy to interpret. It is important to note the 12 examples which had a direct connection with Langley and served under his command, the 13th had a slightly more tenuous connection through Langley’s brother, and the last, does not appear to have served under Langley, although he probably came from Stamford. Special attention is drawn to John Wright , carpenter, who took out letters of protection for service in a garrison in Aquitaine in 1369.[42] There are, however, 16 entries of this name in the Medieval Soldier database, including one of a man who served in the Aquitaine Standing Force for a year from 28 February 1369 under Langley (the same garrison, year, date and membrane on which the name of Roger Large appears). In view of the striking similarities, these two entries are almost certain to refer to the same man. This is not to imply that Wright and Large were connected in any way, but to point out that the names of some men appear on the same membrane, apparently by coincidence. On the other hand, in the earlier work, a soldier named Roger Large also served under Edmund of Langley for one year in 1369, and the evidence suggested he could have originated in the Aswardhurn Wapentake of Lincolnshire.1 This district was very close to Kesteven, Lincolnshire, and their Poll Tax lists follow one after the other,[43] It is worth noting that another John Wright served under Michael de la Pole and Langley in the Standing Force in England, as an archer in 1399, for which the term Valettus (yeoman) was commonly used in this period.[44] This second individual served 30 years after his namesake, suggesting they might have been two different men and not one, although this is not inevitable, given that men enlisted up to the age of 60 years.[45] Had the younger man survived and paid tax, he could have re-enlisted by 1399, and this is a plausible explanation, given the connection with Langley in both cases. The alternative explanation is that they were father and son, with the same first name, enlisting 30 years apart. The fact that more than one example of the name of John Wright has been found in the databases, has meant that he has been included in Group 2. Walter Taillour, tailor, paid 6d. tax, and two examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. In the first case he served as archer under Sir William de Windsor (who married Alice de Ferrers, mistress of Edward III), in June 1380. This expedition to France was commanded by Thomas Woodstock, duke of Gloucester.[46] The second entry of a Walter Taillour registers service as an archer in the 1417 expedition to France led by Henry V under Sir John Tiptoft. The apparent rarity of the name suggests that the two entries probably refer to the same individual serving in two campaigns, several years apart, commanded by two sons of kings. However, in view of a measure of doubt, however slight, he has been included in Group 2 rather than Group 1. In any case, Walter Taillour did not serve under Langley. John Taillour , son of Walter Taillour , tailor, paid 4d. tax. A total of 61 examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database but 4 examples concern serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the 1375 Expedition to France mentioned above. These entries may all refer to the same individual from Stamford. [47] Adam Taillour , tailor, paid 6d. tax. 14 examples of the name appear, all in the Muster Roll, but none corresponds to Walter and John Taillour , who may possibly have been his brother and nephew. However, one man named Adam Taillour served as archer under Sir Percy Thomas and John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, in the 1378 Naval Expedition.[48] This is the same roll as that on which William Cony , archer, was recorded, in the campaign commanded by Gaunt (see Table above). The coincidence may suggest that this Adam Taillour is the Stamford resident, one of a trio of family tailors living in the Parish of St John. He may also have fought as an archer under Hugh Curtays and Sir Stephen le Scrope in 1395-1397, in the Standing Force in Ireland,[49] and even later under John of Lancaster, later duke of Bedford, third surviving son of Henry IV, at Berwick garrison in 1403-1404.[50] Richard Taillour , tailor, paid 6d. tax. There are 27 examples of this name in the Medieval Soldier database. One man with the name served as an archer under Langley after he became duke of York, in 1399 in the Standing Force in England, the troops which Langley raised ostensibly for the defence of Richard II’s kingdom: but in the event, Langley accepted Henry IV’s coup.[51] This is the same company which included the names of J ohn Wright, John Forster and William Cony . The implication is that Stamford was a place where several men enlisted for service for this campaign under the command of Edmund of Langley, who was lord of the manor. John Brice paid 6d. tax. Five examples of the name appear in muster evidence, and six men of this name took out letters of protection. However, in five of the latter cases, the county of origin is recorded; 3 from Norfolk and 2 from Suffolk, thereby excluding them from further consideration, and illustrating another potential challenge in a study of this kind which handles incomplete records. Of the remaining examples of men named John Brice , one was a man-at- arms under Sir William de Neville in the 1374 Naval Expedition.[52] Another was an archer under Richard FitzAlan, earl of Arundel,[53] and another, an archer under Henry V in 1415 in the Agincourt campaign.[54] A final example sees John Brice as archer ( Valettus ) under the captaincy of Ralph Eyton of Ardenne and the command of Henry V, also in the Expedition of 1415.[55] These entries are unlikely all to refer to the same man, and although one of them paid his Poll Tax in Stamford, none served under Langley. John Fletcher , fletcher, paid 6d. tax. 16 examples of this name are recorded in the Muster Roll dataset, and he is another good example of a surname having been adopted from a trade. Two of the names show service as an archer under Langley and Despenser, recorded on consecutive membranes, suggesting duplicate entries.[56] There are 69 examples of the surname Fletcher in the Medieval Soldier database. Fletchers were recruited during the course of the war for obvious reasons, and it is likely that John Fletcher of Stamford was one of them. John Sherman , sherman ( a man who shears ), paid 6d. tax. One of 16 examples of the name served as archer ( Valettus ) under Michael de la Pole and Langley in the 1399 Standing Force in England.[57] This is the same campaign in which William Cony served (see the Table above). John Forster , butcher, paid 6d. tax. One of 53 examples in the Medieval Soldier database shows a man serving as archer under Langley as part of the Standing Force in England in 1399.[58] This is the same campaign, commander, year and roll as the case of John Wright above, suggesting that both men may have enlisted from Stamford. John Broun , described in the Poll Tax as ‘menuw merchant’, paid 3s.4d. tax; he was clearly a wealthy individual who paid more Poll Tax than all his fellow townsfolk, (except Johannes de la Panetre, Esquire, of the Parish of St Andrew, Stamford, who paid 20s.0d. tax). In view of the uncertainty about this trade, The National Archives was consulted. The original 1379 Poll Tax record for Stamford, Lincolnshire was examined (E179/135/76/1 c.1), and the transcription was exactly as suggested by Carolyn Fenwick. In Anglo-Norman French ‘menuw’ means ‘middling’ or ‘intermediate’. It can also mean “minor” or “small.” It follows that a menuw(e) Merchant is one who dealt in small things, such as a Haberdasher.[59] Furthermore, the 1379 Poll Tax list for Stamford included the names of a total of 6 “menuw merchants,including John Broun . This suggests a town which was active in the trade, possibly acting as a centre for outlying villages which were too small to maintain a group of tradesmen of this type. Ninety-three examples of the name John Broun occurred, and one of them served as a man-at-arms under Langley and John of Brittany with Edward Despenser as captain, in the 1375 Expedition to France.[60] A John Broun also served as an archer under Langley in 1375.[61] John Sharp , servant of John Broun , merchant, paid 4d. tax. Four examples of the name occurred in the Medieval Soldier database, serving as archer under Langley, John duke of Brittany and Lord Despenser, in the 1375 Expedition to France.[62] A second entry identical to the first, suggests a duplicate. Two further identical entries of John Sharp also appear under the same captain and commander, in the same Expedition and year.[63] These four entries are probably the same individual, despite the relative frequency of the name, since the entry of Sharp is in the same campaign and roll as his master as noted in the Poll Tax, John Broun . This may be more than coincidence, suggesting master and servant both enlisted, arguably at the same time, in which case, the servant continued his duties in the field, both of them under the command of Edmund of Langley. The presence in battle of a master with his servant probably means that Broun was the man-at-arms, clad in plate armour. He would have needed help to put on and take off the armour, hence the servant at his side, acting as his Squire. John Broun , the merchant, also had a female servant, called Johanna (surname not given). There is no record of her name anywhere in the entire database, confirming that she did not go to France with her master and his servant, John Sharp , but remained in Stamford. The 1375 Expedition to France was the same venture in which Thomas de Walyngton served, and he definitely came from Stamford. It is reasonable to conclude, therefore, that Broun and his servant, Sharp , also came from Stamford. John Grene paid 4d tax. 101 examples of this name were recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. Despite the caution needed in dealing with such a common name, there was one example of a John Grene serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the Naval Expedition of 1375,[64] and a second example in a later reference.[65] None of the other examples of men with his name saw service under Langley, although a William Grene served under Langley in 1381 for one year on military duties overseas in Northern France.[66] However, in a letter of protection he is described as of Newcastle under Lyme, Staffordshire, about 90 miles north-west of Stamford. No evidence of a family link is likely to be discovered, although the possibility cannot be completely excluded. The 1375 Naval Expedition therefore also included John Grene , suggesting that he, too, came from Stamford, where Thomas de Walyngton also paid tax, and whose name has become a key piece of evidence in support of the hypothesis. John Baker , servant, paid 4d. tax. 122 examples of this name occurred in the Medieval Soldier database, so great care is inevitably required in the interpretation of his entries. However, a man with the name served in the Standing Force in England under de la Pole and Langley, as a Yeoman archer in 1399,[67] a similar entry to that of John Wright , above. John Barbour , barber, paid 6d. tax. A total of 147 examples of this name are recorded in the Medieval Soldier database. One man with the name served as man-at-arms under Langley and Despenser in the Expedition to France of 1375.[68] And so he, too, arguably came from Stamford, with his comrades, Thomas de Walyngton, John Broun, John Sharp and John Grene . John Barbour was the only barber in Stamford paying tax in 1379. Thomas Storme paid 6d. tax in 1379. One example of his name is recorded in the Muster Roll (TNA), in which he served under Sir Thomas Swinburne in 1405 in Bordeaux, although his rank was not given.[69] It is therefore virtually certain that he was the man from Stamford. However, since the original work for this project began, some additional entries have been added to the Garrisons’ database, and the name of Thomas Storme now appears in two Garrisons, both in Normandy, where he served as an archer. The first was at the Garrison of Bayeux under the captaincy of Sir William Breton in 1425.[70] And the second, at the Garrison of Avranches, under Thomas Burgh, in 1429.[71] These two entries are extremely close together, within the same roll, suggesting that the two entries of Thomas Storme referred to the same individual, 4 years apart. For the purposes of assessing the possibility of Stamford men serving in the army, however, these two years, 1425 and 1429, are significantly distant from the year of the 1379 Poll Tax. It follows that it is unlikely that they both refer to the Stamford man serving in 1405. In any case, Edmund of Langley died in 1402, and so Storme could not have served under his command. It is for this reason that Thomas Storme has been assigned to Group 2 rather than Group 1. The extreme rarity of the name suggests that these entries may refer to a father and his son, or another younger male relative with the name. John Chester paid 6d. tax in Stamford in 1379. He was a Chaloner ( a maker or seller of blankets ), and was, according to the Agincourt Roll (a late sixteenth century roll of those at the battle, deriving it seems from a lost roll of the period), a man-at-arms under the captaincy of Sir John Gray and the command of Henry V on the 1415 campaign. On this roll his name was entered as John de Chester, implying a place of origin, although perhaps several generations before.[72] His name also appears on two occasions as an Archer at the Garrison of Vernon, Normandy, both under the captaincy of John Burgh, in 1423,[73] and 1424.[74]These two names were both entered without the “de,” as was also the case in the Stamford Poll Tax list. As we saw in the case of Thomas Storme above, these two references are extremely close together on the same roll, suggesting that they, too, refer to the same individual named John Chester. And the comments made about Storme apply equally to John Chester. Perhaps an earlier member of the Chester family came from the town of Chester. Of the 16 men, 11 (68.8%) discussed here were directly under Langley’s command, and may all have come from his manor of Stamford, since their names were also included in the Poll Tax list for the town. In his detailed account of the history of Stamford, the eighteenth century antiquarian, Francis Peck (1692-1743), has provided valuable additional information on some of the residents of the town at about the time of the Poll Taxes. For example, in July 1377, the year in which Richard II held a council of war in Stamford, ‘Thomas de Wadingtoun of Staunford, gave to John Broun of Staunford, W. de Melton parson the church of S. Paul at Staunford, & to John Bonde of the same, one message situate in the parish of S. Mary at the bridge, with one curtilage adjacent (an area of land attached to a house and enclosed)…’ [75] The name John Broun, or Brown in its modern spelling, occurs only once in the entire 1379 Poll Tax list for Stamford, and a review of all the names of those who paid tax in Stamford that year, shows that only Thomas de Walyngton (as his name was transcribed in the published version), could possibly have been the man, de Wadingtoun. No other names are similar in any way, and so it is proposed that Thomas de Walyngton/ Wadingtoun and John Broun, merchant, are the men included in Peck’s account. In 1379, Thomas de Walyngton/Wadingtoun (Group 1), together with John Broun and his servant, John Sharp (Group 2), all lived in the parish of St. Paul, Stamford, and enjoyed a special social status within the community. Group 1 includes those men who enlisted, and Group 2, those who may well have enlisted by virtue of the connection of one of their names in the Medieval Soldier database with Edmund of Langley. The name of John Brown/Broun was also recorded as ‘Alderman of Stanford this 8. & 9. R[ichard] II (1385/6), noting that Edmund Langley E. of Cambridge [lord of Stanford] for his service in the Scotch wars, & many other great services, having highly merited, was advanced to the dignity & title of duke of York (the parliament then sitting) his charter bearing date 6. Aug. 9 R[ichard] II. Whereby he also had 100 l. per annum out of the customs of wools, skins, & pelts in Kingston super Hull, as also 500l. per annum out of the port of London, until a £1000 yearly, in lands & rents, could be settled upon him’.[76] This close association between Langley and the town and citizens of Stamford is worth emphasising, since it makes it all the more likely that he would have enlisted men from the town to serve in his retinues. It is also worth noting that William Styandeby, merchant, who paid 6s.8d. tax in 1379, was named with Edward Styandeby, as Aldermen of Stamford in 45 Edward III (1371/23). ‘They were perhaps brothers and successively aldermen in this town.’ [77] Neither of their names appears in the Medieval Soldier database. Were they perhaps too old to enlist or excluded from military service on the basis of their civic duties, or some other reason? Two further names are also included in this study: John Tidde of Stamford, paid 4d tax in 1379. No examples of the name are found anywhere in the Medieval Soldier database. However, a single example of the name Reginald Tidde occurs, serving as an archer under Langley and Despenser in the 1375 Naval Expedition.[78] This is the same roll on which the names of John Broun and his servant, John Sharp, were recorded, suggesting a possible connection and a common place of origin. In recent surname mapping projects, the equivalent modern name, Tidd, was most common in Norfolk, to the south east of Lincolnshire, and Tideswell occurred in Staffordshire and adjacent Nottinghamshire, a county which borders on Lincolnshire to the west.[79] In view of the extreme rarity of this medieval surname and the service connection, it may be that Reginald Tidde was killed in action, and hence did not appear in the Poll Tax lists, and that John was his father, son, brother or cousin, since the evidence suggests that Stamford was their home town. On the other hand, we cannot exclude the possibility that the older Tidde died of natural causes between 1375 and 1379. In addition, the Medieval Soldier database includes one man for whom Stamford is actually recorded as his place of origin, and so is of particular interest in the study: this was John Ady who was intending to serve under Michael de la Pole from June 1385 in Scotland.[80] This confirms that Stamford men undoubtedly did enlist for military service, and under other captains and commanders. De la Pole and Langley led a Standing Force in England in 1399 in which 4 other men included in this study, John Wright, John Sherman, John Forster and John Baker, all served, showing a close connection between these two military leaders. However, a note of caution needs to be added here, because Ady’s name does not appear in the Poll Tax lists for Stamford. Did he perhaps live in a village near Stamford during the period 1377-1381, rather than in the town itself, but went to Stamford to ‘enlist?’ The information known about him from the two sources at least bears this interpretation. He could not be included in Group 1, because Stamford was not given as the place in which he paid tax. The databases also include names of men from Lincolnshire who enlisted under other captains, and where their origins have been recorded: Lincoln, Louth, Gainsborough, Grantham, Spalding, Wrangle, Dunsby and Rippingale, adjacent villages in Lincolnshire, approximately 12 miles north east of Stamford. The number of men known to have enlisted from this part of Lincolnshire appears relatively small, but even for men-at-arms who secured letters of protection, only 12 were from Lincolnshire. On the other hand, of the 4493 names of men-at-arms entered on this database, only 455 (10.1%) include the county and/or place of origin, including London, the Isle of Wight and Wales. By far the majority of the places listed are in southern and midland counties of England, and so the apparent scarcity of volunteers from Lincolnshire is not completely unexpected. Conclusion Stamford, Lincolnshire was one of relatively few manors held by Edmund of Langley by the date of the Poll Taxes, particularly in comparison with his siblings. This study shows that of the 27 of its male inhabitants, 9 from Group 1 who definitely enlisted, 11 of the 16 from Group 2, and the 2 other examples, Tidde and Ady , may well have enlisted for military service from Stamford under Langley. Two of these men, Thomas de Walyngton (Group 1), and John Wright (Group 2), undoubtedly served under Langley in person, because the Muster Roll confirms this. Six men from Stamford served in the army under other captains, as shown in the Table, since single examples of their names were found in the Medieval Soldier database. Fourteen men with Stamford Poll Tax names have more than one entry in the Databases, including 11 which were linked directly with Langley. The final candidates, John and Reginald Tidde and John Ady , all have connections with either Langley or Stamford, or both. Estimating the numbers of the male population of Stamford who may have enlisted for military service in one campaign or another is difficult and fraught with challenges, since the Poll Tax lists only those who paid tax. The names of men in groups not eligible for taxation, noted above, do not appear in the records, and so cannot be incorporated into any estimate of numbers enlisting at a population level. However, most of them (including clergy and friars) would not have been eligible for military service, unless they volunteered. In addition, the surnames of only 2 of the 42 male servants in the town were recorded, and so the others could not be checked either. John Sharp , servant of John Broun , merchant, is one of the notable exceptions. Taking this into account, the 9 men who enlisted from Stamford out of the list of 130 taxpayers, represents 6.9% of the males who paid tax in 1379. This is a significant percentage especially if it were representative of other places in the country which had close connections with a royal commander or an aristocratic captain. In the unexpected event that all the 27 men (Group 1 = 9, + Group 2 = 16, +2 [Tidde & Ady])) noted above enlisted at the same time, this would represent 20.8 % of the male taxpayers of the town, and which could inevitably have had a huge impact on its trading and commercial activities. Many livelihoods and families would have been put at serious risk. However, all the Stamford men in Group 1 and most of those in Group 2 enlisted between 1371 and 1400, that is, over a time span of almost 30 years. It goes almost without saying that had all the men left home at the same time, the town would have been depleted of its male population and work force. As it was, the enlistments occurred over a period of three decades, and so the proportion of Stamford’s male population in military service at any one time, and the likely impact on the town, would have been reduced. It is not known how many of the men survived the war and returned to live in Stamford, but it is likely that some, or perhaps many of them, did. On the other hand, the losses of great numbers of men from ‘The Pals Battalions’ in The Great War, especially at the start of The Battle of the Somme in July 1916, is worth noting. The ‘Pals’ were formed by groups of men from the same community to provide mutual support, and their losses had exactly this impact on their towns. These men had lived and worked in the same towns, and they were killed in action together on the Western Front, as well. The numbers of visitors to the Somme Battlefields during the summer of 2016, a hundred years after the slaughter provided a grim reminder of the reality of wartime catastrophes of this sort, one consequence of which was that women from the worst affected towns were employed to carry-out the work their men-folk had undertaken before the outbreak of war in 1914. Much the same would probably have occurred in the late fourteenth century in rural towns such as Stamford: how could it have been otherwise? Furthermore, the devastation wreaked on Stamford by the Black Death of 1348/9, some 30 years earlier, must inevitably have led to a significant decline in population, because Lincolnshire and East Anglia were amongst the worst affected areas of England, with an estimated mortality rate of at least 30%.[81] The thirty years to the time of the Poll Taxes, an interval of one generation, was scarcely sufficient time to restore the town’s working population before the demands made upon it by the Wars with France. This was particularly the case for Stamford, Lincolnshir e, with its close connections with Edmund of Langley, who would have expected men living within his manors and lands, to enlist. This preliminary study is an example of the potential value of a novel and innovative method of comparing names recorded in the Poll Tax lists and the Medieval Soldier database in attempting to discover the identities of the men who enlisted from one rural English town. Stamford, Lincolnshire, was selected for the study because it was one of the landed estates of Edmund of Langley, later 1st duke of York, for which the Poll Tax records appear intact, making the comparison of names in the two lists, more likely to be useful. During the first study of archers named ‘Large’ it was clear that the presence of network connections of the captain of the retinue and/or his commander, and their landed interests, were crucial. Without these, it would have been difficult to decide which man in a Poll Tax list corresponded with a man with the same name in the Medieval Soldier database. There was no difficulty in the case of Simon Large, archer, where only one example of the name was found in both lists. But for cases where there was more than one example of a name in the Soldiers’ Databases, the network connections of the senior officers proved invaluable in helping to assign the likely origin of the soldier. That, at least, was the hypothesis being tested. There are certain similarities in this study of men from Stamford. Had it been the case that considerable numbers of Stamford men enlisted under Langley, the conclusions would have been much more obvious: the network connections of the captains and commanders are relevant and crucial to discovering the origins of the archers. One of the 5 men in Group 1 of the Stamford Poll Tax list whose commanders were identified, definitely served under Langley, namely Thomas de Walyngton . Although this amounts to 20% of the men in whom only one example of the name was found in both the Poll Tax list and the Medieval Soldier database, such a small number makes it difficult to draw conclusions about enlistment patterns at a population level. Or does it? If the hypothesis could be tested on a larger scale, it might be found that the percentage of men enlisting under Langley from his other manors, was significant, suggesting that the strategy of linking men whose names are found in the Poll Tax, with their captains and commanders in the Medieval Soldier database, is valid. And this would apply not solely to individuals, but to populations as well. Group 2 includes 16 men from the Poll Tax list selected for study. This Group is more complex because more than one entry was found for their names in the Medieval Soldier database, although the presence of duplicate entries complicates the analysis to some extent. They have been included because of convincing connections of one of the entries with Langley, or in 3 cases ( Adam Taillour, Robert Chaloner and John Cupper ), with Langley’s older brother, John of Gaunt. In Taillour’s case, it is worth noting that John of Gaunt held the role of Commissioner of the Peace for Hertfordshire, for Lincolnshire Kesteven and elsewhere, rather than his younger brother, Edmund of Langley. To emphasise and clarify the point further, Chaloner and Cupper, were both under the command of King Henry IV (Gaunt’s oldest son) in Expeditions to Scotland in 1400, no doubt another example of a network connection being applied to another royal prince, whose son later became king. In other words, Gaunt and his family used their own network connections to recruit men for their own retinues in the same way as did Edmund of Langley. Where the number of examples of a Poll Tax name which is also found in the Medieval Soldier database is small, as in the cases of John Sharp, John Fletcher and Richard Taillour , their origins in Stamford may be proposed with a fair degree of confidence. In other examples, where numbers of entries in the databases are high, this conclusion may be less secure, unless, they had convincing evidence of connections with Langley. Undertaking a more extensive study of the origins of men who served under Langley using the Poll Tax lists for other towns and villages, would be of interest, and might well demonstrate that the men who enlisted under his command, did indeed come preferentially from areas where he held manors and estates. This is what would be would be predicted if the hypothesis is correct. The results would need to be compared with Poll Tax names from areas of the country in which he had no interests. If the names and places in the Poll Tax records were to be digitised, then meaningful comparisons with names on the Medieval Soldier database would be feasible on a much bigger scale, and be potentially, of significant interest. In the years since the Soldiers’ Database was created and made available for general as well as specialist use, a great deal has been written by members of the original team and others, to advance our understanding of many aspects of the military affairs of the period.[82] However, there is still potential value in small-scale projects such as this, to test hypotheses about how best to identify individual soldiers, especially from the lower ranks (archers), and also to examine patterns of enlistment from discrete communities such as Stamford, Lincolnshire. In conclusion, it is proposed that the 9 men whose names appear on one single occasion in both the Poll Tax list for Stamford and the Soldiers’ Databases, are one and the same individual, and their origins from Stamford, Lincolnshire, can be confidently assigned. This is an important new finding which has implications for the places of origin of medieval soldiers throughout the length and breadth of England. If the hypothesis proposed in the first study “Using the Poll Tax to identify Medieval Archers?” that enlistment under a commander was likely to occur from places where he had landed interests is valid for populations as well as for individual soldiers, then at least some of the men in Group 2, especially those who took part in the 1375 Naval expedition to France, arguably came from Stamford as well. It follows that connecting men named in a Poll Tax list with a military endeavour under a named commander, may also be an invaluable route to discovering their origins. Populations are made up of many individuals, after all. If this were to be the case, then the conclusions would go some way to satisfying “Ockham’s Razor.” William of Ockham/Occam (1287-1347) was a English Franciscan Friar, philosopher and theologian, who is said to have employed the statement “ Pluralitas non-est ponenda sine necessitate ,”[83] which may be loosely paraphrased as “in a complex argument, the simplest solution is likely to be correct.” It is worth recalling that William died in 1347, the year after The Battle of Crécy, so he was a contemporary of the conflicts between the English and the French during the early stages of The Hundred Years War. It follows that making comparisons of names from the Poll Tax lists and the Soldiers’ database is a fruitful method of discovering not only the identities of individuals, together with their places of origin and their trades, but also of revealing clusters of men from the same town, which the evidence presented here suggests, served in the same retinues, and under the same leaders. This appears to be the case for the campaigns of 1375 and 1399. Finding groups of several men who volunteered together from the same town may be a valuable way of discovering more of the way in which captains and commanders recruited their men. “Ockham’s Razor” also applies to this finding. The two ‘outliers’ Tidde and Ady are a special case, and in future studies, similar examples would need to be dealt with in a slightly different way. Questions remain about the men of Stamford who offered for service in other retinues and under different commanders, although this was not unexpected given comparable patterns of enlistment in later conflicts. This aspect was beyond the scope of this study, although it would also be amenable to testing on a wider scale. Concerns continue about how best to deal with common surnames especially when such names have multiple entries in the Medieval Soldier database. It is hoped that future work based on the results of this study may reveal more of the origins, families and occupations of English archers from the towns and villages of England, who fought in The Hundred Years War. Acknowledgements: I am very grateful to Professors Adrian R. Bell and Anne Curry for their encouragement, helpful advice and support during the work for this study. David M Large. References and Sources [1] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [2] Kesteven. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesteven [3] Bertrum Wolffe, The Royal Demesne in English History: The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509. Routledge Library Editions. First Edition, 30 September 1971, Appendix A, p. 243. Courtesy of Amanda Pickering, Assistant Operations Manager, Customer Services, Leeds University Library, Leeds, Yorkshire. [4] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [5] Edward III of England. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_III_of_England [6] G. E. Cokayne, with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), Volume XII/2, page 897. [7] Edmund of Langley, 1st duke of York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_of_Langley,_1st_duke_of_York [8] John Drakard, The History of Stamford, in the County of Lincoln: Comprising its Ancient, Progressive, and Modern State, with an Account of St Martin’s, Stamford Baron and Great & Little Wothorp, Northamptonshire. Printed by and for John Drakard,1822. p. 58: Wolffe, ibid. Appendix A, p.243. [9] Francis Peck, Academia tertia Anglicana; or, the Antiquarian Annals of the Town of Stan/mford in Lincoln, Rutland, andNorthampton Shires. 1727, Book XI, p. 37. [10] Francis Blomefield, An Essay towards the Topographical History of the County of Norfolk. 1805. British History On-line. Castle Rising near King’s Lynn, the manor of Hadeston Bainard, Launditch and South Greenhoe hundred, and the manors of Beeston and Mileham, acquired from Richard, earl of Arundel, attained, Volume 2, pp. 406-409. South Greenhoe and Launditch hundreds, Volume 5, pp. 1-3. Volume 9, pp. 42-59. Volume 10, pp. 15-25; Tuck, Anthony, ‘Edmund, first duke of York (1341–1402)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, Sept 2004; online edition, Jan 2008 [ http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16023 ]: Peck, ibid, Liber XIII, p. 5. [11] Charles L. Kingsford, Langley, Edmund de, fist duke of York. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Vol. 32, quoting Rymer’s Fœdera, vii. 49, original edition. [12] Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 895. [13] Edward Hasted, The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent. British History On line: Volume 9. pp. 475-548. On-line; CPR. Richard II, vol. 1, p. 7, 1377. [14] William Page, The Victoria History of the County of Rutland. A. Constable and Co. Ltd. 1869-1934. vol. 1, pp. 16, On-line edition: Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 897. [15] Peck, ibid, Liber XIII, p. 5. [16] Wolffe., ibid, p.243. Courtesy of Amanda Pickering, Assistant Operations Manager, Customer Services, Leeds University Library, Leeds, Yorkshire: Anstey motte and bailey castle, https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the- list/list-entry/1009453 quoting D. Renn, Medieval Castles in Hertfordshire, (1971), 13, and Andrews. R T, TEHAS Excavation Report, (1903). TL 43 SW22, Information from NAR (TL 43 SW22). [17] CPR, Edward III, vol. 16, p. 491 & 490 (1377); CPR Richard II, vol. 1, p. 512 (1380). [18] Complete Peerage, volume XII/2, page 898. [19] Rosemary Horrox, Edward [Edward of Langley, Edward of York], second duke of York. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Read on-line at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/22356 [20] Drakard, ibid, pp. 63-64. [21] Peck, Book XI, p. 65; Siege of Limoges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Limoges [22] Anthony Tuck, Edmund [Edmund of Langley], first duke of York (1341–1402), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004/2008. Read on-line. https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/16023 [23] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [24] G. P. Baker, ‘To Agincourt and beyond! The martial affinity of Edward of Langley, second duke of York (c.1373–1415)’, Journal of Medieval History, 43 (201x), 40–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03044181.2016.1236500 , p. 47, quoting Anne Curry, The Battle of Agincourt. Sources and Interpretations. Boydell Press, 2000, p. 422. Barring troops raised in the earldom of Chester, duchy of Lancaster and principality of Wales in the for the Agincourt army. [25] Sam Gibbs has already done this to an extent in his thesis: S. Gibbs ((2016) ‘The service patterns and social- economic status of English archers, 1367-1417: the evidence of the muster rolls and poll tax returns’. PhD thesis, University of Reading, available here: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/65943/ [26] For further details on surname derivation, see Reaney, P., H., and Wilson, R., M., A Dictionary of English Surnames. First Published 1958. Taylor and Francis e-Library, 2006. https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-English- Surnames-P-Reaney/dp/041505737X : Sinclair, Alice, An Analysis of the Personal Names in an Extract from the Poll Tax Returns of 1377. The University of Nottingham School of English Studies, Volume 1: 2008-2009. ISSN: 2041- 6776. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/documents/innervate/08-09/0809sinclairnamesandidentities.pdf [27] Carolyn C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Introduction to volume 1. [28] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [29] C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Fenwick. [30] The friars of the Sack. British History Online. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/london/vol1/pp513-514 [31] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/help/datasets-described/ [32] CPR 16 March 1378, Richard II, vol. 1, p. 166. Membrane 31d. Calendar of the patent rolls preserved in the Public Record Office, 1377-1381. Richard II, volume 1. London, HMSO 1891. University of Michigan, USA. [33] Andrew Ayton, A., and Philip Preston, The Battle of Crécy, 1346. Warfare in History, ISSN 1358–779X. Edited by Matthew Bennett, Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst, Kent. Boydell & Brewer Limited, PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk, 2005. p. 68. Read on-line, https://web.archive.org/web/20190205171146/http://1.droppdf.com/files/dqXZZ/the-battle-of-crecy- 1346.pdf [34] Bell summarises this in his study of the campaigns of 1387 and 1388: Bell, A. R. War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century. Warfare in history. Boydell & Brewer, Woodbridge (2004). [35] https://www.medievalsoldier.org/about/soldier-profiles/using-the-poll-tax-to-identify-medieval-archers/ [36] Kingsford, ibid. [37] TNA E101/36/39 m.7d. [38] Richard Fitzalan, 4th Earl of Arundel. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fitzalan,_4th_Earl_of_Arundel#Admiral quoting E. Powell et al, The House of Lords, pp. 400-401. For summary of the campaigns of 1387 and 1388 see Bell, War and the Soldier in the Fourteenth Century. [39] C. Given Wilson, Mowbray, Thomas, first duke of Norfolk, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004. Read on-line at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/19459 [40] Given Wilson, ibid. [41] Information on soldiers has been taken from the AHRC-funded ‘The Soldier in Later Medieval England Online Database’, www.medievalsoldier.org : TNA E101/41/7 m. 2 & 3. [42] TNA C61/82 m.7 [43] C. Fenwick, The Poll Taxes of 1377, 1379 and 1381, Records of Social and Economic History, New Series 27, 28, 29. Edited by Carolyn C. Fenwick. Published for the British Academy by OUP in 1998, 2001 & 2004. Volume 2, pp. 28, 29, Lincolnshire. [44] TNA E101/42/12 m.10. [46] TNA E101/39/7 No. 4 m.1. [47] TNA E101/34/3 m.2d & 3d (3 entries), [48] TNA E101/37/28 m.1 and TNA E101/36/39 m.11. [49] TNA E101/41/39 m.1i, 2, 3iii, 5, 6ii, 7 & 8ii. [50] TNA E101/43/26 m.2 & E101/43/26/m.3. [51] TNA E101/42/12 m.5d. [52] TNA E101/33/13 No. 2 m.2. [53] TNA E101/36/32 m.5. [54] TNA E101/45/1 m.9. [55] TNA E101/45/1 m.11. [56] TNA E101/34/3 m.2d & 3d. [57] TNA E101/42/12 m.10d. [58] TNA E101/42/12 m.5. [59] From the online Anglo-Norman Dictionary at http://www.anglo-norman.net/gate/ the word “menuw” is derived from menu, meneu, menut, mesnu, fem. menuwe, plural. menuz, meneutz, mesnuz, mesnutz. Monu Rot Parl 1 iii 211.21, meaning small, thin, light. Perhaps derived from the Latin, minutus, ‘small’ or ‘petty.’ In other words, a merchant in small goods, or a Haberdasher. I would like to thank Dr Paul Dryburgh of The National Archives, and the project team of The People of 1381 ( www.1381.online ) for advice on this term. [60] TNA E101/34/3 m. 1d, 2d, & 3. [61] TNA E101/35/6 m.1d. [62] TNA E101/34/3 m.3d. [63] TNA E101/35/6 m.1d. [64] TNA E101/34/5 m.3. [65] TNA E101/34/5 m.1d. [66] TNA C76/65 m.10. [67] TNA E101/42/12 m.10d. [68] TNA E101/34/3m.1 & m.2 & TNA E101/34/5 m.3 (duplicate entries); and TNA E101/35/6 m.1d (duplicate entries). [69] TNA E101/44/8 m. 3. [70] BNF, MS. Fr. 25767 no. 118. [71] BNF, MS. Fr. 25767 no. 40. [72] BL Harley 782 f. 80 (Agincourt Roll). [73] Muster Roll (TNA), BNF, MS. Fr. 25767, no. 42. [74] Muster Roll (TNA), BNF, MS. Fr. 25767, no. 88. [75] Peck, Liber XI, p. 66. [76] Peck, Liber XII, pp. 10-11. [77] Peck, Liber XII, p. 66. [78] TNA E/101/34/5 m.3. [79] https://forebears.io › news › british-isles-surname-maps 2012-2019, Created by Luka Cvetinovic: https://named.publicprofiler.org/ Created by Oliver O’Brien, Department of Geography, University College, London, & the Kernel Density Estimation map generation code (KDE), using data from the edited Electoral Roll for the United Kingdom, 2016. [80] TNA C76/64 m.4. [81] Lincs to the Past, https://www.lincstothepast.com/exhibitions/lincs-through-the-ages/plagues-potions-and-pills/ : For additional details and comment on The Black Death, see S. Sharma, A History of Britain, 3000 BC-AD 1603, Published by BBC Worldwide Ltd, 80 Wood Lane, London, W12 0TT, 2001. ISBN 0 563 38497 2. Chapter 5, ‘King Death.’ pp 222-273. [82] For example see: Bell, A. R., Curry, A., King, A. and Simpkin, D. (2013) The soldier in later medieval England. Oxford University Press. [83] Occam’s razor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor : William of Ockham, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next