< 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

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

< Back In The Star and Garter at Stamford and the 1851 Census By Mike Key John Garfoot stood behind his bar in the Star and Garter in Scotgate watching the activity. As usual at the beginning of the Mid-Lent fair week the room was busy with friends meeting and strangers arriving for accommodation. The bar-room buzzed with conversation. Over in one corner William Smith from Sewston discussed the prices to be expected at tomorrow’s beast market with fellow cattle dealer John Custon from Boston. At another table Robert Edwards, a cordwainer, sat relaxing after his journey from Nantwich in Cheshire, perhaps complimenting Elizabeth, the publican’s wife on her cooking. It may be that John Adams, a Crowland potato merchant, was suggesting that it was his potatoes that gave the meal an extra something. Around the room the noise of chatter rose and fell. Some talked about the weather, always a popular subject. Others perhaps argued over the forthcoming opening of the Great Exhibition in London’s Hyde Park. Some doubtless agreed with Colonel Sibthorp, Lincoln’s Tory Member of Parliament, that ‘ … It would be better for the promoters of this affair to encourage native industry, and support the industrious people of England, from whom they draw all they possess.’ A more immediate topic for argument was the census. Oh! Such questions! ‘Why do they want to know?’ ‘Place of birth? Surely it’s where you live that’s important.’ ‘Whose business is it anyway?’ ‘Ever since that Reform Bill nineteen years ago there has been increased Government Interference.’ And so on. The same arguments over the census had been going on for more than fifty years now, fears of misuse of the information gained by the State, or its enemies. Over all the comings and goings publican John Garfoot presided, ensuring that all were looked after and catered to, joining in with this or that conversation. But Garfoot had something on his mind, that extra chore among all the others after closing the door for the last time that evening. That confounded schedule pushed under his door a few days previously had to be filled in. For this was Sunday, March 30 th 1851, the night for the census to be taken. Before considering how the census was taken in Stamford, it is worth taking a brief look at the history of the national census and the associated legislation. The story of the national census is one of development through improved efficiency, care, and thoroughness. In 1753 proposals had been laid before Parliament to undertake a census of population and were met with violent opposition. Indeed, the passing of the Militia Act in 1757 which called for lists of eligible males, had met with severe rioting in some areas of the country. In 1753 fears were expressed that such knowledge that a census would provide could be used by our enemies to their advantage. Also, internal forces could bring political pressures to bear. The latter was probably more of a threat than the former, for the census, when eventually set up, paved the way for both political and economic reform. By 1800 much of the old opposition had been overcome and the Population Act of that year provided for the taking of the national census in 1801. The aims of this first census were to discover not only how many inhabitants Great Britain contained, but also whether the population was increasing or decreasing. To uncover this information two major questions, to be answered by the Clergy, were included in the first schedule; Star & Garter ‘What was the number of Baptisms and Burials in your Parish, Township, or place in the several years 1700, 1710, 1720, 1730, 1740, 1750, 1760, 1770, 1780, and each subsequent year to the 31 st December 1800, distinguishing Males from Females?’ And: - ‘What was the number of marriages in your Parish, Township, or Place in each year, from year 1754 inclusive to the end of the year 1800?’ The results from these two questions, which were published in the Parish Register Abstracts, led to the 1812 Parish Register Act. Although the keeping of parish registers had been obligatory since 1538, inconsistencies had arisen due to the varied means of entry. This was partly overcome by the Marriage Act of 1753, whereby the officiating minister had to register each marriage and to have the entry witnessed by at least two persons. The 1812 Act sought to regularize the keeping of registers of both public and private baptisms, marriages, and burials. An important section of the Act required Ministers to send to their Diocesan Registrar a list of all registers in the parish showing dates of the beginning and end, as well as where they were to be deposited. Because the results were disappointing, a list of registers was required by the 1831 Population Act. All these various measures enabled Government to be informed on population trends. In the four census years prior to 1841, census taking was a long and tortuous process, taking days, weeks in some areas, for the returns to be completed and sent to the Justices of the Peace. They were then passed to the High Constables for endorsement and submitted to the Town Clerks who then sent them to the office of the Principal Secretary of State of the Home Office for digestion. With the Population Act of 1840 the task of taking the census passed to the Registrar General. Using the organisation set up in 1837 for the civil registration of births, marriages and deaths, the Registrar General aimed to take a complete and accurate count in one day. In 1837 England and Wales was divided into 2,193 Registration Districts under the 1836 Act, these for purposes of the census were further divided into Enumeration Districts. Additionally, the country was divided into County Divisions made up of several counties. Because of varying circumstances, Enumeration Districts were limited to between 25 to 200 inhabited houses, and this led, because of many sparsely populated areas, to about 35,000 enumerators being employed. For 1851 the enumerators were equally numerous. Until 1841 the householder had but two or three questions to answer, age (to nearest five years), sex, and occupation. The Clergy and the Overseers of the Poor had the responsibility of providing information regarding housing, baptisms, etc. The scope of questions was extended in 1841 requiring the householder to furnish information on birthplace, nationality (if Irish or Scots), and whether he or she was an employer or an employee. The range of questions was further extended in 1851: the exact age of each person; their relationship to the head of the household; and condition as to marriage, birthplace, and nationality, (not just Irish or Scots). There was an additional section to be answered on a voluntary basis regarding religion and education which a minority refused to answer. In order to avoid omission and duplications, each householder was directed to complete the schedule himself in respect of each person sleeping in his house on the designated night. To ensure this was done, any ‘person refusing or neglecting to fill up the schedule without excuse or refusing to answer questions or making a false return is liable to a penalty of £1 to £5. Allowance was made for the illiterate, ‘If no person in the house is able to fill up the schedule properly, it will be done by the enumerator.’ 1851 Census for St John’s Parish The decennial returns called for in the 1801 census set the pattern for future legislation. Every tenth year until 1920 an Act of Parliament was necessary for a national population census to be taken. The 1920 Population Act provided for the census to be carried out every tenth year without further legislation. And so, in future years, we shall be called upon to fill in our schedules ‘according to the instructions’ as our forebears have done. No doubt some of us will be raising the old objections regarding misuse of information and the invasion of privacy. Now let us return to the 1851 Stamford to the Enumeration District of St John’s parish. On the morning of Monday, March 31 st , Mr Pheasant John Freeman, one of the seventeen enumerators appointed to the Stamford District, began his rounds to collect his completed forms. It would be a long day. He had already been over the ground the previous week delivering the schedule and explaining to householders what was needed. Today he would still have forms to fill in for the illiterate and the infirm. Having collected the completed forms, next day Mr Freeman would begin to transfer the answers to his own schedule. This was a time-consuming job. Many of the forms would be difficult to read because there was a high rate of illiteracy in the parish. Also, this year, the forms were more complicated than before. No doubt he cursed the authorities’ decision to hold the census in Mid-Lent Fair week. There were so many strangers in town. Nevertheless, he finished his part of the task by April 8 th , and together with the householders’ form he passed his completed schedule to Henry Whittome, the District Registrar. Whittome in turn examined the documents and, having verified the account and corrected any mistakes, sent them on to the Town Hall and the Superintendent Registrar, Jeremiah Clapton. After Clapton’s examination they were forwarded to the Registrar General’s Office in London on April 25 th . This sequence of events was taking place all over the country, and the success of this method is evident by its continued use today, all be it with the inclusion of computers. The efficiency and speediness of the process was not, however, appreciated by the local newspaper. In the April 18 th issue, the Stamford Mercury complained that, ‘We are unable to give the numbers of the existing population as the officers being unwilling to furnish the account.’ At this time Henry Whittome was still working his way through the enumerators’ schedules. The Mercury went on to say that the return for Slingsby was 866 and that for Sibsey near Boston was 3.387, overlooking the fact that the population of Stamford was about three times that of Sibsey. The Mercury also got its arithmetic wrong, increasing Sibsey’s population by 90, something even the village blacksmith would have found difficult. His family had increased in size by six since 1841, accounting for half the total population increase of the village. According to the Mercury a real increase in the town’s population was not to be expected: ‘Although several new houses have been built upon the Brownlow property at the east end of the town, there are several large houses in the other parts of the borough untenanted.’ When the figures were published the population was found to be 9,066 an increase of 1,306 over the 1841 total. This of course included those who came to the town for the fair. But the census is not just about growth or decline of population, it is about people. Who they were, and how they lived, and how they earned a living. The census is a valuable research tool for the local historian, provided its limitations are realised. George North wrote; ‘The essential picture of the sort of people we are is built up from two main sources, the periodic Census of population, which gives a national snapshot at the particular moment of time, and the regular flow of statistical information based on statutory registration of births, marriages and death.’ It is the concept of a particular moment of time that gives the clue to the limits of usefulness of the census. Just as the census is about people so is history, but it is not static. It is also about change, social, economic, and political. ‘Time change’ is the saying. It is often difficult to project ourselves back in time because definitions also change. An example of this may be seen in the modern definition of ‘pauper’ as one without means of livelihood, a beggar perhaps in receipt of poor relief. An American observer writing on the English scene in 1830 defined paupers as, ‘that numerous class of society who depend for subsistence solely upon the labour of their hands.’ Not quite the same thing. None of this entered John Garfoot’s head as he sat quietly in his now deserted bar-room on that Sunday evening so long ago. He looked over the census form yet again. It seemed straight forward enough. Names, age, birthplaces, relations to head of household. Yes, easy enough. Wait though, relation to head of house …. mm! What about William Smith and John Custon and the others? Are they lodgers or visitors? They are here for the Fair, that makes them visitors, or does it? When does a visitor become a lodger? What’s the difference anyway? Who’ll care a hundred years from now? Publican Garfoot would have been amazed to learn that his customers’ worries about the census would echo down through the years, and that his place in history was assured by his entry on the census return. Who’ll care a hundred years from now? A group of Stamford history students a century and more cared enough to put John Garfoot and his contempories in their historical and social place by a study of the 1851 population census. Notes This article was first published in 1980 in; Class and Occupation in Stamford in 1851. A Report by the Stamford Survey Group. A copy of the full report is available for study in the Local Reference Section of Stamford Library. The pub, sited at No. 10 Scotgate, closed in 1967, and was shortly demolished along with the adjacent Fire Station which had previously been Hayes’ Carriage Works showroom to make room for the Scotgate Car Park. A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

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

< Back Don’t Meddle with my Business! A sixteenth century warning Professor Alan Rogers 2012 The following letter, a transcript of an original in private hands and unpublished until now, throws light on both the workings of Stamford Town Council and its relationship with central government. It is also particularly interesting in showing how a key supporter of the Tudor monarchs protected his interests vigorously. Context: On 15 January 1553/4 it was announced that Mary Tudor, the new queen of England, was to marry Phillip II of Spain. Almost exactly six months earlier, on the death of her half-brother Edward VI, there had been a failed attempt to overturn Henry VIII’s Act of Settlement of 1543 and place Lady Jane Grey on the throne. Any suspicions and reservations which may have remained from Mary’s delayed accession were exacerbated by this marriage announcement. Inadvisably, Sir Thomas Wyatt, apparently outraged that an English monarch should consider such a marriage, tried to raise enough support to prevent the union of the two sovereign states. Initially, it appeared he had succeeded, and he moved with a small army from the west towards London reaching Ludgate and Temple Bar on 8th February, 1554. However, the many promises of troops, made by erstwhile supporters, did not materialise. The forces he had brought with him from his native Kent melted away and, crucially, royal resistance was active, determined and effective. So Wyatt had no alternative but to surrender at the gates of the City of London and trust to the mercy of the monarch and her advisers. Tried for treason on 15 March at Westminster, he was executed on 11 April. John Russell, first earl of Bedford, our letter writer, lord privy seal and at the heart of the government, was more than aware of all that was going on. Though now well advanced in years, born about 1485 and nearing seventy, he had profited substantially in every sense from a close friendship with Henry VIII. Russell had been created earl of Bedford in January 1550, just three months after he refused to move troops to Windsor to help the then protector the duke of Somerset. Russell had been using them to suppress rebels in the south-west where he had very substantial land-holdings. This proved the critical decision in the power struggle between Somerset and Northumberland; Somerset’s protectorate fell apart less than a week later. Not only did Russell reap a title from Northumberland as a result, he acquired yet more property, notably Somerset’s Long Acre estate to west of the City of London, formerly the kitchen garden of the abbey of Westminster and including Covent Garden which lay just to the north of Cecil property on the Strand. A convinced supporter of state over church, he then found himself called upon to support Northumberland’s advocacy of Lady Jane Grey as queen of England which he did most reluctantly. But Bedford moved quickly away from that faction backing Lady Jane Grey in the summer of 1553, and joined Sir William Cecil and others uneasy with what was being forced on the country. He preferred to continue his long-established relationship with the Tudor dynasty. Thus he was one of those who proclaimed Mary queen on July 19, 1553. Given that he had known her since the 1530s when his wife was one of Mary’s ladies and that he had been her supporter when such a course was dangerous, he had excellent credentials and was quickly pardoned for that reluctant support of Lady Jane Grey. Perhaps anxious to prove his loyalty beyond doubt, and to all, he insisted six months later on commanding loyal forces at the key river crossing of London Bridge during Wyatt’s rebellion. So by February 1554, when this letter was written, Bedford was back in favour, a significant figure at court, a great landowner and, ultimately the founder of a great dynasty. He writes a letter both of reassurance and warning to the town of Stamford with which he has the closest of links. Just a couple of weeks or so earlier Sir Thomas Wyatt had been arrested and was now safely lodged in the Tower of London, awaiting trial. Hence Bedford writes, “But thankes be given, unto god, all things arre nowe in good quyetnes here.” From his privileged position, at the heart of government, he knows all is well under control and secure, and that troops from Stamford will not be needed. No doubt the news of Wyatt’s surrender had already reached the town, but this letter came from the highest echelons of government – Stamford should have been well aware that the steward of their town knew exactly what was happening where it mattered. But clearly Bedford’s letter had another purpose: no one should consider usurping Bedford’s role in Stamford. In his letter he makes it clear he is in charge in Stamford also. The heading of the first meeting of the town council after Mary’s accession and after their equivalent of an annual general meeting, reads: Staunford Monday namely the vjth day of the month of November in the first year of the reign of the foresaid queen [1553] before Henry Lacy gentleman deputy of John Russell knight Lord Russell Lord Privy Seal, Earl of Bedford and one of the Council of the lady queen, head steward there ..... There can be no doubt of John Russell’s standing in the town; he had been head steward of the town since 1543 and his letter witnesses he did not regard his stewardship as a sinecure. The Alderman or Mayor, William Campenet a draper, and (Russell assumes) his fellows, have together made him aware what has been going on within the town, and he is grateful to them. But also one can almost hear the earl rumbling, “What does Lord Willoughby think he is up to? He’s trying to exercise my responsibilities. We’ll have nothing of this.” Above all else, he writes, “the Manridden is under my leading.” This unfamiliar, and interesting word, essentially archaic though resurrected by a few historians recently, is defined most usefully by the Oxford English Dictionary as meaning “the men whom a lord could call upon in time of war” and thus “a supply of men for military purposes”. So it is absolutely clear that Bedford would himself have expected to call out the Stamford muster (and possibly other local forces) as steward of the town of Stamford. It presents us with a rare example in Stamford of the steward taking action and actual responsibility. Normally he, and others, had presided in absentia, using the services of a local deputy, over the swearing in of the town’s chief officer and magistrate, the alderman. While he had been steward of the town for just ten years Russell’s links with the area were far closer. As the third husband of Ann Sapcote, and thus related by marriage to the Semark family of Thornhaugh his links to David and Richard Cecil, William’s grandfather and father were close. When Bedford died a year after this letter was written, in early 1555, Sir William Cecil in his mid-thirties was already well-established in the royal secretariat. Knighted by Edward VI in 1551, Cecil was poised to become Elizabeth’s secretary just three years later. It would be interesting to uncover the links between the rising courtier, the young William Cecil, and the experienced royal servant, Russell, during the key period from 1535 to 1550. The Letter Note: a single oblique stroke shows where the text reaches the end of a line; the double oblique indicates an oblique stroke used by the writer as a form of punctuation. Capital letters and spellings are as in the original. After my veary hartie commendations // I have receaved /your letter understandinge by the same that youe / thinke my Lord Willoughbye will muster men shortly / in Stampforde to serve the quenes ma[jes]tie // wherefore / I gyve youe harty thankes that you wold gyve / me advertisement therof // But thankes be given / unto god, all things arre nowe in good quyetnes / here so that his lordship shall not neede to / muster Anye men // Nevertheles when so / ever his lordship or any other shall muster men / there // I will that none within that my Office / do stirre or go with them, what so ever they be // / for the Manredden [1] is under my leading / to do the quenes ma[jes]ti service when oratyor/ shall serve [2] and no man shall have to / do therewith but I // and so I byd you all harty / fare well from the Court at West mynster / the xjth of February 1553 Your loving frend J Bedford [Signature in another hand, presumably Bedford’s] The Address and endorsement [on reverse] Handwriting as main letter: To my veary loving frendes Mr Alderman and his Bretherne of the Towne of A new hand: Febr 1553 John Bedfords letter of thankes o Stamford for letting himto understand of my L[ord] Willoughbys musteringe & that they shold refuse to go with him or any one but with him self [1] See Introduction above for this archaic term. [2] Obscure phrase in this context, but possibly meaning “when the summons occurs”. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Stamford Library Report - May 1907 By Chris Hunt In May 1907 the Public Library Committee produced a report covering the period from the opening of the Public Library and Reading Rooms on January 26th 1906. The Library had in this period received a number of gifts that included 619 volumes of books, a number of framed pictures, a clock for the general reading-room, plants and tubs, various periodicals, umbrella stands and other unlisted items. It was reported that the Library had enrolled 1,047 people, and that on March 31 st 1907 it had 2,312 volumes on its shelves. Clearly the Library was well used as it had loaned out 28,279 books: which were made up of: - Fiction, 25,169; Travel, 331; Science and Art, 293; Theology, 283; History and Biography, 1,246; and Miscellaneous, 957. The Committee was happy to report that only one book had been lost and that this had been replaced by the guarantor. Clearly not everyone had remembered to return books on time, as the Library had taken in £9 6s 4d in fines; as of the date of the report, there were no outstanding fines. The clock mentioned in the Report was presented by Mr William Edinborough in January 1906, after 120 years it is still going strong and keeping good time in the Library in the upstairs Local History Reference Room. Opening times for the Reading and Reference Rooms were 9.00am to 10.00pm, Monday to Saturday; and the Free Lending Library was open on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays from 2.00pm to 5.00pm and from 6.00pm to 9.00pm. The building was closed on Sundays, Christmas Days, Bank Holidays, and such other days as the Committee may have from time to time determined. The Reading Rooms were usually well attended and the large number of active borrowers proved the popularity and usefulness of the Library. The Building Account fund which had originally been gifted £2,500 by Mr Andrew Carnegie who had subsequently gifted another £100, and after further building contracts and furnishings had been paid, now stood at £35 11s 8d. The Revenue Account was also healthy: - Balance £144 6s 5d, grants from Stamford Town Council £285 6s 0d, interest £4 17s 2d, donations £7 17s 0d, sale of papers £22 11s 4d, catalogues £2 2s 6d, borrowers’ tickets £5 19s 7d, and fines £9 6s 4d. After an expenditure of £241 6s 11d on the purchase of books, periodicals, etc., and for rates, taxes, and maintenance, there remained a balance in the treasurer’s hands of £240 9s 5d. Based on price inflation (CPI), £240 in 1907 amounts to around £37,750 today. Over three years this equates to around £100,000 today; and by comparison, the average earnings of a manual worker in 1907 were £70 to £80 (for three years wages). In 1907 the Public Library Committee reminded the public that their income was not large and that it required care and prudence to cover its ordinary expenditure, and looked to the ratepayers of the town to assist them in preserving order in the Reading Rooms and in protecting the property, which after all belonged to them all. Donations were of course welcomed. One hundred and twenty years later this local free amenity is still going strong. And long may it do so. Chris Hunt January 2026 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The Etton Causewayed Enclosure: its significance within the Welland Valley and broader landscape Michelle Feasey 2023 This paper focuses on the Etton causewayed enclosure and the Maxey Neolithic complex, and widens the review to include the other three causewayed enclosures in the Welland Valley. Predominantly, it examines how these contributed to the broader understanding of the local Neolithic landscape and its implications on the national landscape. Causewayed enclosures arise in the early Neolithic period 4000-3300BC (Oswald, ‘Causewayed Enclosures: Introduction to Heritage Assets’, Historic England p.2), and are contemporary with cursus monuments and long barrows. They are the earliest known examples of open land being enclosed. Causewayed enclosures did vary and appear to have had a number of different functions. However, the key features, which will be detailed in the upcoming discussions, are:· A series of interrupted ditches, with small banks, usually on the outside of the ditches; At least one circuit of ditches, sometimes more; Usually oval or roughly circular; Have one or more formal entrances; Tended to be located in topographically dominant locations, such as hill side or valley ends;Those currently identified tend to be in Southern England, south of the Trent, although there are examples both on the continent, northern England and even Northern Ireland; Appeared over a very short period of 200-300 years. The first widely excavated causewayed enclosure was that at Windmill Hill in Wiltshire, which was excavated in the 1920s/1930s, by Alexander Keiller. His excavations were not fully written up until the 1960s, when Isobel Smith was engaged to collate and analyse his notes, and when she also undertook a small excavation (Creation of Monuments, Oswald, Dyer and Barber, p.22) At that time it was common to assume sites had a singular function, and based on the archaeology Smith concluded it was a ceremonial site. Due to the pottery and animal bones found, Smith determined it was primarily a site for feasting, trading and general gatherings. Other sites were excavated during this period, predominantly in chalk u p lands, such as Knapp Hill and Hambleton Hill. Hambleton Hill in particular did much to expand the understanding of these sites, which were still quite rare. It was the expansion of aerial photography in the post-War period, coupled with developer lead excavation, that expanded the number of causewayed enclosures identified across a wider geographical spread, although still predominantly south of the Trent Aerial photography at certain times of year can highlight crop marks, which occur when crops are affected by the underlying archaeology. This archaeology can affect the rate of growth of crops planted into the soil above them. For example, ditches and pits provide a greater depth of soil than can be found in their immediate surroundings, leading to enhanced growth of the crop planted in this area. Alternatively, buried wall foundations or compacted surfaces can inhibit growth, due to reduced soil depth and fertility. These cause variations in the rate of crop growth, indicated in differing maturity of the crop, which can be observed from above. ( www.historicengland.org.uk , ‘Formation of Crop Marks’). Fig 1: Crop Marks at Maxey. A Matter of Time, 1960, frontispiece During the post-war period, the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments commissioned an aerial survey of the flat gravel flood plains of lowland England, producing A Matter of Time in 1960 (Pryor, The Fens, Chapter 4, p 61). A Matter of Time identified sites in broad terms as enclosures, circles, cursus, pit-alignments and ridges, focusing along the Ouse, Trent and Welland Valleys, resulting in the discovery of previously unidentified sites, including the Maxey complex (Fig 1). It was in the exceptionally dry summer of 1976 when Dr Stephen Upex discovered the Etton site through aerial photography (Pryor, Etton 1982-7, p.7) (Fig 2). Fig 2: Etton crop marks, photo by S J Upex, (Pryor, Etton 1982-7 p.7) The Etton and Maxey excavations were triggered by the widespread gravel extraction around Peterborough. Extensive deposits of gravel exist around Peterborough having been deposited by the many rivers including the Nene, Welland and Witham which flow into the Wash.These needed to be extracted to use for the building of the Peterborough ‘New Town’. The excavation at Etton was undertaken over a five-year period from 1982-87, enabling the whole site to be excavated, with the exception of a small section which runs under the Maxey Cut (a part of the Welland River which has been straightened). The enclosure is oval shaped and approx. 197m by 145m, forming a single ring of ditches (Fig. 9). The high-water table in the area, meant that the early excavations revealed considerable amounts of organic matter, which on other sites would have decayed. Therefore, as well as the pottery, stone tools and animal bones typically found in the ditch ends, string, birch bark (used as mats), and some 5,000 pieces of worked wood were found ( www.Peterborougharchaeology.org : ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic landscape’). In one pit a complete quern was found, with leaves and twigs packed round it, showing that it had been carefully and purposefully placed (Pryor: Etton, 1982-87, p.23). The extensive and well-preserved wood resulted in more accurate dating of deposits through radiocarbon dating. The site was within a meander of the River Welland, and would have regularly flooded, a factor which must have been known to those building it (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.21) The organic matter revealed a substantial timber gateway at the north entrance, together with evidence of a ‘fence’ or other dividing structure down the west side of an area to the south and east of gateway F of the causewayed enclosure (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.100). It is possible this dividing structure served as a divide between the seasonal camp and the ceremonial heart of the enclosure, or potentially between the commercial/market/feasting part and the area used for excarnation or other religious functions. As it was possible to dig the inside of the enclosure, it confirmed that enclosures more generally were not used for permanent habitation, although there may have been some seasonal occupation, with some possible structures as well as screens. One entrance seems to have a ‘guardhouse’ attached (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.102), although due to the ditch on the outside it would be difficult to defend, therefore, this may have been accommodation for a ‘caretaker’ or some form of religious guardian. Also revealed were many small pits, however, whilst some contained high status items, flint and animal bones, many were very small, with little to determine their purpose. Human bones were found in the outer ditches, which may have previously been excarnated, a method of disposing of bodies where they are left to be picked clean by birds and other animals, but the site does not appear to have been a primary burial site (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.353). It was soon evident from the excavation of the ditches that soon after they were first dug, and the first items placed in, they were then filled in, before subsequent excavation down to the level of the first deposits, new deposits were made, and then again filled in, on a cyclical basis (Pryor, Etton 1982-87, p.67). The Etton site appears to have been used intensively for a period of about 100-200 years in the second quarter of the fourth millennium BC, thereafter less frequently, with renewed activity in a limited area when the cursus monument was constructed (F Pryor: Etton 1982- 1987, p.353). As referenced above, the ditches were infilled and then reopened on a cyclical basis, with the deposits becoming smaller but more extensive with each level. One potential explanation for these ditches is that each one belongs to a particular family; as they aged, the families grew from the original ‘nuclear’ family to include cousins etc - hence, more offerings, and smaller, as there was less room (Pryor, The Fens, Chapter 4, p.98). Over a five-year dig of this extensive site, so much was found, as detailed in the 429-page report. However, the discussion above has focused on the finds and observations that are most appropriate and insightful in helping to expand our knowledge of these monuments and our understanding of the other sites in the Welland Valley. Fig 3: Maxey landscape, based on crop marks; Pryor, The London Magazine Etton is unique from the other three sites, in that it seems to be part of a much larger ceremonial site, which includes cursuses at both Etton and Maxey, together with the Maxey Henge (see Fig 3 above). The cursuses are of a similar date to the causewayed enclosures, being long narrow corridors bounded on two sides by a ditch and bank. Their usage is unclear, but would seem to be some form of ceremonial pathway. There are two on this site: one to the southeast of the Etton causewayed enclosure, and ending within the monument; the other to the west running parallel to this from the Maxey cut up to the current River Wellend. The henge was dug multiple times in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and cuts across the Maxey cursus. At 126 metres in diameter its size would indicate that this was larger than the more famous one at Stonehenge. It is unusual as it had a central round mount and an oval barrow in its entrance (Historic England research records, Monument No.1030942). Whilst the Henge would have been built some years after the causewayed enclosure, it would seem to indicate that this was a site of particular importance to the people in the area. Although very little has been dug outside the Maxey/Etton complex there is aerial photographic evidence of cursuses at both Barnack and Bainton, also within the Welland Valley, and so cannot be excluded as part of this ritual landscape. Maxey church, which is located in the North-West corner of the complex, sits on a small rise, which could be the remnants of a barrow, possibly a Neolithic long barrow. It is, though, how Maxey and Etton fit into and help explain the wider Welland Valley at this time that is of particular interest in this case. The Etton causewayed enclosure is one of five that are within a 5 km area: Uffington, Barholm, Northborough, Etton and Upton. Whilst Upton is within this radius, this paper’s specific focus is on the Welland Valley, and Upton, together with another enclosure at Southwick, would seem to be part of the Nene Valley area, hence they will not be included in this study. The Etton causewayed enclosure is of similar size and shape to the others in the Welland Valley, so it would seem reasonable to assume that there was communication between the different communities that built the enclosures, and if they were liaising with each other in regard to the size and shape, it would not be unreasonable to assume at least some similarities in their usage. As the others have not been dug (with exception of the small dig at Northborough), the Etton excavation provides invaluable help in understanding the other three. Fig 4: Map showing location of the four causewayed enclosures (blue ovals) As previously referenced above there are three other sites within the Welland Valley, as shown on the map above (Fig 4). Fig 5: View across the enclosure at Uffington towards the Welland Uffington is probably the most impressive in its location, sitting on a rise above the River Welland. With clear views across the valley, to what is now Burghley House, it would also have been visible from the other side of the valley. It is not situated at the very top of the hill, which suggests its location was chosen to be visible from the river and across the valley which would not be possible if it was at the peak of the hill. Identified through crop marks, though it must be noted the crop marks are incomplete, its dimensions are most likely around 130m by 150m with two ditches approximately 8m apart. ( www.Heritagegateway.org.uk : ‘Uffington Causewayed Enclosure’). Fig 6: Barholm, across the enclosure towards Uffington and the Welland The Barholm site sits on a slight rise above the River Welland, most likely just above the Neolithic flood plain. It is similar in size and shape to that at Uffington (Fig 9). Based on aerial photography the ditches have a ‘sausage-link’ shape, which may indicate larger ditches having been amalgamated over time ( www.heritagegateway.org.uk : Lincolnshire HER, Barholm and Stowe). Excavations of the area in the late 1960s to the southwest of the Causewayed enclosure revealed evidence of Late Neolithic settlement (EAA 61, The Fenland Project, No.7: Excavations in Peterborough and the Lower Welland Valley 1960-69). Fig 7: Northborough enclosure, looking West towards Village, and Maxey beyoind The Northborough site is the closest site to the Fen edge, with the Welland running to the north and east, on a flat site, only marginally elevated above the river. As with Uffington and Barholm, the Northborough site has two circuits of ditches and is approximately 170m by 130m (Fig 9) but with the addition of an outer enclosure of ditches measuring 230m by 180m (Fig 8) (Wessex Archaeology, Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure, p.1). This is the only one of the four sites discussed to have two rings of ditches and to have been partly excavated (completed as part of the Channel 4 Time Team series released 2004). Due to time constraints, the Northborough dig excavated only a small number of pits. However, these did reveal one very interesting item: a pot shard. Although it is not unusual to find pots in these pits, it was evident this pot had only been partially fired, so would have not been useable for cooking wear ( Time Team , 2004). Therefore, this pot seems to have been specifically made to be placed in the pit, which could reveal an element of pre-planning and a pragmatic approach to the items to be deposited, i.e. whilst respecting the ancestors or Gods to whom the offerings were made, there is little point wasting time finishing something to a high standard to put it in the pit. Phosphate analysis was higher in the eastern half of the enclosure, which could indicate stock-related activities (Wessex Archaeology, Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure , p.16). This could represent a number of different uses for the site; as seasonal cattle market, a place to bring in the livestock for some form of seasonal health check, or marking, or for some ceremonial purpose. Again, solidifying the argument that these enclosures had a multifunctional and significantly varied purpose. Fig 8: Artistic impression of Northborough, Channel 4, Time Team (Victor Ambrus) Three of the sites, at Northborough, Etton and Barholm, would have experienced seasonal flooding due to their low-lying locations. It would, therefore be unlikely there would have been any permanent settlement within the sites, and the lack of any evidence found at both Etton and Northborough would further reinforce the view that these sites were used seasonally and not for any permanent settlement. It is worth noting that two excavated causewayed enclosures at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey are within70m of each other, and of similar size, shape and timescale. However, one is oriented to look over Kent, the other over the sea. Finds within these sites seem to indicate differing methods of usage. Whilst there are still deposits within the ditches, they vary in type, and one site seems to have hosted grand ceremonial activity, with the other, having a quieter more private existence (Allen, Leivers, Ellis; Prehistoric Society, Causewayed enclosures and later Neolithic Farming). So, whilst there are numerous similarities between the four causewayed enclosures in the Welland Valley, it is entirely likely, that the different groups had some individuality in the way that they were used. Fig 9: Plans of the Causewayed enclosures; The Creation of Monuments p.110. What do these four monuments tell us, then, about settlement in the Neolithic landscape of the Welland Valley? The Early Neolithic period has left very little evidence of settlement, yet, settlements have been located at both Maxey and Barholm: two at Maxey, one about 500m north of the causewayed enclosure and the other, Etton Woodgate, about 80m west ( www.Peterborougharchaeology.org : ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic landscape’). At Barholm the settlement is about 1km to the east of the enclosure. Here, excavations took place in 1965, revealing five periods of occupation: late Neolithic, early Iron Age, Romano- British, Medieval and late Medieval/early Modern. The discovery of post-holes, pits and ‘working-hollows’, together with Grooved ware and Mortlake pottery, clearly showed occupation during the late Neolithic period, so probably during the later period of the causewayed enclosure. However, the site was not fully investigated due to the open drain to the east, the inhibiting presence of a large amount of topsoil dumped by the quarry to the north and significant time constraints. Thus, early occupation cannot be discounted (Simpson: The Excavation of a Late Neolithic Settlement at Barholm, Lincolnshire). Using Tim Darvill’s suggested settlement distribution model, the causewayed enclosures would be set within a community of farms spread along the Welland Valley providing a focal point for those dispersed farms, with Northborough being the last one before the sparsely populated Fens. These theories have grown from geographical theories such as the Thiessen Polygons (also known as Voronoi diagrams), the theories of primarily urban population distribution by Christaller, and latterly in the 1960s the advent of Quantitative Geography. These were then applied to prehistoric populations and expanded upon by both Cunliffe and Tim Darvill. Christaller claimed that cities, towns and villages developed within a hierarchical network where each location would fit a certain functional niche that defined its size and character (Ducke & Kroefges; Identifying Settlement patterns and territories , 2007, p.2). The Voronoi diagram uses classic point pattern analysis, however, this is quite a rigid method and has many limitations. The difficulty with many of these distribution models is the assumption that there is a hierarchy of settlements, which in the early period of the Neolithic seems unlikely, with settlements being very small and generally self-sufficient, with the exception of limited trading in pottery and other consumables. The existence of these monuments, though, does suggest some form of hierarchy within the population, which would organise, communicate and manage the sites. Even if the enclosures were built over a period of time, their size and the effort involved in construction with basic tools, would suggest there was a reasonable population available to carry out the work, and as mentioned previously some level of management and organisation. The sites at both Etton and Northborough seem to have provided evidence to support the theory that the enclosures were a multifunctional hub for a dispersed farming community, probably providing a central ‘home’ for the fledgling tribal system. However, these monuments were built in the early part of the Neolithic period as the population transitioned from the Mesolithic nomadic hunter gathers to the settled farmers of the Bronze Age. It is entirely possible, therefore, that there was still some nomadic activity, possibly after the harvest. This in some ways underlines the importance of these monuments to the communities that used them, providing a spiritual and ancestral base. If this is then extrapolated along the Welland Valley, it would indicate a relatively well populated area, with each causewayed enclosure supporting the community around it, with the river very much providing a link between these communities as a possible method of transport and a focal point. The Welland Valley is a fertile agricultural region now, and this is likely to have been the case in the Neolithic period, with the wooded ‘uplands’ (if one can call the small hills in the region uplands) and the fertile river valley, with the close proximity to the Fens with their fish and wildfowl for food, as well as reeds for thatch and fodder and peat for fuel. Unsurprisingly, then, the area was described as well populated in the Iron Age/Roman period, as evidenced by the sheer quantity of Roman archaeology found in the area, and the intervening Bronze and Iron Age period also shows plenty of occupation, with both settlements and barrows. Yet can these conclusions be expanded and extrapolated to the wider Midlands and Southern England region? Most probably. Previously, it was believed that in the prehistoric period the main areas of population were in the uplands, where the absence of ploughing has left hillforts, barrows and evidence of settlement. However, work done to produce A Matter of Time , and subsequent aerial photography has revealed considerable crop marks in the river valleys and the lowlands, which would suggest the reverse is indeed the case, and that these areas were the main areas of population. New crop marks are being revealed each year, which can only increase the number of sites identified or at least identifiable. The river valleys then, as now, were ideal sites for occupation, with fertile soils, availability of water for domestic use and fishing, together with the woodlands in the upper reaches of the valleys. Our Mesolithic ancestors will have travelled extensively throughout England, and these sites may already have been locations for summer camps, or sites to track the migrating herds. There is growing support for the idea that such enclosures were built at places which were already important features of the humanly perceived landscape, as long- term patterns of cyclical and routine behaviour produced landscapes which had become socially inscribed with meaning long before the construction of the first Neolithic monuments (P Topping (ed.) Landscapes, The Neolithic, and Kent 1997 ref: Bradley 1993, Tilley 1994). Therefore, with the advance of agriculture to a more settled existence, the valleys would have made an attractive place to settle, with sites close by already of importance to the population. In conclusion, the Etton causewayed enclosure is incredibly important to the understanding of this type of monument due to the extent of excavation possible, together with the high level of preservation of organic matter. This enabled analysis of the use of the majority of the site as a whole, together with more accurate dating of activity. Within its setting of the Welland Valley, with the three other causewayed enclosures at Uffington, Barholm and Northborough, it provides a complex that give us the opportunity to interpret these monuments in the wider context of the landscape, and how this can impact our understanding of the territorial settlement patterns of the time. The evidence of some settlement at both Maxey and Barholm lend support to the theories that these enclosures formed a central hub for the dispersed farming and semi-nomadic populations at the time. The number of these enclosures in such a small area, together with the physical effort required to build them and the level of organisation needed, suggests that the population in the region would have been relatively high and have some degree of organisation and a possible fledgling tribal system. With improved photographic techniques, together with Lidar and other ground penetrating radar analysis, more sites should be identified. In some areas of Southern England, such as large parts of Kent, virtually no causewayed enclosures have yet been found. As more sites, and hopefully clusters such as in the Welland Valley, are identified and excavated, our understanding of both these monuments, the people that used them, and the communities they supported can only increase. Bibliography Records and Archival Sources Historic England, ‘Research Records: Monument No: 1030942’ (2012), < https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=1030942&resourceID=19191 >[accessed 2/12/2022]. Secondary Literature Allen, M., Leivers, M., Ellis, C., Stevens, S., Clelland, S., Bayliss, A., . . . Stevens, C., ‘Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures and Later Prehistoric Farming: Duality, Imposition and the Role of Predecessors at Kingsborough, Isle of Sheppey, Kent, UK’, in Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society (74) (Cambridge, 2008), pp. 235-322. Oswald, A Ed. Flatman,J., Herring, P., McOrmish, D., ‘Causewayed Enclosures: Introduction to Heritage Assets’, Historic England (Swindon, 2018). Barber, M., ‘Landscape, the Neolithic and Kent’ in P. Topping (ed.), Neolithic Landscapes. Neolithic Studies Group Seminar Papers 2 (Oxford, 1997), pp. 77-86. Darvill, T., Prehistoric Britain (London, 1987). Ducke, B., and Kroefges, P., ‘From Points to Areas: Constructing Territories from Archaeological Site Patterns Using an Enhanced Xtent Model’ in A. Posluschny, K. Lambers and I. Herzog (eds.), Layers of Perception. Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (Berlin, 2009). Healy, F., ‘Causewayed enclosures and the Early Neolithic: the chronology and character of monument building and settlement in Kent, Surrey and Sussex in the early to mid-4th millennium cal BC’, in South East Research Framework resource assessment seminar (Cardiff, 2005), pp. 1-29. Oswald, A., Barber, M., and Dyer, C., The Creation of Monuments, Neolithic Causewayed Enclosures in the British Isles (London, 2001). Pryor, F., et. al., Etton: Excavations at a Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure near Maxey, Cambridgeshire, 1982-7 (Liverpool, 1998). Pryor, F., The Fens: Discovering England’s Ancient Depths (London, 2020). Pryor, F., ‘The Ritual Landscapes of Pre-Roman Britain’ in The London Magazine (London, 2022) < https://thelondonmagazine.org/article/the-ritual-landscapes-of-pre- roman- britain >[accessed 28/12/2022]. Royal Commission on Historical Monuments, A Matter of Time; an Archaeological Survey(London, 1960). Simpson, W.G., Gurney, D., Neve, J., and Pryor, F., 'The Fenland Project No.7: Excavations in Peterborough and the Lower Welland Valley 1960–69' in East Anglian Archaeology 61 (1993). Wessex Archaeology, ‘Northborough Neolithic Causewayed Enclosure, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire: Archaeological Evaluation and Assessment of Results’ (Salisbury, 2005). Websites ‘Formation of Crop Marks’, Historic England (2020), < https://historicengland.org.uk/research/methods/airborne-remote-sensing/formation- of-cropmarks/ > [accessed 20/11/2022]. ‘Maxey and Etton Neolithic Landscape’, Peterborough Archaeology (unknown), < https://peterborougharchaeology.org/maxey-etton-neolithic-landscape >[accessed 12/11/2022]. ‘Neolithic Causewayed Camp: Barholm and Stowe’, HeritageGateway (unknown), https://www.heritagegateway.org.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=MLI30052&resourceID=1006 >[accessed 20/12/2022]. ‘Find a Site’, The Megalithic Portal < https://www.megalithic.co.uk >[accessed 2/12/2022]. ‘Uffington Causewayed Enclosure’, HeritageGateway (unknown), < https://www.heritagegateway. o rg.uk/Gateway/Results_Single.aspx?uid=347828&reso urceID=19191 >[accessed 15/12/2022]. Media ‘A Neolithic Cathedral?’, Time Team (Channel 4, 2005), < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nt3-ue5IUA >[accessed 19/12/2022]. A print version can be downloaded HERE This research essay is published with the permission of the author. SDLHS is not responsible for its content. Previous Next

< Back Eat, Drink and Be Merry – the 1831 Stamford Election John S. Hartley It is almost impossible to provide precise modern equivalents of prices in this earlier period. Nevertheless the Bank of England offers a website which may help a little: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator . The equivalents given below, based on this calculator, are very approximate therefore, and give only a rough guide to the buying power of the pound for goods and services purchased in the UK. However precise or not the figures may be, they provide some sort of basis for comparison between sums of money mentioned in this article. Please note that I have made no attempt to impose apostrophes on the names of these establishments where they should (or might) have been used – the nineteenth century generally did not worry – and I do not! Whether the Blacksmiths Arms belonged to one or many is of no matter here – immaterial, equally, is whether the Arms refer to a heraldic achievement or the hairy arms of a working man! A few years ago, a large number of papers relating to the Stamford election of 1831 appeared, piecemeal, for sale on eBay. While deploring the splitting an archive into individual items, and “cherry-picking” those of apparent greatest interest - this article tries to make the best of a bad job! Among the many items on sale were a few invoices, presented to Charles Tennyson and his supporters by landlords of the public houses where voters had enjoyed his hospitality around the time he became MP for Stamford in May 1831. Individually scarcely more than curiosities, these invoices are a reminder of a time when Britain was in turmoil as those long-used to ruling the country, privileged by birth, wealth and connections, tried to keep a close control of Parliament for the continuing benefit of themselves, their families and their friends. Many of these families, absolutely certain that they alone knew what was best for the country, regarded their reforming opponents with distaste and they were both unwilling and unable to trust them; they regarded their own rule, over past years and recently, as benevolent and far above any self-interest their opponents believed they saw. Even the radical 11th duke of Norfolk who succeeded to the title in 1786 and died in 1815, political friend of Charles James Fox and an early supporter of reform, looked to influence voters in places as far apart as Horsham, Gloucester and Carlisle by his ‘borough-mongering’. Whatever their political leanings, many substantial landowners believed that they were entitled, even called, to use their resources to support candidates to maintain their own interests in Parliament. Foremost amongst such families were the Cecils, no longer just Earls of Exeter but members of the Marquessate since 1801. Their home, Burghley House, lay just outside the borough of Stamford, south of the river Welland, and in another county. They were by far the largest property owners in the town. There were others, however: significant numbers of charities in the town owed their income to the property with which they had been originally endowed. By the start of the nineteenth century many of these charities were controlled by the town council, itself also a considerable property owner and sympathetic – many would have said sycophantic, as some still do, - to the Cecil interest. The councillors themselves, many benefiting directly from Cecil patronage, largely supported the Exeter interest. Probably the most important of the charities under the control of the members of the town council was the town’s Grammar School, endowed at its foundation in the 1530s by William Radcliffe, mayor and leading citizen. This endowment had been strengthened with monastic and chantry property in the next decade. By the later 18th century the earls of Exeter had a positive policy of taking out long, frequently building, leases on both residential and commercial premises at very low rents – again, as many would have said, in collusion with the councillors [1] . In 1809 the annual income of the school from its endowment was about £360 (2024 – perhaps as much as £24,500 [2] ) of which the Exeter estate paid nearly one third for the properties it rented. Its hold on the electorate of the town was strengthened further as it sublet all these leased properties. The Horseshoe , at the heart of the town in Red Lion Square was among a number of licensed premises sub-let in this way. It was one of the eleven public houses (with a further two unidentified establishments) whose invoices, presented to Tennyson for April and May 1831, have recently appeared on eBay [3] . Unlike the many other so-called ‘pocket’ boroughs, Stamford had a large electorate. Voters qualified by paying scot and lot – a parochial tax equated, by the nineteenth century, with the poor rate assessment. On the death of George IV, the former Prince Regent, in 1830 and the accession of William IV, a general election became necessary. Charles Tennyson, (now largely remembered as uncle of the poet) of Bayons Manor at Tealby [4] , some three miles to the east of Market Rasen in the north of Lincolnshire, was invited to stand as Stamford’s reforming candidate [5] . In a lively election he failed to capture either of the two Stamford borough seats. Bayons Manor in 1820, before Charles Tennyson altered it extensively. Lord Thomas Cecil and Col Thomas Chaplin, the Exeter candidates, were elected, but Tennyson was a mere 21 votes behind Chaplin. In 1830 as many as 669 had been entitled to vote; estimates for the 1831 election suggest there were between 770 and 898 legitimate electors. No doubt the overall numbers had been increased by the efforts of Tennyson’s supporting committee – the Blue Committee – as well as the Exeter party - the Red Interest – both anxious to ensure that all qualified were correctly registered as electors. In 1797 it had been observed that Stamford, “always submits the nomination of its members to the Earl of Exeter,” suggesting the long-standing subservience to the family since the last fully contested election in 1734. An election in 1809 had turned out to be something of a farce [6] . It was this domination that Tennyson was looking to overthrow both in 1830 and 1831 [7] . The various means of promoting candidates and eliciting votes sound to modern ears like corruption – as most were, by any standard. Ready cash, food and drink, and support for the electors’ businesses, employment, housing and all kinds of pensions, would bring their reward at election time; fear was, perhaps, the most powerful weapon of all. The Marquess had himself carelessly helped his opponents after the 1830 election by personally coming into the town to help enforce the eviction of those of his tenants who had failed to support both his candidates – whether they had “plumped” – i.e. cast a single vote for Tennyson - or cautiously split their two votes between the Red and Blue candidates. Whether successful in one election or not, many candidates “nursed” their voters until the next time [8] . A consequence of the 1830 election in Stamford was that the supporters of reform presented a petition to the House of Commons claiming interference by the Marquess of Exeter in promoting his candidates during the 1830 election. Their claim failed, “through an omission in a matter of form” and the House, “refused to allow further opportunity for complying” [9] . At this time the countryside around Stamford was in turmoil, as was much of southern England. Agricultural machines were broken, ricks and barns were burned. Similar acts took place, or were threatened, with the aim of seeking redress for low agricultural wages and poor conditions and exploitation by landlords. A particular complaint was over the introduction of threshing machinery. These so-called “Swing” riots had started in August 1830 and continued into 1831. Locally the special constabulary and yeomanry were mobilised, and Sir John Trollope of Casewick in Uffington led a “huge party of mounted men from Stamford into Huntingdonshire.” A straw stack was set alight at Easton-on-the-Hill; at Warmington a machine was destroyed by a riotous assembly. Three rioters were arrested and taken to Oundle where they were successfully held overnight in spite of “the mob who demolished the outer gates of the bridewell-yard and partly stripped the roof of the building……” Such was the political climate leading up to the second of the elections at the start of the 1830s [10] . On the 6th May 1831, after Col Chaplin, once more the second Burghley candidate, had failed by 54 votes to gain the second Stamford seat in House of Commons, the Mercury commented on the breaking of “the long-established influence of the Marquess of Exeter, aided ….... on the present occasion by an immense expenditure of money (said to be not less than £14,000) ….... and by pugilists …… and hired labourers …….”. If such an accusation were accurate – and there seems to be considerable evidence to support it – the period of the election was what the Mercury called later in the same article, “a season of unusual excitement.” Certainly, an outlay approaching a million pounds in a failed attempt to block a rival political interest would indeed seem “unusual”. Unsurprisingly, there were great celebrations in Stamford after Tennyson had successfully contested that second borough seat despite the efforts of the Marquess of Exeter. Subsequently, bills for entertainment at the end of April and much of May were presented to Tennyson by landlords of at least eleven named public houses together with a further two invoices from individuals, perhaps acting on behalf of their landlords. It has been thought interesting, and perhaps worthwhile to append transcripts of all these bills at the end of this article. Together they illustrate something of the celebrations that occurred all over the borough itself, as well as spreading far wider. The invoices were largely addressed to Charles Tennyson Esq, some adding the courtesy of MP after his name; uniquely, John Sharpe Blades addressed his invoice to the ‘Blue Committee’, the colour of reform in Stamford. The invoice from the Salutation , though made out to Tennyson was endorsed with “Mr Beasly,” the name of the Chairman of his election committee which had agreed to meet all the Blue election expenses. There may very well have been other invoices, possibly from other establishments – the bill from the Salutation includes an unpaid earlier invoice dated 6th May, for £18-10-0, presumably mainly for hospitality provided up to that date. Most call for payment to the named landlord making it easy to trace the name of the inn or public house which had provided entertainment for voters and their friends who supported the cause of reform. The bill for the Glaziers Arms carries no landlord’s name but other sources show it was Edward Clipsham, a plumber (and presumably, glazier) who followed his trade while his two maiden sisters actually ran the public house which he had inherited from his mother in 1797. A note, in another hand at the foot of Clipsham’s bill, reads “This ac[coun]t I believe was not obtained by Mr Tennysons servant.” It was initialled, probably by a member of Tennyson’s election committee, suggesting that most of the invoices were systematically gathered for settlement. Two invoices were presented by named individuals, Robert Blake and John Sharpe Blades; they carry no indication of where or for whom they worked, and their names have not been found in any contemporary lists. Blake and Blades did not vote in any of the three elections at the start of the 1830s, suggesting that they did not pay the poor rate and were not property owners (in Stamford, at any rate), and so had no vote there. The landlords of the Black Horse , Horse and Jockey , Glaziers Arms , Chequers, Nags Head , Red Lion, Salutation and Stamford Arms, eight in total, voted exclusively for Tennyson at the 1831 election. In the jargon of the time they had “plumped” for Tennyson, choosing to use just one of their votes for him, and not using the other. Young at The Horseshoe and Abbot at the Roebuck , chose to use both their votes in 1831, splitting their support between Tennyson and Lord Thomas Cecil. It is not surprising therefore to find that all hosted celebrations at their premises at Tennyson’s success at his backers’ expense. Previously, in 1830, Preston of the Horse and Jockey and Saul of the Red Lion , had been rather more cautious and split their votes between the Burghley interest and the reformers but in the later 1832 election they each plumped for Arthur Gregory who had replaced Tennyson as the reforming candidate [11] . Abbott split his votes in both 1830 and 1831 though he also plumped for Gregory in 1832. Young of The Horseshoe , a tenant of the Marquess, had cast both his votes for the Burghley candidates in 1830 and, as keen reformers might have said, ‘prevaricated’ in 1831, returning to the Burghley fold in 1832. Surprisingly John Dickinson of the Stamford Arms and a tenant of a Snowden’s Hospital property administered by the town council, plumped for Tennyson in 1830 and 1831, splitting his votes between Cecil and Gregory in 1832. Clipsham and Saul plumped in all three years for the reforming candidate. And finally, Woodward, whose reforming credentials are perhaps strongest, since the Salutation was a home for independents does not appear to have registered a vote in 1832, having supported Tennyson in the previous two elections. The inn or public house is, according to tradition, the place where freedom to express an opinion is encouraged as people try out their views on their fellows – a place of good fellowship and lively discussion. However, the three elections in Stamford in the early 1830s suggest otherwise. In the urban setting, it would appear, people preferred to gather where they might meet people of similar opinion. The Salutation was a stronghold of members of the original Oddfellows Society in the town. It was also the meeting place of the Royal Society of United Brethren – both friendly societies, each supported by, and supporting, independently-minded tradesmen, craftsmen and townsmen. By contrast, properties in Red Lion Square, including the Horseshoe , had recently been rebuilt by their owner, the Marquess of Exeter. This is the background which makes John Young’s voting pattern rather more understandable – by all reports some Burghley tenants were ejected from their homes after the 1830 election, having failed to vote for Exeter candidates. Young took a considerable risk in splitting his vote in 1831 [12] . In 1833 a rival Oddfellows Society was established in the town: the Loyal Finch Independent Lodge of Oddfellows No 5 , based at Young’s establishment, the Horseshoe . It was named after the second Exeter candidate, successful in the 1832 election, George Finch of Burley on the Hill, near Oakham. On Monday 25th April 1831 both parties had begun their canvass “with a degree of energy unprecedented in Stamford. Some conflicts have occurred on …… the streets, but happily nothing serious has resulted from them.” [13] The next day no less than three letters were sent from the Blue Committee Room in Standwell’s Hotel to Tennyson. Two, signed by both Cecil and Chaplin, made “strong and urgent request” to “forbid the use of Bludgeons.” But the third, from Cecil alone, was far more carefully measured and antagonistic and personal in tone: “I would not wish to charge you with having made a statement wilfully untrue, but ..… you are perfectly mistaken in the idea you appear to entertain ….” And so on, leading ultimately to a challenge which resulted in a duel on Wormwood Scrubs after the election [14] . While the duel broke the law, honour was satisfied, both parties apologised, shook hands and went to a local police station where, on learning that all had been patched up, no charges were brought forward. However, returning to the Election campaign itself, a letter sent from Stamford by Tennyson’s son, George, indicates that the Reds were importing prize fighters and other disreputable characters: “The Marquis of Exeter has engaged a number of prize fighters to break the heads of the Blues. The day before yesterday [ie the Tuesday that the three letters were written by the Cecil and Chaplin] several came down – Oliver, Barker, Whiteheaded Bob, ….. [more]… of these ruffians are despatched from Town today.” [15] On April 28th, during the canvass, the Nags Head provided four gallons of ale for which Tennyson was later billed. The ale was for the musicians who probably formed the band which the Mercury reported met Sir William Ingleby and Mr Pelham, the Lincolnshire reforming candidates, and escorted them through Stamford with blue flags. An extra 1½ gallons, as well as tobacco, were provided at the Red Lion on 2nd May – presumably these musicians paraded with Tennyson supporters throughout the canvass and the poll. A day later Walford at the Nags Head invoiced Tennyson for providing “Post Boys and [Sedan] Chairmen” with some 20 pints of ale. It would seem likely that they had been employed by the “Blue Committee” carrying messages and voters to the Poll and perhaps also the two bottles of sherry and one bottle of port sent to the hustings from the Red Lion ! The Committee would have met their basic charges while also giving them authority to claim a quantity of ale, the amount probably already agreed, at the Nags Head [16] . Voting took place in public, over several days, starting on Saturday 30th April, resuming on Monday 2nd May and ending on Tuesday 3rd May. Stamford printers, following common practice, issued handbills showing the state of the poll at the close of each day’s voting, enabling those interested to keep a close check on how each candidate was doing. When all was over and settled one or more copies of the Poll Book were published showing the results with a list of how each elector had voted [17] . Thus landlords, their agents and anyone else interested could check who each voter (and especially their tenants) had supported. After Tennyson’s success in 1831 large numbers gave themselves over to rejoicing at the final “triumph of Reform” in Stamford. There were various celebrations round the town in “friendly” public houses. The evening chosen for these rejoicings was Tuesday, 17th May. Tennyson had been charged for many gallons of ale during and immediately after the election itself as the missing invoice for £18-10-0, presented on the 6th May by the Salutation , probably indicates. No doubt this substantial sum (£1,550+) had been spent providing entertainment and encouragement to voters during the election itself as well as celebration on some scale, immediately afterwards; all the surviving invoices indicate the provision of considerable quantities of ale – about 250 gallons (or 2,000 pints – 1,135 litres!) - supplied before the 17th May. Organised celebrations in the public houses of the town took place that Tuesday evening: in all more than 187 dinners were served costing Tennyson 2s 6d each then and now about £10.00, perhaps. With the food came more than 175 bowls of punch, each costing double the price of a meal. It is not clear what went into the punch, but the overall price suggests both a potent mixture and a large quantity. In addition, a wide range of spirits was provided – brandy at eight shillings a bottle, rum six shillings and gin four shillings and sixpence - £40, £30 and £22.50 respectively. Sherry, port, and unspecified wines all were to be paid for. One must assume that a rather larger number than just those 187 diners enjoyed Tennyson’s hospitality. During the celebrations on the 17th and over the next ten days a further 350 gallons (2,800 pints, nearly 1,600 litres) of ale were also charged to the Tennyson account! However different social levels demanded different entertainments. A week after the parties for which we have invoices at the pubs there was a dinner and ball celebrating the success of reform candidates in Stamford and elsewhere in Lincolnshire. An advertisement in the Stamford Mercury of 20th May announced a “spacious Booth beautifully fitted up for the occasion”, specially erected in Broad Street where a dinner was to be held. Tickets for this were priced at ten shillings a head [18] . This seems a realistic amount for a celebration dinner including dessert and a bottle of wine – which was included with the ticket. Moreover, it was “hoped that all Gentlemen attending the Dinner will honor Mr. Tennyson by accepting Tickets for the Ball .” So consecutive evenings out, Tuesday and Wednesday 24th and 25th May, for the price of one, to celebrate (and hopefully cement) Stamford’s substantial backing for the reform of Parliament. “Gentlemen intending to dine will please to signify their intention to Mr Hortor, at the Bar of the Tennyson's Arms and George and Angel Hotel , Stamford ….” While “Gentlemen” might have been able to afford the tickets for the grand Dinner and Ball at the booth built in Broad Street, it is quite clear that many of Tennyson’s Stamford supporters could not possibly have afforded a ticket – and probably would not have felt comfortable attending a formal dinner and subsequent ball. The George and Angel had served as Tennyson’s election headquarters in the weeks before the poll – facing straight down St Mary’s Hill, it overlooked the hustings outside the Town Hall where voters declared, for all to hear, for whom they were casting their votes. At present there is no evidence that Hortor presented any invoices to Tennyson who had first been attracted to Stamford at short notice in 1830 by the promise that his election costs would be met by the Committee of supporters. The name of the George and Angel , one of the oldest inns in Stamford, was well known [19] ; the addition of Tennyson’s name and coat of arms took place well before the second election, appearing in print in an advertisement in the Mercury in early March 1831 [20] . Almost next door to the George and Angel , and awkwardly placed behind St Mary’s Church, stood the recently built Stamford Hotel on the site of the former Bull Inn . Sir Gerard Noel of nearby Exton Hall in Rutland had spent a reported £43,000 building this [21] and hoped it would be a centre of resistance to the Burghley influence on voters in Stamford, but his defeat in the 1812 election, after such great expense left his hopes unfulfilled. Known as Standwell’s Hotel after its lessee in 1825, it had become the headquarters in the 1830s of the Burghley candidates – an ironic reversal of fortune and a warning which cannot have been lost on the citizens of Stamford [22] . Arrangements for the entertainment at the “Booth” were planned. On the 23rd May, Robert Saul supplied 12 pints of ale for the “Mutitioners [sic – presumably ‘musicians’ was intended] at Orchestra,” Clearly, an orchestra had been gathered and were preparing for the ball. The Stamford Mercury of the 27th May reports on both dinner and ball. Attending were not only all the newly elected reforming MPs for Lincolnshire and Rutland, Sir William Ingilby and Sir Gerard Noel, but “General Johnson [23] , Major Handley [24] and numerous parties of gentlemen from Boston, Spalding, Holbeach, Deeping, Bourn and other towns of this and the neighbouring counties.” The Mercury report makes it clear that the dinner itself was a male only occasion: “…. The gentlemen were honoured after dinner with the presence of Lady Tennyson and her daughters, Lady Ingilby and a large party of ladies of the town and neighbourhood.” For them “accommodation had been provided that they might hear the speeches.” The Mercury offers no indication of the content, quality or reception of the speeches, simply stating, “The day’s proceedings, it may be truly said, passed off with the most admirable effect.” The ball “for which so ardent anticipation had been felt by an immense class of individuals” took place following evening. Again, the marquee in Broad Street – always referred to as a “booth” – 130 feet by 40 feet (40m x 12m) was used, though the number attending was far greater than for the dinner. To provide the additional accommodation the ”spacious portico of the market” [25] was fitted up for dancing; the “numerous intervening shambles of the butchery, each of which was converted into a receptacle for refreshments, …… was presided over by ladies of a committee who kindly devoted themselves to the service.” Flowers and evergreen shrubs were everywhere, and the lighting was “beautifully” done with “variegated light formed into the most magnificent devices” in the booth. “Order and harmony” reigned throughout the evening and during a break in the dancing, Tennyson was presented with a silver vase, costing 100 guineas (today perhaps £9,000) which his supporters had collected to commemorate his success. Inevitably speeches followed. Most remarkable about the Mercury account of the ball are the words “the immense number of five thousand persons [26] were entertained in this magic scene…………..” Scarcely less remarkable is the way this sentence continues, “between eight o’clock on Wednesday evening and seven o’clock on the following morning.” Some celebration! The supporters of the Red party had their own celebration – and the Mercury duly recorded this also. They reported that on Tuesday 31st May supporters were “entertained with dinner at 30 of the inns and public houses of Stamford. About 700 persons partook of this festivity, which is estimated to have cost about £1 a man, ” [my italics!] . According to the Poll Book just 382 voters had cast at least one of their votes for the Exeter candidates. So it would appear that this celebration, like Tennyson’s, was attended by many who were not qualified to vote in the Stamford constituency. The Mercury’s report is short and betrays the paper’s political bias, reflecting its owner’s bias, in favour of reform; the comment on the cost of the Red celebration – perhaps £60,000 today – was a reminder to its readers of those reports a month earlier about how the Cecils had tried to manage the electors of the borough. Tennyson’s Dinner and Ball provided opportunities for the public houses in Broad Street to make further profit out of his success. On the night of the Ball the Salutation supplied “Brandy for [the] Booth” as well as having a “man employed in Making the Tea”, and a coal porter. Afterwards, having perhaps been responsible for fitting out the large marquee used for the dinner and ball, Saul claimed for “Things not returned from the Booth: 1 chair, 9 mugs, 1 quart jug and one half pint pewter” valuing the items at the equivalent of about £40 today. At the Red Lion there were losses of glasses and mugs over the election period to a similar amount. The Nags Head claimed from Tennyson the cost of providing “the lamp trimmers Ale &c” while the illuminations were kept bright. They also provided “tin cans, taps and pail,” presumably for the barrels of ale brought to the marquee. An unspecified number of waiters tried to ensure everything ran smoothly at the Nags Head . Nevertheless, unsurprisingly, amid all the celebrations accidents occurred. The breakages of glass at the Nags Head, Red Lion and Salutation cost the equivalent of at least £50 today. All the effort and expense, revealed in these bills, together with the extreme celebrations in the Booth made no direct difference whatsoever to Stamford in the short term. Tennyson and his fellow MP reformers brought the bill proposing reform of the electoral system to Parliament. Accepted by the Commons but rejected by the House of Lords – largely the people who benefited most from the existing franchise – widespread riots ensued; Bristol, Nottingham and Derby, among many other places, suffered severely. Faced with chaos, and the royal threat of the creation of enough peers to pass a Reform Bill, the Lords capitulated and the Reform Act received royal assent in the June of 1832. Nationally, this enlarged the franchise, particularly in the ‘new’ industrial towns of the North and, importantly, showed the way political change might be achieved. In Stamford the borough franchise was extended, and the constituency enlarged to include properties south of the Welland. Many inhabitants of St Martin’s became new electors in this enlarged Stamford constituency. The Exeter interest, owning the majority of the newly enfranchised properties in St Martin’s, was strengthened overwhelmingly as a result. Before the 1832 election, when the new electoral register was to be used, Tennyson left Stamford to take the far safer seat of Lambeth which he held for the next twenty years. Many of his supporters were upset, unsurprisingly, believing he had let them down. It was another 40 years, until the arrival of the secret ballot in 1872, that it became possible for Stamford electors to vote freely, without any fear of the consequences. Bayons Manor after it had been enlarged by Charles Tennyson [1] Blore’s Stanford Charities published in 1813 was a critical investigation into management of the so-called municipal charities. It anticipates many of the findings of the Charity Commissioners presented to Parliament in 1837, which was summarised in a lengthy Appendix by George Burton, Chronology of Stamford , Stamford, 1846. [2] See introduction, above. [3] See Appendix for a transcription of these invoices [4] In an ‘ongoing fit of medievalism’ in 1835, Tennyson renamed his inherited home, Bacons , as the far grander Bayons Manor – hopefully revealing a connection with Bayeaux. He also tacked “d’Eyncourt” to his surname. [5] Tennyson was already known as a reformer – he had been a MP for Grimsby from 1818-26 and subsequently Bletchingdon in Surrey until 1831. See History of Parliament , relevant entries [6] It was held just a fortnight after the duke of Ancaster had died with the result that Gen. Bertie, one of the two Stamford MPs and a friend of the Burghley interest, was raised to the peerage as the Earl of Lindsey. As a member of the House of Lords, he could no longer represent Stamford in the Commons, so a new MP was required. A rank outsider, said to have been a traveller through the town, polled nearly one third of the total votes. [7] See, The House of Commons, 1820–1832, History of Parliament Trust, ed. D. R. Fisher, Vol 3 sub Stamford. Also, History of the Original Constitution of Parliaments, T.H.B. Oldfield, London 1797, p.428. [8] In Stamford the Town Council Minute Book as far back as 1704 had recorded that the two most recent mayors had each received £100, perhaps equivalent to £20,000 today, from Mr Cecil and Mr Bertie, “to be distributed among the voaters of this town”. And this may possibly have been regarded as an annual ‘donation’! [9] Stamford Mercury 3 Dec 1830 [10] See the article, The Agricultural Labourers' Standard of Living in Lincolnshire, 1790-1840: Social Protest and Public Order, by T.L. Richardson in Agricultural History Review, 4I , x, pp 1-19 for a much fuller discussion of the local background to the 1831 election. [11] See elsewhere on this site, “Anonymous Abuse - 1830s style” about Tennyson’s decision not to stand for Stamford again in the 1832 election. [12] In 1847, after a debate about interference in the election in Stamford in that year, the House of Commons passed a motion (by one vote – 178 to 177!) to appoint a Select Committee to “inquire into the allegations ……. complaining of the interference of the Marquess of Exeter,” in the 1847 “and former elections.” The Select Committee Report on the Stamford Election of 1847 , (Parliamentary Papers, HC 532, 1847-1848, v.14) is highly critical of the tactics used by the Marquess and his agents, not least the ejection of tenants as a result of their not voting for their landlord’s candidates. [13] Stamford Mercury , Friday 29th April 1831, p.3 col.1 [14] The three letters are to be found in Lincolnshire Archives, 2Td’EH26/1, 2 & 4. Reports of the duel are to be found in the Stamford Mercury 23 June 1831, and many national newspapers, as well as local papers throughout the country. Drakard’s Stamford News , as might be expected from such a radical source, carries in great detail the names and background of many of the Special Constables brought in by the Exeter family, as well as full details of the origins of the duel – DSN 24 June 1831. [15] Lincolnshire Archives Td’E H/109/32. Drakard News carries a list of these “ruffians” (many former policemen) DSN 24 June 1831 [16] It is important to remember that messages had to be carried, as did people, and the carriers formed an important part of the structure of any pre-twentieth century community. [17] Sometimes, usually when a poll was very close, the “State of the Parties” was issued more frequently than daily. Poll books, often contain a running summary of daily happenings, giving the opportunity for each side subsequently to interpret events as they saw fit. [18] 10 shillings was half of one pound, so a modern equivalent might be about £50. [19] A property in St Mary’s parish called the Angel is recorded from the early 14th century (People & Property in Medieval Stamford No.758.28) and it appears to have been an inn by the late 15th. Early in the Georgian period the name was expanded, first to the Angel and George and then to the George and Angel . [20] On 11 March 1831 a new name, Tennyson’s Arms, replaced George and Angel . A month earlier still, on 10 February, William and Mary Everard had named their son Charles Tennyson at his baptism! (Stamford St John - Registers). [21] Chronology of Stamford , George Burton (Stamford & London 1846) p.194 – at least £4 million today [22] The riots occasioned by the close proximity of the two election headquarters form yet another strand to the story of the Stamford elections of the 1830s. Ultimately the ratepayers of the town had to make good the costs of the damage to the George and Angel , avoiding a law suit threatened by Hortor: LAO Stamford St Michael’s Vestry Book 20 June 1833. [23] William Augustus Johnson, of Witham on the Hill was a former MP for Boston, and later for Oldham, and a leading figure in South Lincolnshire after 1815. [24] Henry Handley, of Sleaford was MP for the Southern Division of Lincolnshire 1832-1841 [25] Now the Town Library, originally built to accommodate the Butchers’ shambles. [26] Italics in original report. In 1831 Stamford’s population was 5,837 according to the census of that year. There is an appendix to this article which can be viewed by clicking the link below. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back Murage Tax for Repairs to the Town Wall at Stamford Chris Hunt 2023 (from transcription by Justin Simpson F.S.A.) A murage tax was granted by Edward 1st to the town bailiffs to raise moneys by the taxing of goods brought into the town to repair its walls [P.R. 28 Edward 1, m16]. The King by writ made at Rockingham Castle on the 25th April in his 28th year (1300), by the announcement of William de Langton, Lord Treasurer, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1296-1322), authorised the Bailiffs and honest men of Stamford for and towards its enclosure or walling for better security to levy (murage) toll on all goods brought therein for sale for a period of seven years next ensuing from the date hereof, viz., For every load of corn of all kinds for brewing, 1/4d. Of every horse, mare, ox or cow, 1/2d. Of every hide of a horse, mare, ox or cow, fresh, salt or tanned, 1/4d. Of every five bacon (pigs), 1/2d. Of every ten small (pigs), 1/2d. Of every ten sheep, goats, and pigs, 1d. Of every ten fleeces (of wool), 1/2d. For every one hundred skins of (bleeting) sheep, lambs, and goats, 1d. For every hundredweight of skins of lambs, kids, hares, rabbits, foxes, cats, and squirrels, 1/2d. For every hundredweight of grey (cloth) work, 6d. Every quarter of salt, 1/4d. Every load of cloth, 1/2d. Every entire (piece of) cloth of the value of 40 shillings, 1/2d. Every trussell (or roll) of cloth brought by a cart, 3d. Every hundredweight of worsted cloth, 2d. Every cloth of worsted called coverlet and worth 40 shillings, 1d. Every hundredweight of linen woll, 1/2d. Every hundredweight of linen woll of Aylesham, 1d. Every piece of fine Cendallo (silken cloth), 1d, and of other (kind of) silk, 1/4d. Every hundredweight of salt stock fish, or hard fish, 2d. Every cart load of sea fish, 1/4d; and every load of the same, 1/2d. Every salmon, 1/4d. Every dozen of lamphreys, 1d. Every thousand of herrings, 1/4d. Every load of cinders or ashes, 1/2d. Every load of honey, 1d. Every sack of woll, 2d. Every load of tan, to be sold by the week, 1d. Merchandize weighing a hundredweight, 1d. Of every weigh (168 lbs.) of tallow and ointment, 1d. Of every quarter wayde (?), 2d. Of every two thousand of garlic or onions, 1/2d. Every bale Cordwain (Cordovan leather), 3d. Every hundredweight of boards, 1/2d. Every mola (? millstone – see below), 1/2d. Every hundredweight of faggots, 1/4d. Every thousands of turfs, 1/4d. Cart load of wood or timber by the week, 1/2d. Hundredweight of tin, brass, or copper, 2d. Every trussell of whatever merchandize to be sold exceeding the value ten shillings, 1/2d. And for every trussell merchandize not (herein) named exceeding five shillings or more, 1/4d. Transcribed by Justin Simpson F.S.A. Notes Justin Simpson 1833-1896, was very much an antiquarian of his time, he was a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries and was a prolific writer of articles which appeared in local and regional papers, and in learned journals, many of these articles related to Stamford. Glossary cordwain – leather for shoes etc., lamphreys – a fish of the genus Petromyzon, mola – salt-cake or millstone (salt was needed to tan leather), murage – a toll or tax levied for the building or repairing a town wall(s), tan – oak bark, trussell – a bundle, turf - peat A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next