< 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

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

< Back Uffington’s road block defences in World War II Nicholas J Sheehan 2023 Road blocks manned by local Home Guard units were important to British anti- invasion strategy and obstacles of different shapes and sizes were built in large numbers in the early 1940s. Anti-tank barriers were generally made of massive reinforced concrete blocks. These were often cubic and generally came in two sizes, with sides of 5 or 3ft 6in. They frequently had loops at the top for the attachment of barbed wire (Fig.1). According to an unpublished document in the Defence of Britain Gazetteer (1), an anti-tank block lies beside the main road (the old A16, now the A1175) through Uffington (2). Described as a rough cube of concrete, it is situated to the immediate south of the entrance to The Coach House (Grid ref: TF 064 075). Fig.1 Example of anti-tank cubes The object in this position is a large solid ‘cube’ (Fig.2) which measures 3ft x 2ft 8in at the top and stands just under 2ft high but is partially sunk into ground. Fig.2 Heavy solid cube close to the entrance to the Coach House on the A1175 through Uffington village A minimum of two such obstacles would be needed to obstruct the highway against invading tanks and indeed fragments of a second similar block can be seen a third of a mile away on the north bank of the River Welland, on the west side of Uffington Bridge (Fig.3(a) and (b)). (a) (b) Fig.3 (a) Fractured stone block near Uffington Bridge (March 2021); (b) Smaller fragment close by: a chip off the old block? However, the roadside cube appears to be comprised of natural stone rather than manufactured from cast concrete and it has no loop, holes or slots on any of its visible surfaces. Moreover, Uffington residents have no memory of a roadblock there during the war or of the cube being present in its immediate aftermath. It is thought to have appeared only after that section of road was diverted through the north-east corner of Uffington Estate in 1967, suggesting that the blocks might be remnants of the fabric of Uffington House which was destroyed by fire in 1904. Regardless of whether this was truly an anti-tank obstacle, Uffington was not without anti-invasion defences. As well as temporary timber barriers on the approaches to the village, simpler roadblocks against lighter vehicles were formed with concrete cylinders. One such example, measuring 2ft tall by 2ft in diameter, can be seen alongside the A1175 outside the entrance to Copthill Farm (Fig.4). Fig.4 Cylindrical concrete obstacle by the entrance to Copthill Farm (2013) Stocks of these concrete cylinders were also stored beside Uffington Bridge on Barnack Road, from where they could be manoeuvred into place across the road. A different type of roadblock was deployable at the south end of the bridge where sockets were cut in the road (Fig.5), into which steel girders or railway lines could be inserted vertically and old tyres passed over them and set alight. The road has been resurfaced many times since then and no trace remains of the sockets. Fig.5 Example of sockets for a ‘vertical girder’ type of roadblock Many road block defences were dismantled during the war and the rest soon after. Today, little remains of Britain's anti-invasion preparations and the provenance of Uffington’s putative anti-tank block is open to question. References (1). Osborne, Mike. Unpublished Document. Defence of Britain Gazetteer, 1999, p.7 (2). Monument record ML183582 – Anti-Tank Block, Uffington Acknowledgement I am grateful to Tom Francis (1928–2018), Paul Genever and Malcolm Towell for sharing their thoughts on Uffington’s wartime defences and the origins of the cube. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford the Home Front-1940-Air Raid Precautions Chris Hunt 2017 In the mid 1930’s cities and towns across the country prepared their Civil Defence in case there was another World War. Stamford was no exception and so once war was declared with Germany on September 3rd 1939 preparations for home defence were in an advanced stage. By 1940 trained volunteers were in place with comprehensive plans to deal with air raids which might bring high explosives, incendiary devices and gas attacks to the town. Before the War the German Luftwaffe were preparing maps and aerial photographs of military and strategic sites for a future bombing campaign against Britain. Some were taken by German military intelligence from German civilian and commercial aircraft. Sets were provided to bomber crews to assist them in finding primary and secondary targets. Over 150 English Cities and Towns were covered. Stamford was one of them. There were three electric Air Raid Sirens; at the Town Hall, the Police Station and at Messrs Blackstone & Co.’s works on Ryhall Road. In addition, there were two Steam Air Raid Sirens, one at Messrs Miles & Sons’ timber merchants in the L.M.S Railway station yard and the other at Williamson Cliff Ltd’s brick and tile works on Little Casterton Road. The action warning was a fluctuating or warbling blast on the electric sirens and short sharp blasts by the steam sirens, each of two minutes’ duration. If needed this could be supplemented by wardens’ whistles. Once the raiders were passed there would be a two-minute continuous blast on all sirens. For the presence of gas, hand rattles would be used with hand bells for cancellation of the gas warning. The nerve centre for the whole operation was the Stamford Report Centre which at the start of the War was in the basement at the rear of the Town Hall. Its function was to receive and collate reports from wardens and others to ensure as complete a picture as possible of damage in the event of an air raid on the Town. The centre needed to know the place where the bombs had hit, number of casualties and the damage sustained. The centre would then decide actions needed and co-ordinate the work of the A.R.P. services. The centre was run by an Officer in charge, a Deputy Officer and a number of telephonists; clerks (plotting and records), chart writers, indoor messengers and outdoor messengers. The centre was manned twenty-four-hours a day, although during the week between 9.00am and 5.00pm and on Saturdays between 9.00am and 1.00pm the Town Clerk’s department took over the responsibility. Outside of these hours in the week watches were timed between 8.00am and 9.00am, 5.00pm to 8.00pm, 8.00pm to 11.00pm and 11.00pm to 8.00am. On Saturday: 1.00pm to 5.00pm, 5.00pm to 8.00pm, 8.00pm to 11.00pm and 11.00pm to 8.00am. On Sunday: 8.00am to 10.00am, 10.00am to 1.00pm, 1.00pm to 5.00pm, 5.00pm to 8.00pm, 8.00pm to 11.00pm and 11.00pm to 08.00am. The planning was meticulous. A Light Rescue Party was based around the employees of Messrs E.Ireson & Sons builders of St Paul’s Street and a Heavy Rescue Party based from the yard of Messrs Bowman & Sons builders on Cherry Holt Lane. As for the Public Utilities, repairs to the mains were undertaken by the relevant company; Electricity (Urban Electricity Supply Co), Water (Burghley Estate) and Gas (The Stamford and St Martin’s – Stamford Baron – Gaslight and Coke Company). The Air Raid Wardens in the Town were split into nineteen sectors each when fully staffed would have six wardens with a Senior Warden in charge, each sector covered a specific part of the town. Each sector was allocated to one of four posts; Post No 1 was based in the Town Hall, Post No 2 at the A.R.P. Stores on Empingham Road, Post No 3 at the Police Station on North Street and Post No 4 at the Church Lads’ Club on St Pauls’ Street. Each post had a Head Warden who reported to a Chief Warden who had overall control in the Town and who was assisted by an Officer responsible for Records, Organisation and Training. The number of Special Constables was increased with the Town being split into four sections each with its own headquarters, the north section was based at the Police Station, the south section was based at the Burghley Estate Office, the east section at The Pantiles on St Paul’s Street and the west section based at the Waiting Rooms in Red Lion Square. Each section had a Section Commander and a Section Leader who reported to the Superintendent of the Borough Police Force. In addition to the Stamford Fire Brigade who were based on Scotgate there were two Auxiliary Fire Service Sub-Stations, one at Fancourt’s Garage on St Paul’s Street and the other at Cross’s Garage in St Martin’s. As well as Leading Firemen they had Auxiliary Firemen, Patrol Officers, Telephonists, Messengers and Engineers. There was a great fear that gas would be used against the general public and people were advised how to deal with Tear Gas, Nose Gases, Lung Gases, and Blister Gases. For decontamination the Borough Surveyor’s Department was responsible to cleanse the streets and if Blister Gas was used two squads were created to deal with the injuries. Three Cleansing Stations were set up, one for A.R.P. male personnel on Empingham Road, A.R.P. female personnel at St George’s Home on Ryhall Road, this was also to be used by uninjured members of the public, and the third for injured members of the public was based at the Stamford Infirmary Fever Blocks. Additional casualty services with First Aid Points were provided at the High School in Park Lane and at the St John’s Ambulance Station on East Street and First Aid Parties at the Church Lads Club on St Paul’s Street, Phillip’s Yard on Water Street and at the St John’s Ambulance Station. In addition, there was a Mobile First Aid Post at the Infirmary and St George’s Home was designated as a Civil Defence Hospital. In the event of people being bombed out of their houses the Fane School on Green Lane was designated for the homeless. In addition of there were the Stamford Division of the St John’s Ambulance and the Stamford V.A.D. (The Voluntary Aid Detachment (VAD) was a voluntary organization providing field nursing services, mainly in hospitals) of the British Red Cross. The Women’s Voluntary Service provided women to carry out clerical work, to deal with the Welfare of Evacuated Children, provide Hospital Supply Workers, Evacuation Receptionists, Storekeepers, Canteen Workers, Trained Nurses, Assistant Nurses, Nursing Auxiliaries, Ambulance Attendants, Ambulance Drivers, Mobile Van Drivers, Car Drivers and First Aid Party Drivers. An important part of the local planning was the provision of Public Air Raid shelters. There were nine in all with a total capacity to take 825 people; they were located at the Scotgate Inn at No 5 Scotgate (100 people), Alderman J.S.Prior’s house at No 2 Broad Street (50 people), Messrs Parrish’s shop at No 45 Broad Street (50 people), Messrs Thomas and Sons at No 11 Broad Street (200 people), Messrs Middleton’s shop at No 1 & 2 St Paul’s Street (50 people), the Old County Club at 27A St Mary’s Street (50 people), Mr Haynes’s house at No 16 All Saints Place (75 people), J.Woods & Son’s shop at No 10 Ironmonger Street (50 people) and the Bull and Swan Inn at No 25 High Street, St Martin’s (200 people). These were sited in the cellars of the above properties. Local builders – Bowman and Sons – making alterations, for instance, to the cellars of the Bull and Swan. Of course other people used the cellars of their own properties for family and friends. In addition, of course there were the Anderson shelters which were given free to householders who earned less than £250 per year and those with higher incomes were charged £7 0s 0d. They were made up from fourteen curved and straight galvanised corrugated steel panels which were bolted together and designed to be semi sunk into the ground. The other type of shelter was the Morrison shelter, officially termed Table (Morrison) Indoor Shelter which had a cage-like construction and came in 359 parts and had three tools supplied with the pack. Those Air Raid Shelters that were made of brick and concrete were dangerous as near-by blasts made them unstable as they had a potential to implode, unlike the Anderson Shelters. Air Raid Shelters were also provided by firms for their staff who were involved in War Work and shops used their cellars for staff and customers alike. The Borough Surveyor was still drawing up plans for public Air Raid Shelters and in August 1940 plans were signed off by local builders. Gas masks were made available from the Town Hall. There were three kinds; a Baby Anti Gas Helmet which was supplied when the baby was born, this was normally exchanged for a small child’s respirator at about 18 months, these were suitable usually until the child got to four or five years of age when it was then replaced with an ordinary civilian respirator. Over a thousand people volunteered to assist in Civil Defence at the start of the war including a large number of women. Stamford physically survived the war virtually unscathed, other than two lone bombers who dropped bombs on the town; the planning was however in place if it had been a different story. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Stamford Institution John S Hartley 2018 THE STAMFORD INSTITUTION – the “Graeco-Egyptian” building on the north side of St Peter’s Hill. Foremost among the cultural societies in Stamford in the mid-nineteenth century was the Literary and Scientific Institution, which had been founded in 1838. By 1850 the first general enthusiasm had worn off, and in 1851 its Annual Report was critical of the absence of the local clergy ‘who from their mental cultivation and general pursuits were eminently qualified in this way to convey information and sound instruction to the members.‘ Lectures were poorly attended, people preferring, so the President stated, ‘slackness of attendance at Lectures from which valuable information might have been obtained; whilst such frivolous exhibitions as those of “Bloomers” and conjurors were crowded.’ There were problems, however, for ‘no lecturers had offered themselves during the past year, a circumstance to be attributed ‘ the President believed, ’to the disturbance of the ordinary current of events by the Great Exhibition.’ During the nineteenth century membership fluctuated considerably; in 1851 there were 136 members but by 1856 there were some 316 paid up members, a most impressive number for such a relatively small country town. However, some saw the Institution as a force for the education of the ‘lower classes’ and there were too few, so it was thought, of such people who were members. A Mr. Chapman reflected, in 1853, upon the fact that it was regrettable that although shops closed early, few assistants used their spare time wisely. ‘They had not joined reading societies, and he feared they had imbibed (sic) habits which severely taxed their resources, and in the pursuit of pastime which was neither conducive to their health nor mental improvement.’ Attempts were made to provide lectures which were educational and which covered a very wide range of topics. In 1854 a writer in the Annual Report observed that it was ‘easier to train the juvenile taste than to correct old habits – to mould the infant mind than to change the adult idiosyncracy.’ A series of lectures on Human Physiology had a total of over 2000 attendances, while other single lectures in the same year, 1854, included subjects like the Uses of Poetry, the Circulation of the Blood, the Origins and Uses of Coal, and Sanitary Science. On the lighter side there was a lecture on Popular Illusions, while in the following year the best attended lectures were probably those by George Grossmith author (with his brother Weedon) of The Diary of a Nobody, who spoke on Lecturing, and Wit and Humour. He was a regular visitor to the Institution, and his lectures were generally very popular indeed though the most at any one meeting in the 1850’s and 1860’s seems to have been when 319 attended a lecture on Microscopical Science. On occasion, lectures had a relevance to the town and its immediate problems. When the local Medical Officer of Health spoke to members in 1868 he chose as his subject Drainage and the Water Supply of Towns, and this was later published by the printer to the Institution, John Ford of Red Lion Square. Newman’s theme was the unsanitary nature of the cesspits and pools which were scattered all over the town. He proposed the use of earth closets, and the closure of all open wells. Water, he argued, should be supplied to all the town from the springs to the north-east and east of the town. Two years later Newman’s summary of the state of the town and his plans for improvement were echoed in an official report. As well as providing series of lectures, the Institution had a substantial library, containing over 6000 volumes in 1862, from which members might borrow. At first there were limitations on borrowing since it was felt that quarterly members (generally of the ‘lower classes‘), who paid a considerably lower subscription than annual members, might damage the books they borrowed! [see the 1845 letter to the Mercury at the end of this article]. This fear seems to have been overcome, perhaps through a pair of lectures in 1855, entitled What is a Gentleman? and The Elevation of the Working Classes. Newspapers were taken in the Reading Room, and there was also a sizeable museum, though this appears to have been mainly a casual collection of items. Members, like Samuel Sharp, printer and publisher, and no mean geologist, may well have ensured that some parts of the collections were satisfactorily arranged. For a time there was a flourishing Chess Club. The finances of the Institution were never very secure - far too much reliance seems to have been placed on meeting any extra-ordinary expenses out of profits from special events and the shareholders, who had helped to build the magnificent headquarters on St. Peter’s Hill in 1842, had frequently to go without any dividends at all. Most years a ball was held to raise money, and in 1855 a ‘Panorama of the Seat of War in the Crimea’ was exhibited at the Mid-Lent Fair, partly for the benefit of the funds of the Institution. One source of income which was both uncertain and insubstantial was the Camera Obscura on the roof of the building. There were several attempts to encourage people to take advantage of it, but it made little money and was removed in the last quarter of the nineteenth century. In spite of all its failings, the Stamford Literary and Scientific Institution played an important part in the life of mid-Victorian Stamford. With its lectures, library and museum under the same roof it provided something which no other single organisation provided in Stamford. The Institution survived until 1910 when all its effects were sold; the library and museum, both containing important items relating to Stamford, were scattered. From sale catalogues it is possible to gain some idea of the value and content of its collections, and it must be a cause of great regret that they were not preserved intact. Part of the reason for the closing of the Institution is probably to be found in the lack of regular support from the most influential members of’ the town establishment, but the opening of the Town Library in 1906 must have further undermined the already shaky, financial position of the Institution. Notes Sources for a History of the Stamford Literary and Scientific Institution. This article has been based on the annual reports and minute books, to be found in the Phillips Collection Room in the Town Hall. Further information about meetings, the closure etc. will be found in the local papers. Many handbills and notices survive in various collections. John S. Hartley To the EDITOR of the MERCURY. Sir,-By a droll coincidence, I find in one column of your last week's paper the letter of Juvenis, complaining that the quarterly members of the Stamford Institution are dissatisfied at not being allowed to take books out of the library; and in another column, that even villages are applying to be admitted as branches to, and to be supplied with books from, the Lincoln Institution. This is indeed a queer contrast; and it is not to be wondered at that members should be seceding from our Stamford Institution and (as stated in your paper two or three weeks ago, from their report) that at Lincoln the number of quarterly members is constantly increasing, and that the Committee are thereby enabled to expend liberal sums in the purchase of new books. We read that in the early days after the Reformation, when copies of the scriptures were few, bibles were affixed in churches, but chained so as not to be carried away; now, our religious societies are circulating the scriptures in the prisons and the abodes of poverty at home, and among the heathen abroad. At Stamford, as "Juvenis" justly complains, he cannot take home with him such excellent works as the "Bridgwater Treatises," because forsooth bound volumes are sealed books to mere quarterly subscribers; whilst in the more fortunate vicinity of Lincoln, not only available are those works containing the writings of Sir Charles Bell, Dr. Buckland, Prout, Roget Chalmers, and the plebeian quarterlies (and even to the juveniles who may choose to read them), but such books are, it seems, likely to be sent forth to enlighten abroad, and to be at the service of the reading public in the villages. Do, Mr. Editor, urge upon certain members of the Committee the necessity of a journey to Lincoln. Stamford, Dec.30, 1845.Your's &c.,SENSEX. A print version can be downloaded HERE Other articles about Stamford Institution: The formation and first home of the Stamford Institution (1838-1842) John Flowers Bentley (1810-1884): Stamford Polymath Previous Next

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

< Back Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company 1832-1911 Chris Hunt 2023 The Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company Limited was one of the earliest English joint stock banks. Founded in 1832, partly as a response to losses and a withdrawal of banking services by other banks in the rural towns around Stamford. Oundle Commercial Bank, founded in 1815 by Messrs Smith and Ridsdale had a market day agency in Stamford, which in 1831 started to hint to their customers that they intended to discontinue their business. Mr Ridsdale, one of the managing partners suggested the establishment of a joint stock bank in conjunction with another retiring banker, Bugg and Co. Thus in 1832, the Stamford and Spalding Bank was established from the businesses of these two private banks, with branches at Stamford, Spalding and Oundle. The main business of the bank in these early years was the agricultural sector and the growing industrial businesses that supported this part of the economy. In 1834, a branch was opened in Boston and the increased workload meant it was decided to divide the general board into three local boards; Stamford, Spalding and Boston. As a result of these changes the bank was re-named the Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company. The bank made a number of acquisitions through the rest of the 19th century. In 1843 they acquired Clarke and Phillips Bank of Leicester who had branches in Oakham and Uppingham; and Goddard and Inkersole of Market Harborough. This was followed by Simpson and White bank in 1849, the Yorke and Company of Oundle and Peterborough in 1861, and the Nottingham Joint Stock Bank at Grantham in 1880. In 1888 they took over the failed bank of Messrs Eland and Eland who had branches in Thrapston and Kettering after offering fifteen shillings in the pound to the Eland’s creditors. Finally in 1891 they acquired the Eaton, Cayley and Banking Company of Stamford. By the end of the 19th century the Bank had twenty-two branches and sixteen agencies across Lincolnshire and adjoining counties and its size attracted the interest of national banking conglomerates and was acquired by Barclay and Co Limited in 1911. Barclay’s branch in Stamford at 46-49 Broad Street being formerly the town’s Stamford, Spalding and Boston Banking Company office. is still with us, but only until April 28th 2023. Chris Hunt January 2023 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Muster Roll 1584 David Nalson 2012 RESPECT OUR PRIVILEGES: A Muster Certificate for Stamford and St Martin’s, 1584. Among the many manuscript volumes which are to be found in the Town Hall is an early one of considerable interest. It contains a wide range of notes and transcripts of items relating to the property of the town including a register of leases from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, hirings of servants, sealing of hides and other items, not least a taxation list of 1581. The volume covers much of Elizabeth I’s reign, though it was used mainly as a record of leases of town (and probably Free School) property until 1720. Among all the early notes and transcripts – a few written in the finest and neatest hands of the period, many more bordering on the near illegible – one item stands out, not least because the scribe was forced to turn the volume on its side in order to fit all the detail on the page clearly. Written carefully, its heading explains its original purpose: A Copy of the certificate of the Musters and charge of Stamford …… 23 January 1583 [1584] & xxvj year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. All was not as straightforward as it might at first appear, however, as the writer takes care to point out. This is indeed a “copy” of the document made presumably by the Alderman [as the Mayor of the time was called] and his fellows at the request of central government. But the title also contains an indication that the original had been “delivered to Thomas Cony Esquier, John Harington Esqr. and Francis Harington Esqr. Commissioners Royal for Musters in the hundred of Nesse, who wolde have sitt also for Staunforde, and was denyed by Richard Shute then Alderman who with his brethren tooke the Muster by virtue of the Charter but yet delivered their doinges to be certified with the Shire.” The then Alderman, Richard Shute, had quite clearly refused to co-operate with the Royal Commissioners. They had been given the task of drawing up the Muster for the local area the hundred of Ness including the borough of Stamford. Moreover, he wanted to ensure that his own lack of co-operation was recorded for all to see. By implication his fellow justices, all senior members of the borough council, as well as the rest of the council, were included also. Shute had, with his fellow justices of the peace, carried out the task of recording the muster for Stamford, presumably having refusing to allow the Royal Commissioners, in their official capacity, to come into the town. His authority for so doing, he claimed, was the Royal Charter to the Borough which gave the Town the right to carry out all aspects of administration of the town without interference from outside authorities. To show the town’s allegiance to the Queen nevertheless, having ensured that its own rights and privileges had been protected, the Alderman then gave his findings to these same Royal Commissioners for Ness so they could include them in their own summary. But this is not all. When the list was submitted to the Commissioners certain details, also given in our copy below, were not passed on to the authorities. “I did sett donne but the first name only of ev[er]y Caliver men ……. to this ende yt it shoolde not appeare to the Queenes Councell upon the certificate, yt we sought so much helpe for so small a charge. The reason for the omission of the subsidiary names of the caliver men is thus made clear. It would certainly be stretching interpretation a little to suggest that the Alderman was directly seeking to avoid taxation by this little ruse. Rather he looked to reinforce the reports of the town’s poverty which had already reached the ears of the powers at court. The reality of late sixteenth century Stamford was that the town was struggling, and the issue of poverty in and of the town in the late sixteenth century was a very real one. It would have been most desirable to reinforce this appearance of poverty in central government’s record. Another interesting feature of the record is that the muster was taken for both the Town and the parish of St Martin’s, across the river in a separate county and, coincidentally, diocese. From the later middle ages until the early nineteenth century the borough was jealous of its status in all areas of administration and St Martin’s was regarded as a completely separate entity administratively. It had always been the custom that only those who lived in the borough, that is the area to north of the Welland, should be permitted to trade in the borough, having first been granted their freedom. Likewise the magistrates of the borough had no jurisdiction whatsoever to south of the river. Crimes committed in St Martin’s parish were dealt with by the justices of Northamptonshire or the Soke of Peterborough. In the same way the borough coroner had no jurisdiction south of the Town Bridge. Most importantly of all, especially at a later date, only those admitted to freedom of the borough and paying “scot and lot”, the town taxes, could vote in any elections for Stamford’s two members of parliament. The First Parliamentary Reform Act of 1832 changed those electoral qualifications, ironically not to the local benefit of the reformers. The Municipal Corporations Reform Act of 1835 formally united the settlements on both sides of the Welland, essentially creating the borough which lasted until 1972. Between these two reforms, in 1834, the Poor Law Amendment Act also directly affected an area of jurisdiction of the town, bringing parishes in Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire under the authority of the Poor Law Guardians, based in Stamford. One further significant consideration about this copy of the Muster for Stamford in 1584 remains – if this document is, by its own admission, the true statement rather than the return for public consumption, was William Cecil, Lord Burghley, being hoodwinked or was he aware of what was going on? It is hard to believe, with his background and his contacts, that he would have been totally unaware of what was happening, more especially as his own parish of St Martin’s was included in the returns. In these circumstances, it would be good to know whether he encouraged and supported this or whether he knew about this. Such conclusions can only be drawn from the use of sources outside Stamford. Items referred to in the Muster Roll itself A Corslett was either the breastplate, or the whole armour of a pikeman. A Caliver was a gun newly introduced in Elizabeth's reign, that was 4 ft 10 ins long, but still lighter and shorter than the musket, and it fired more rapidly. In the glossary of the 2001 edition of the reprint of the 1603 edition of Stow’s Survey of London “almaine rivets” are described as “a kind of light armour, first used in Germany in which great flexibility was obtained by overlapping plates sliding on rivets.” The source of the information is given as “Almaine or alman rivets - a certaine kinde of armour, or corslet for the body of a man, with the sleeves or braces of maile, or plates of iron, for the defense of the armes, so called because they be rivetted or buckled after the old Alman fashion.” (Minsheu, Guide unto Tongues, 1617) NB All Christian Names have been extended without indication in this transcript Staunforde with St Martyns A Copy of the certificate of the Musters and charge of Stamford delivered to Thomas Cony Esquier, John Harington Esqr. and Francis Harington Esqr. Commissioners Royal for Musters in the hundred of Nesse, who wolde have sitt also for Staunforde, and was denyed by Richard Shute then Alderman who with his brethren tooke the Muster by virtue of the Charter but yet delivered their doinges to be certified with the Shire. 23 January 1583 [1584] & xxvj year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Private Armes 2 Corselets Edward Heron Esqr A Corslett furnished Thomas Lane miller to beare it John Wingfelde Esqr A Corslett furnished Robert Warner his s[er]vaunte 5 Calivers Richard Shute & A Caliver furnished Richard Dawson housholder John Browne trayned Nicholas Fulwood & A Caliver furnished Henry Lewys h[ousholder] & Henry Clarke trayned Robert Medowes & A Calyver [sic] furnished Mathew Rooth baker Cutbert Grenebery h[ousholder] Robert Tomson, A Calyver furnished William Topper tailer trayned Peter Wokely & William Loveday Laurence Willesby & A Calyver furnished Griffyn Owen shoemaker Thoby Loveday 2 Alm[ayne] ryvetes Richard Dickenson, An Almayne ryvett furnished Richard Goodlad Sawyer Nicholas Lambe and Anthony Hitchcocke John Allyn, An Almayne ryvett furnished Rychard Johnson John Tonnesend h[ousholder] and John Dickenson jun[ior] 6 Bowes Ralf Haseldyne & A long bowe shef of arrows, Oliver Scorer h[ousholder] John Yerwood a steele cappe or scull Thomas Orton A sworde & dagger William Campinet & A longe bowe furnished as above John Clarke h[ousholder] Reginald Harrison [ut sup(r)a] John Barnes the elder & A longe bowe fur[nished] as above James Grene h[ouseholder] Robert Langton [ut sup(r)a] John P[ar]sons & A longe bowe furnished as above Richard Backhus S[er]vant William Lovedey [del] [ut sup(r)a] Robert Billing William Watson & A longe bowe furnished as above Robert Turnam [?Tumam] Gilbert Ward thelder [ut sup(r)a] h[ouseholder] John Elmes gent A longe bowe fur[nished] as above John Bosden householder [ut sup(r)a] Common Armes [ie belonging to the community] 3 Corsletes Staunforde iij Corslettes furnished James Backhus} William Todde} Householders to beare William Coye } the corslettes 3 Calivers St Martins iij Calivers furnished Jeffery Haverde } Henry Grene } Householders to Thomas Cooke smith } cary them Sum Total} Corsletts v { Be it remembred yt [that] where it appeareth to be two or three persons to a } } Calivers viij { Calyver & so to the rest of the armo[ur], yet in the copy I deliv[er]ed to the } Bowes vj { Justices abovenamed I did sett donne but the first name only of ev[er]y } Alm[ayne] { Caliver men & the rest [del] The w[hi]ch I did sett to this ende yt it shoolde } Rivetes ij { not appeare to the Queenes Councell [ins or Royal Commissioners] upon the { certificate, yt we sought so much helpe for so small a charge. Memorandum also yt of all this charge Staunforde and St Martins together founde but viij men, whereof Staunforde iiij St Martins ij Mr John Wingfeld of the Nones j, & Mr Heron of the Black Fryers one man, A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< 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