< Back A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back The End of the Stamford Bull Run In 1838, the magistrates having received a peremptory mandate from Lord John Russell, for the suppression of the Bull-running, part of a troop of the 14 th Light Dragoons, from Northampton, under the command of Captain Harvey, and a detachment of the metropolitan police, arrived on the 10 th of November. The Dragoons were quartered in Saint Martin’s, Stamford Baron, in Northampton, with orders not to pass the bridge. The town and neighbourhood were in a state of great excitement on Sunday and Monday. The only two bulls in the town, one belonging to Mr. Roberts, at the Horns Inn, and the other the property of Mr. J. Smith, farmer, Scotgate, were secured by the police in the Hotel stables. On Monday night, special constables were placed at every entrance to the town to prevent the arrival of any bull. On the morning of the 13 th , the people congregated in large bodies, and chance threw a bull in their way. A covered cart passed through the town at twelve o’ clock, containing a young bull, the property of Earl Spencer, from his seat at Wiseton, near Bawtry. The bullards took possession of the cart in Saint Martin’s, where the bull was let out, and immediately ran down Saint Martin’s and over the bridge into Stamford. At the bridge the police formed themselves in line and made an attack on the people, to stop the bull, but it was useless: the bull passed on up Saint Mary’s-hill to Saint Geroge’s square, down High-street, Scotgate, Saint Peter’s-hill, and into the bull-meadow, where he was taken by the police, and escorted by the dragoons to the Bull and Swan, and given up to his conductor. The people passed into the back way of Saint Martin’s, near the Sun, where an attack was made on the military with stones and brickbats, principally from women and children; and an industrious harmless man named Nathaniel Pollard, who, whist returning from his work, was wounded on the head by the Sergeant major, and several people were hurt by the police. The military after leaving a guard at the Bull and Swan, drew up opposite to Saint Martin’s church and charged their carbines with ball bearings: they then marched through the streets and the mob quietly dispersed. At the following Borough Quarter Sessions in January, 1839, James Woodall, Octavious Snary, John Kisbee, and William Pollard , were indicted for riotously assembling with sticks and staves and breaking the peace by running a bull calf: Pollard was further indicted for throwing a stone at Robert Seal, a Sergeant-major in the 14 th Light Dragoons. The solicitors were, - Mr. N. Wilkinson, of Peterborough, for the prosecution, and Messrs. Thompson and Son, Stamford, for the defendants. After considering for a few minutes, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty . In 1839, notwithstanding the precautionary measures adopted by the Magistrates under the direction of the Secretary of State, - the introduction of military and a London police force, - the appointment of special constables, - and the establishment of mounted scouts to perambulate the open fields, - the bullards on Wednesday, November 13 th , contrived to introduce a bull into the town, though only for a very short time. Captain Bell with 43 of the 5 th Dragoon Guards from Nottingham, and Inspector Pearce with 20 of the London police force, arrived in Stamford on Monday. Photograph taken of a picture in the Mayors Parlour, Stamford Town Hall. On Tuesday, Francis Butt, Esq. (the Mayor), with W. Hunt, J Roden, and R. Hunt, Esqs., Magistrates, swore in 90 special constables, and adopted every arrangement calculated to carry into effect the commands of Lord Normanby for the suppression of the bill-running. In the evening of Tuesday the metropolitan and the borough police took charge of the bulls of Mr. Smith of Scotgate, and Mr. Roberts of the Horns, and whilst they were conveying the animals down Ironmonger-street, they were assailed by a mob with paving stones: the promptitude and firmness of the police force, however, suppressed the riot at the expense of a few broken pates from their staves, and the bulls were locked up in a stable at the Hotel, and the following instructions were given to the constables. “Special Constables, when called out, have all the powers which belong to a Constable throughout the whole Jurisdiction for which the appointment is made. “They are each subject to a Penalty of £5. For neglect or refusal to serve, or to obey lawful orders for performance of the duties of office. “Any person assaulting or resisting a Special Constable whilst in execution of his office, or promoting or encouraging any other person so to do, is liable to a penalty of £20., or to be indicted for the offence. “The following arrangements have been made for to-morrow (Wednesday). “Horsemen are appointed to preamble the Fields. “Special Constables appointed to guard the entrances of the town, 87.-Messengers, 3.-Metropolitan Police at Town-hall. “Town police to perambulate the streets, and communicate with the magistrates at the Town-hall, every hour or oftener if necessary. “In case a Bull should appear to be run, or a riot take place, the whole of the Constabulary force immediately to fall in and concentrate and assist in suppressing the disorder, and in apprehending offenders. On Wednesday morning, at seven o’ clock, a horse patrol was placed in every direction at about the distance of a mile from the town, with orders to give instant notice in the event of any beast approaching towards Stamford. The Mayor and magistrates assembled at the Town-hall at eight o’ clock. - The soldiers also mounted guard at the George Inn, at the same hour. Parties now beginning to congregate in the streets, the magistrates issued the following order: - “Town-hall, Stamford. Wednesday, 13 th November, 1839. “The magistrates have directed that there should be no congregation or assemblage of persons in the streets; and the constables have strict orders to prevent any such occurrence. - By order, “Nath. Farrant, Clerk to the Magistrates” Everything remained tolerably quiet until between one and two o’ clock, when the cry of “the bull” was raised, and it was found that, in spite of the precautions adopted, a young bull, having a direction tied on it “for Stamford” – had been brought into the town from the fields North of Scotgate, was “run” across that street, up to Rutland Terrace, thence down Well-lane, and along Bath-row, to the Lammas bridge, where the water was very much out. Through the negligence, it is said, of some of the special constables – none of whom communicated to the Magistrates, as they had been directed to do, the circumstances of a bull’s having entered the town – the animal remained for some minutes about Lammas bridge; but as soon as the Magistrates became acquainted with the fact, Mr Reed (chief constable) and the borough police, with Superintendent Pearce and ten of the metropolitan force, proceeded to rescue the bull. This was not accomplished, however, until they had reached a distance of two miles from Stamford, near Tolethorpe, where the animal was found in the middle of the river, surrounded by several hundred people. Possession of the bull was immediately taken by the police, who proceeded to drive him towards Stamford, followed by the whole assemblage, with shouts and execrations. On nearing the town, the mob considerably increased, and symptoms of an attempting rescue becoming evident, a messenger was despatched for the remainder of the police force, and subsequently for the military, who arrived apparently in the exact point of time to prevent violence from the crowd, which now amounted to three or four thousand. Photograph taken of a picture in the Mayors Parlour, Stamford Town Hall. Stones were thrown at the police, and some severe blows given and received, when the appearance of F. Butt, Esq., Mayor, who headed the military, quieted these symptoms, and the bull was conduced into the town, between two files of dragoons, accompanied by the police, and followed by the many thousands who had further attempts at violence. collected, with shouts, but with no further attempts at violence. Photograph taken of a picture in the Mayors Parlour, Stamford Town Hall. The animal was then taken into the Hotel stables and secured, after which the mob dispersed, and the military and police withdrew. While the bull was being secured as above in the Hotel stables, an attempt was made by an individual to let loose another animal secured in the same place, by withdrawing the staples of the stable door, but he was fortunately observed by the police. The magistrates remained at the town-hall until a late hour, and the military and police were on duty till 10 o’ clock, when the town appearing perfectly quiet they retired, and no further commotion took place. The military remained in Stamford until the 15 th and the metropolitan police, after a few days, returned. The bull was claimed by Mr. Clement Bland, of Frith Lodge, who declared it to have been taken by violence from his premises, but by parties unknown. – On the dismissal of the military, the Mayor presented Captain Bell, in the names of himself and the other authorities, their thanks for his attention and zealous discharge of duty. SOURCE CHRONOLOGY OF STAMFORD BY GEORGE BURTON, 1846, PAGES 60 TO 65, PRINTED & PUBLISHED BY ROBERT BAGLEY Note: - The Stamford bull baiting and run was held on St Brice’s day the 13 th November for about 600 years until it was effectively supressed in 1839. A print copy can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

PRIVACY POLICY This privacy policy applies between you, the User of this Website, and Stamford Local History Society, the owner and provider of this Website. Stamford Local History Society takes the privacy of your information very seriously. This privacy policy applies to our use of any and all Data collected by us or provided by you in relation to your use of the Website. Please read this privacy policy carefully. Definitions and interpretation 1. In this privacy policy, the following definitions are used: Data: collectively all information that you submit to Stamford Local History Society via the Website. This definition incorporates, where applicable, the definitions provided in the Data Protection Laws; Cookies: a small text file placed on your computer by this Website when you visit certain parts of the Website and/or when you use certain features of the Website. Details of the cookies used by this Website are set out in the clause below (Cookies); Data Protection Laws: any applicable law relating to the processing of personal Data, including but not limited to the GDPR, and any national implementing and supplementary laws, regulations and secondary legislation; GDPR the UK General Data Protection Regulation; Stamford Local History Society, we or us: Stamford Local History Society, Linconshire, UK UK and EU Cookie Law: the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003 as amended by the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2011 & the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) (Amendment) Regulations 2018; User or you: any third party that accesses the Website and is not either (i) a committee member of Stamford Local History Society and acting in the course of their membership or (ii) engaged as a consultant or otherwise providing services to Stamford Local History Society and accessing the Website in connection with the provision of such services; and Website: the website that you are currently using, and any sub-domains of this site unless expressly excluded by their own terms and conditions. 2. In this privacy policy, unless the context requires a different interpretation: the singular includes the plural and vice versa; references to sub-clauses, clauses, schedules or appendices are to sub-clauses, clauses, schedules or appendices of this privacy policy; a reference to a person includes firms, companies, government entities, trusts and partnerships; "including" is understood to mean "including without limitation"; reference to any statutory provision includes any modification or amendment of it; the headings and sub-headings do not form part of this privacy policy. Scope of this privacy policy 3. This privacy policy applies only to the actions of Stamford Local History Society and Users with respect to this Website. It does not extend to any websites that can be accessed from this Website including, but not limited to, any links we may provide to social media websites. 4. For purposes of the applicable Data Protection Laws, Stamford Local History Society is the "data controller". This means that Stamford Local History Society determines the purposes for which, and the manner in which, your Data is processed. Data collected 5. We may collect the following Data, which includes personal Data, from you: name; contact information such as email addresses and telephone numbers; in each case, in accordance with this privacy policy. How we collect Data 6. We collect Data in the following ways: data is given to us by you; and data is collected automatically. Data that is given to us by you 7. Stamford Local History Society will collect your Data in a number of ways, for example: when you contact us through the Website, by telephone, post, e-mail or through any other means; when you make payments to us, through this Website or otherwise; when you use our services; in each case, in accordance with this privacy policy. Data that is collected automatically 8. To the extent that you access the Website, we will collect your Data automatically, for example: we automatically collect some information about your visit to the Website. This information helps us to make improvements to Website content and navigation, and includes your IP address, the date, times and frequency with which you access the Website and the way you use and interact with its content. we will collect your Data automatically via cookies, in line with the cookie settings on your browser. For more information about cookies, and how we use them on the Website, see the section below, headed "Cookies". Our use of Data 9. Any or all of the above Data may be required by us from time to time in order to provide you with the best possible service and experience when using our Website. Specifically, Data may be used by us for the following reasons: internal record keeping; improvement of our products / services; in each case, in accordance with this privacy policy. 10. We may use your Data for the above purposes if we deem it necessary to do so for our legitimate interests. If you are not satisfied with this, you have the right to object in certain circumstances (see the section headed "Your rights" below). Keeping Data secure 11. We will use technical and organisational measures to safeguard your Data. 12. This site has been built using Wix, Wix are certified to ISO 27001. This family of standards helps us manage your Data and keep it secure. 13. Technical and organisational measures include measures to deal with any suspected data breach. If you suspect any misuse or loss or unauthorised access to your Data, please let us know immediately by contacting us via email. 14. If you want detailed information from Get Safe Online on how to protect your information and your computers and devices against fraud, identity theft, viruses and many other online problems, please visit www.getsafeonline.org . Get Safe Online is supported by HM Government and leading businesses. Data retention 15. Unless a longer retention period is required or permitted by law, we will only hold your Data on our systems for the period necessary to fulfil the purposes outlined in this privacy policy or until you request that the Data be deleted. 16. Even if we delete your Data, it may persist on backup or archival media for legal, tax or regulatory purposes. Your rights 17. You have the following rights in relation to your Data: Right to access - the right to request (i) copies of the information we hold about you at any time, or (ii) that we modify, update or delete such information. If we provide you with access to the information we hold about you, we will not charge you for this, unless your request is "manifestly unfounded or excessive." Where we are legally permitted to do so, we may refuse your request. If we refuse your request, we will tell you the reasons why. Right to correct - the right to have your Data rectified if it is inaccurate or incomplete. Right to erase - the right to request that we delete or remove your Data from our systems. Right to restrict our use of your Data - the right to "block" us from using your Data or limit the way in which we can use it. Right to data portability - the right to request that we move, copy or transfer your Data. Right to object - the right to object to our use of your Data including where we use it for our legitimate interests. 18. To make enquiries, exercise any of your rights set out above, or withdraw your consent to the processing of your Data (where consent is our legal basis for processing your Data), please contact us using the Contact form on our website. 19. If you are not satisfied with the way a complaint you make in relation to your Data is handled by us, you may be able to refer your complaint to the relevant data protection authority. For the UK, this is the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The ICO's contact details can be found on their website at https://ico.org.uk/. 20. It is important that the Data we hold about you is accurate and current. Please keep us informed if your Data changes during the period for which we hold it. Links to other websites 21. This Website may, from time to time, provide links to other websites. We have no control over such websites and are not responsible for the content of these websites. This privacy policy does not extend to your use of such websites. You are advised to read the privacy policy or statement of other websites prior to using them. Changes of control 22. Stamford Local History Society may, from time to time, expand or reduce our operation and this may involve the transfer of control of all or part of Stamford Local History Society. Data provided by Users will, where it is relevant to any part of our operation so transferred, be transferred along with that part and the newly controlling party will, under the terms of this privacy policy, be permitted to use the Data for the purposes for which it was originally supplied to us. 23. We may also disclose Data to a prospective controlling party of our operation or any part of it. 24. In the above instances, we will take steps with the aim of ensuring your privacy is protected. Cookies 25. This Website may place and access certain Cookies on your computer. Stamford Local History Society uses Cookies to improve your experience of using the Website and to improve our range of services. Stamford Local History Society has carefully chosen these Cookies and has taken steps to ensure that your privacy is protected and respected at all times. 26. All Cookies used by this Website are used in accordance with current UK and EU Cookie Law. 27. Before the Website places Cookies on your computer, you will be presented with a message bar requesting your consent to set those Cookies. By giving your consent to the placing of Cookies, you are enabling Stamford Local History Society to provide a better experience and service to you. You may, if you wish, deny consent to the placing of Cookies; however certain features of the Website may not function fully or as intended. 28. This Website may place the following Cookies: Strictly necessary cookies: These are cookies that are required for the operation of our website. Analytical/performance cookies: They allow us to recognise and count the number of visitors and to see how visitors move around our website when they are using it. This helps us to improve the way our website works, for example, by ensuring that users are finding what they are looking for easily. Functionality cookies: These are used to recognise you when you return to our website. This enables us to personalise our content for you, greet you by name and remember your preferences (for example, your choice of language or region). By using the Website, you agree to our placement of functionality cookie. 29. You can choose to enable or disable Cookies in your internet browser. By default, most internet browsers accept Cookies but this can be changed. For further details, please see the help menu in your internet browser. You can switch off Cookies at any time, however, you may lose any information that enables you to access the Website more quickly and efficiently. 30. You can choose to delete Cookies at any time; however, you may lose any information that enables you to access the Website more quickly and efficiently including, but not limited to, personalisation settings. 31. It is recommended that you ensure that your internet browser is up-to-date and that you consult the help and guidance provided by the developer of your internet browser if you are unsure about adjusting your privacy settings. 32. For more information generally on cookies, including how to disable them, please refer to aboutcookies.org. You will also find details on how to delete cookies from your computer. General 33. You may not transfer any of your rights under this privacy policy to any other person. We may transfer our rights under this privacy policy where we reasonably believe your rights will not be affected. 34. If any court or competent authority finds that any provision of this privacy policy (or part of any provision) is invalid, illegal or unenforceable, that provision or part-provision will, to the extent required, be deemed to be deleted, and the validity and enforceability of the other provisions of this privacy policy will not be affected. 35. Unless otherwise agreed, no delay, act or omission by a party in exercising any right or remedy will be deemed a waiver of that, or any other, right or remedy. 36. This Agreement will be governed by and interpreted according to the law of England and Wales. All disputes arising under the Agreement will be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English and Welsh courts. Changes to this privacy policy 37. Stamford Local History Society reserves the right to change this privacy policy as we may deem necessary from time to time or as may be required by law. Any changes will be immediately posted on the Website and you are deemed to have accepted the terms of the privacy policy on your first use of the Website following the alterations. Attribution 38. This privacy policy was created using a document from Rocket Lawyer https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en This privacy policy was created on 15 November 2023.

location of the Stamford cross < Back Queen Eleanor’s Cross Ken Coles 1980 This article was produced by Ken Coles for the February 1980 edition of the Stamford Historian. In it he explores the evidence for the location of Stamford's Eleanor Cross. Queen Eleanor’s Cross Queen Eleanor’s Cross. Where exactly did this immense cross stand? This question has been circulating around Stamford for many years now, and every so often pops up again. Although this has probably been done many times before, I have with the aid of notes by Laurence Tebbut, John Chandler and Michael Key, tried to answer the question, putting together the majority of the information the Survey Group has on the subject. Why a Cross? Eleanor of Castile, Queen of England and wife of Edward I, died on 28th November 1290 at Harby in Nottinghamshire. Edward decided that she was to be buried in Westminster Abbey, so her body was taken to Lincoln and there embalmed ready for the journey south. A solemn procession for London, by a long and circuitous route, set out on December 4th accompanied by the king himself. Halts for the night were made at approximately every 20 miles, at Grantham, Stamford, Geddington, Northampton, Stony Stratford, Woburn, Dunstable,St Albans, Waltham Abbey, West Cheam and Charing Cross, eventually reaching Westminster Abbey where the funeral took place three days later, on 17th December. In the following two years Edward had crosses erected in memory of Queen Eleanor in each of the resting-places above. Of these three still remain today at Geddington, Northampton and Waltham. Early evidence whilst the cross was still standing Stamford’s cross stood for approximately 350 years, and to confirm this we have two eye-witnesses. The first was Captain Richard Symonds of the Royalist army, who visited Stamford briefly on his way from Newark to Huntingdon on Saturday August 22nd 1645. He wrote the following in his diary, ‘In the hill before ye into the towne stands a lofty large cross, built by Edward I in memory of Eleanor whose corps rested there coming from the north. Upon the top of this cross these three shields shields are often carved: England; three bends sinister; a bordure (Ponthieu); Quarterly Castile and Leon’ The second eye-witness is Richard Butcher, Town Clerk. In his survey of Stamford of 1646 he says the following: ‘Near unto the York highway and about twelve score paces from the town gate which is called Clement Gate, stands an ancient crosse of freestone of very considerable fabric, having many ancient scrutcheons or arms insculped in the stone about it as the arms of Castille and Leon quartered being the paternal coat of the King of Spain and divers other hatchments belonging to that crown which envious time hath so defaced that only the ruins appear to my eye and therefore not to be described by my pen’ There is one other earlier reference to a cross, and that is in the Town Records of November 30th 1621: ‘..... the hall also agreed that the fate of the Kings Crosse shall be forthwith amended by a sufficient workman’ Although to judge by Butcher’s later description the ‘workman’ did not do a very good job. Peck’s Annals (p.17) show that the cross was destroyed between 1646 and 1660, probably by Parliamentarian ‘fanatics’. Later Evidence On January 16th 1745 William Stukeley wrote to a fellow antiquarian: ‘Our surveyor of the turnpike road opened up a tumulus half a mile north of Stamford on the brow of a hill by the roadside and there discovered the foundations of the Queen’s Cross, the lower most tier of the steps in tact and part of the second, tis of Barnack stone, hexagonal, the measure of each side thirteen feet so the diameter was thirty f eet. It s tood on a grassy heath called by the towns people Queens Cross’. In another letter dated 21st December 1754 he wrote that Mr Wying surveyor of the turnpike, was opening a quarry on the left hand side of the road from Stamford to Great Casterton and that he took away a carved stone from part of the pinnacle and other pieces which he put in his Barnhill garden. He says the cross ‘stood on a delicate eminence called Anemone Hill’. He also wrote to the Mercury quite soon after this, on December 26th 1745, reporting the discovery of the remains of a cross ‘on a grassy cliff on the left hand from Stamford to Brigcasterton’. A question raised here is whether Queen’s Cross heath and Anemone Hill are the same place, or was the ‘carved stone’ found away from the foundation (steps)? Towards the end of the 19th century when the Torkington Estate was divided up for building purposes (i.e. Torkington Street, Reform Street) one plot was called Blue Anemone Hill. There is one other interesting paragraph in the Peterborough and Huntingdon Standard of 10th October 1847 describing: ‘A stone effigy built into a wall in St Martins that of a female of the time of Edward I or II. The head is detached, the hands across the breast are mutilated and the feet are gone’. If the Stamford cross resembled the cross at Geddington then the above description could very well be part of the cross, as the Geddington one has three sculptures of the queen on it. Modern Evidence There is not a lot of evidence from the modern period, but in 1973 a section of Barnack stone was found in the Foxdale area of Stamford. Mr H W Pond found the stone in a dry stone wall and Mr R F Grimwood of the local History Society had it removed to St Leonard’s Priory for storage and safekeeping, where it still remains. It is described as weighing 2 cwts., and is eight inches square, thirty inches high with rounded edges. Part is carved with chevrons. This was thought to have been part of the cross. The Foxdale area is one mile out of Stamford and this seems too far if we take Butcher’s ‘twelve score paces from Clement Gate’ and Stukeley’s ‘half a mile’, although this does not rule out the stone as being part of the cross as it could easily have been moved to that position. On walking Butcher’s twelve score paces from Clements Gate (the Stamford side of Scotgate traffic lights) I arrived behind Clock House on the Casterton Road and adjacent to the front garden of Rock Lodge House. Now, before this article was suggested an acquaintance had said that I should look at the ‘ancient stonework’ in Rock Lodge gardens, so permission was given by the owners, to look around the garden and, true enough, built into the walls at certain places were pieces of old masonry. After tracing some previous owners, no information was gained as to the origins of these remains. A suggestion is that they may have been excavated whilst the gardens were being landscaped and probably could have come from the old church of St Thomas, which is alleged (without any evidence at all) to have stood near this spot. The Survey Group would be happy to receive any other information on these. To end, I would like to think that a few of these pieces came from the cross itself, as Rock Lodge stands ‘twelve score paces’ on the left hand side of Casterton Road and on the first ‘cliff face’. With its commanding views toward Stamford, what more suitable spot could be found for such a monument, at the entrance to the town where the Oakham and North roads meet? Bibliography R Butcher, Survey and Antiquities of the town of Stamford , 1646 F Peck, The Antiquarian Annals of Stamford , 1727 The Stamford Mercury The Peterborough and Huntingdon Standard This article by Ken Coles is reprinted from the issue 4 of the Stamford Historian published in February 1980 Addendum The above article was written in 1980, but 13 years later a fragment of Purbeck marble with a rose carved on one of its surfaces was found in the garden of Stukeley House, 9 Barn Hill, Stamford, the home in the 1740s of noted antiquary, William Stukeley. The appearance of this fragment accorded with a description of the upper shaft of the Stamford Eleanor Cross Stukeley claimed to have found in December 1745 on Anemone Hill (upper Casterton Road). Further research confirmed the fragment to be part of Stukeley’s find and that he had almost certainly discovered the site of the Stamford Eleanor Cross. This discovery places the Stamford Eleanor Cross in the Foxdale area of Casterton Road, map reference TF01910758 +/- 20 m. and not at the junction of Empingham and Casterton Roads as previously thought.The essence of the case for revision was published in the correspondence columns of the Stamford Mercury, 28 September 2007, p.13, and can also be found on the Mercury website at http://www.stamfordmercury.co.uk/news/opinion/letters/overwhelming-evidence-on-site-of-eleanor-cross-1-486463 . A full account of the discovery can be found in John F H Smith, ‘A Fragment of the Stamford Eleanor Cross’ published vol. 94 of the Antiquaries Journal, 1994, pp. 301-311. In September 2013 a further article on Stukeley, ‘William Stukeley in Stamford: his houses, gardens and a project for a Palladian Triumphal Arch Over Barn Hill’ by J F H Smith was published in the Antiquaries Journal (vol. 93, pp. 353-400). This lists (footnote 53) all the references in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, to Stukeley’s claimed find of the Cross. These are: Bodleian Library, Oxford, Eng. misc. c. 538, fols 41–41v; Eng. misc. e. 126, fols 91–98; Eng. misc. e. 196, fols 51 and 111–112. In addition a drawing entitled ‘The groundplot of Queens Cross, Stamford’ (Eng. misc. e. 126. fol.18) shows that what Stukeley found was hexagonal in plan, not octagonal as suggested by Smith (1994)John F H Smith8 January 2014 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Anti-Printing Poem by an Unknown Hand, Published in 1820 The Banished Printer to His Trade – A Parody Submitted by Chris Hunt Compositor of printing name! Quit! Oh quit your wooden frame! Working, starving, idling, drinking Oh the gain, the loss of printing! Cease, fond printer, cease your trade, And shun the laws for printers made! Hark! they sentence; - judges say, ‘Libel printer, go away!’ What is this embitters life? Starves my children, kills my wife, Sends me abroad for punishment? Tell me my trade – ‘tis banishment! England recedes; it disappears -- France opens to my eyes! my ears With foreign accents ring: Lend, lend your ships! I sail! I fly! O judge! where is thy victory? O law! where is thy sting? The above poem was attached to a letter to the editor, which stated: I trespass upon your time and patience with an ode, intended to convey a faint idea of the inky breathings of an aspiring letter-press printer, who was fully conversant, and even deeply versed, in the ‘black arts’; and being considered too noxious a weed to remain in the garden of England was transplanted into a more degenerate soil. Leaving it to your candour to determine whether the ‘setting-up’ will warrant its being ‘sent to press’, I remain, sir, with grateful acknowledgements for your encouragement. X. Source Drakard’s Stamford News January 7th 1820 p4/c3 Note We shall never know the author of this poem, although its contents almost certainly mirrored the views of the Editor of the Stamford News, Mr Drakard. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back October 31st 1940 – The Luftwaffe Comes to Stamford Chris Hunt 2021 Today St Leonard’s Street is a quiet part of the town, far enough away from the High Street and Wharf Road to get little or no traffic, other than motorists trying to find a parking space. However, on Thursday October 31st 1940 the War came to this area when a large bomb which was reported at the time to have weighed close to a ton fell on Cornstall Buildings. A low flying lone German plane, possible a Heinkel 111, dropped a bomb which took off the roofs and chimney stacks of No 2 and 3 Cornstall Buildings before passing through No 17 Cornstall Buildings and demolishing a coal shed at the rear of the property. One side of the house had gone and there was a hole above the front door where the bomb had hit the building. Luckily the bomb did not explode. The occupier of No 17, Mrs Elsie Griffiths and her daughter Doreen had a very lucky escape as although in the house at the time sitting on the sofa, it was however reported that if they had been standing they would not have been so lucky. Immediately the emergency services were on hand to clear the area., which stretched from Maiden Lane to Brazenose Lane, and from St Paul’s Street to Wharf Road. Stamford School could only be accessed from Elm Street. The plane had come from the general direction of Wothorpe, spraying bullets over the Town before dropping the bomb. It was suggested at the time that the pilot had been aiming for the gas works which was only a hundred yards away on Wharf Road. The Town Council erected market stalls on Ironmonger Street so that those shopkeepers who had had to close their shops could continue trading, allowing their ‘registered customers’ to buy their rations. People evacuated from their houses found refuge in relatives and friends house across the town and others were found accommodation, bedding and food was provided from reserve stores held at the Fane School. Payments were made to householders under the Government Evacuation Scheme and those who had left their ration cards in their homes were issued with emergency ones from the Town Hall, and supplies of second-hand clothing was made available to those in need. The local bomb disposal team at the time was based in Ketton and they began the job of making the bomb safe. It was found to have a ninety-six-hour fuse which could have resulted by the Monday of destroying a large area at the eastern end of the town. Luckily for everyone it was defused on the Sunday and people were then allowed to return to their homes. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Weather in Stamford In April 1641, a very heavy rain, accompanied by a high west wind, caused a flood which covered the bridge. On Saturday November 1, 1736, a very high wind blew down a windmill on the west side of the town, and did much damage. On the 4th of May, 1800, a most dreadful storm passed over Stamford: the thunder and lightning were terrific, and the hailstones destroyed nearly all the windows facing the south-west. On Friday, the 31st August 1821, a shower, which did not last an hour, inundated the town. In Protection-place, Scotgate, the water was six feet high, and potatoes, apples, plums, onions, &c. were conveyed by the stream from the market, down Maiden-lane and the Hotel-yard: the electric fluid struck the house occupied by Mr. Samuel Watson, tanner, in Blackfriar’s-street, and partly uncovered the roof: this storm extended only a mile round Stamford. On the 10th of June, 1822, there was a severe tempest of thunder and lightning, which did much damage in the neighbourhood; and on the 28th of the following month a heavy storm of thunder, lightning, and hail took place. In 1823 on the 27th January, the streets were so covered with ice, that many persons skated from Scotgate to the top of High-Street. On the 14th January, 1827, Emlyn’s-close tree was split in two by a violent hurricane, and 50 feet of the main stem was brought to the ground. 1830. On account of the exceeding wetness of the summer months this year, there were greater and more frequent floods in the River Welland than had occurred for many years previous: and the meadows becoming inundated, caused a greater loss of sheep, by the rot, than had ever before been experienced. 1833. August 31st, there occurred a tremendously high wind from the N.W., which was supposed to have been the greatest wind since November 10th, 1810. The roofs of buildings were much damaged by the removal of many slates and tiles; but happily, further than this no material injury was done. SOURCE CHRONOLOGY OF STAMFORD BY GEORGE BURTON, 1846, PAGE 308, PRINTED & PUBLISHED BY ROBERT BAGLEY A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Obituary and Records - November 15 1801 This being the anniversary of the Stamford bull-running day was, in consequence of its falling on a Friday, postponed until the following day; after the bullards had enjoyed as much sport as they thought fit in St, George’s-street, a wider field of operation was afforded the poor animal, which, quitting the town, crossed the river Welland in the direction of its home (Bainton), when Benj. Overton, a horse keeper of the town, whilst violently perspiring, out of breath, and in a state of intoxication, plunged into the Welland after the fugitive bull, and, as might be expected, struck with the intense cold, sunk to rise no more, although every effort was made to save him. Source: Obituary and Records for the Counties of Lincoln, Rutland & Northampton by Justin Simpson, page 18. Printed by William R Newcomb, Stamford 1861. Submitted by Ronnie Teasdale. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

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

< Back A Print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back W H Smith & Sons opens Book & Newspaper stall at Stamford Midland Railway Station and a Stand at the Great Northern Station in 1885 A book and newspaper stall has been opened at the Midland Railway station, Stamford, by Messrs W.H.Smith and Son, and a stand for the sale of newspapers and periodicals only is to be set up by the same firm at the Great Northern station. Source Stamford Mercury (Friday) August 28 th 1885 p4, c2 Note: - W.H.Smith’s didn’t have a shop on the High Street until the 1930’s when they took over premises of C. Haynes, Stationer and Fancy Repository. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

investigating Stamford deaths < Back Death By Misadventure: Coroners' Inquests 1700-1850 - Part 1 John Hartley 1978 This is a slightly modified version of the original article, which appeared in Vol 2 of the Stamford Historian, published in 1978. In addition to the appendix below, published with the original article, further examples of the contents of Coroners’ Files will be added elsewhere on this website. DEATH BY MISADVENTURE: CORONERS’ INQUESTS 1700-1850 - PART 1 BACKGROUND Among sources often neglected by the local historian are the papers of Coroners’ Inquests. Studies of the work of the medieval coroner have been made [1] and collections of documents published [2] , but very little use has been made of inquest papers of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. It may well be that they have been neglected because few have survived and their usefulness has not therefore been brought to general notice. It must be confessed at the outset that the papers often make depressing reading. Few can find much pleasure in detailed accounts of the deaths of suicides or of young children killed by negligence. However, the papers of an inquest provide information which cannot easily be found elsewhere. While other sources, particularly newspapers, may provide some information, it is rare that they contain the richness of detail to be found in evidence given by witnesses at inquests. Moreover,the evidence of witnesses often gives the modern historian an insight into the lives of the poor, rather different from that which is given by other sources. Something of this is apparent from the examples cited from the surviving inquests relating to the borough of Stamford. Stamford has a collection of over three hundred inquisitions dated between 1705 and 1850. More than half these official reports of the findings of the coroners’ juries have the evidence of witnesses preserved with them. These three hundred are the surviving ones; many more must have been lost, and it is not therefore possible to attempt more than a general survey of their findings. The Coroner The office of Coroner was well established by the early years of Edward I’s reign, and his duties were clearly defined soon after this. In Stamford, until 1835, the office of Coroner was held by each retiring mayor in turn [3] . Along with his other duties (including inquests for treasure trove and similar investigations) the Coroner was ordered to hold an inquest whenever an unexpected or unnatural death occurred within his jurisdiction. It was an offence to fail to inform him of a death which came into this category, as it was to bury the body before the inquest had been held. The Parish Constable was ordered to provide a jury of at least twelve men (no upper limit was set) who had to appear unless they had a ‘reasonable excuse to the contrary’. The jury had to take the inquest ‘upon view of the body’, and no inquest could be held unless the body had been seen by the jury in the presence of the Coroner. The notorious inquest at Oldham, Lancashire, in 1819 on John Lees who died from injuries received at Peterloo, was never completed for this reason. It was the duty of the jury to find out what had happened, and to present a verdict to the Coroner, rather than to hear a case presented by a prosecution. The many questions which the jury had to ask were established by law. Detailed descriptions of wounds had to be made and these feature in almost all records of inquests [4] . The Verdict The decision reached by the jury about the cause of death was normally very clearly indicated on the inquisition, the signed and sealed report of the jury. Murder, manslaughter, accident and natural causes (‘the visitation of God’) are usually stated quite plainly, but one finds less uniformity in cases of suicide. The jury may give an explanation why a person took his own life; for instance, some physical defect may have brought somebody to the brink of insanity; but often no explanation is given. The distinction between temporary and permanent insanity is not always made. Thus, when William Venters of Stamford threw himself from the town bridge in November 1827, the verdict returned was suicide through lunacy, in spite of the evidence that he had been drinking quietly, though in a depressed state, at the Queen’s Head Inn. About ten o’clock in the evening his wife, ‘a woman not bearing a very good character’, entered the Inn and started ‘soliciting his return home’; one is probably safe in assuming that it was her nagging that drove him to his death [5] . Other qualifications to the verdict of ‘suicide’ were sometimes returned, and open verdicts were given in a number of cases of drowning and infant mortality. The Records of Coroners’ Inquests The records of inquests of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries usually contain three sets of papers. The first is the ‘Inquisition Indented’, so-called from the opening words of the official report. This has the general details of the finding of the jury, and may give a brief account of the events leading up to death when these can be ascertained. Secondly, many collections have statements of evidence, sworn before the Coroner, on which the jury based its decision. Some witnesses’ evidence was slight and it may be reported verbatim in the Inquisition; but in other cases, particularly the later ones, the evidence is much more substantial. In drownings and similar tragedies short recent biographies of the deceased may be given so that the jury could establish whether the death was an accident or suicide. Doctors’ evidence appears in most instances, whether to establish the cause of a natural death, often a hit-or-miss affair, or to report on the care of a person between accident and death. Workmates say what they know of an accident; travellers report on the state of health of a fellow passenger or the competence of a coach driver. From such evidence, much may be discovered. What may have been irrelevant to the Jury then, and therefore not mentioned in the Inquisition, may provide a valuable insight for the historian now. In addition to the Inquisition and the evidence of the witnesses, other papers may well survive among Coroners’ records. Lists of the jury were drafted before they were summoned to appear; the costs of witnesses were recorded; orders were made to hold persons who might have to face criminal charges when manslaughter or murder had been found to be the cause of death. If an inquest were held on somebody who had died in gaol, very thorough investigations were made, and these papers may be preserved with the other records. Included in one set of papers are the notes of a Stamford Coroner about suicide and how it should be regarded, while in another set is the original suicide note from a woman to her brother [6] . Other Sources It is often possible to gather further information about a case by recourse to other sources. Quarter Sessions Rolls may contain relevant material; Assize Courts dealt with murder cases and their records may complete the story of an inquest; parish registers may mention the burial of someone who died accidentally, with a note to indicate this. In the later eighteenth century, and for the whole of the nineteenth century, the local newspaper is a source which should be consulted in order to fill out the picture, though often it may add little, especially when the evidence of the witnesses is detailed or when, as increasingly became the case, the newspaper reported the inquest itself rather than relating the story independently. If the victim had been of importance in the local community a short obituary may have appeared. THE STAMFORD INQUESTS Few places possess a substantial collection of original Coroners’ Inquisitions with their subsidiary papers, and those that have survived at Stamford are most interesting. Their value is enhanced by the fact that for most of the eighteenth century we have the Stamford Mercury , while during the early nineteenth century as many as four local newspapers were published, copies of which survive. Murder and Manslaughter Only a few inquisitions at Stamford found murder to have been the cause of death. This is partly because all official papers had to be forwarded to the Assizes and it was not customary for copies to be kept locally. Of the five murders whose records survive among the Stamford Inquisitions, only one deserves a mention. In 1782 a quarrel between two victuallers in the town led to the death of Robert Osborne, master of the Black Swan. William Fawkner was held in gaol to answer for the offence. It appears that Osborne had been obstinate and had refused to give up a quarrel, in spite of pleas from his friends. The Mercury (28 Feb. 1782) reported that “the heartfelt grief of Mr. Osborne’s antagonist cannot be expressed, tho’ the nearest of his friends do not blame the person he fought with for this misfortune”. Manslaughter also seems to have been relatively rare, though this may again be due to gaps in the records. We know most about a case involving Richard Facon who made a visit to a ‘female acquaintance’ at Tolethorpe, about two miles from Stamford, in 1774. She was not at home so he went to the house of a friend of his, the miller Mr. Goodwin, thinking she might be there. He peered through a window but could not see her. However one of Mr. Goodwin’s servants saw the face looking in and told his master. Goodwin, who had been robbed a few months earlier, went after Facon, shot first and then asked questions. Facon’s hand was ‘shattered in a most miserable manner’ ( Mercury , 22 Dec. 1774) and Goodwin did not realise that he had hit an ‘intimate acquaintance and very good friend’ until after he had further injured him with the butt of his gun. Facon was taken back to Stamford where he died some days later. Though the accident took place outside the Stamford Coroner’s jurisdiction, it was usual for the Coroner of the place where the death eventually occurred to hear the inquest. Suicide Suicides seem to have been fairly frequent. Stress and strain are not modern phenomena, as the evidence in many cases makes clear. Methods varied greatly and they are often described in detail. Two cases of suicide by shooting occur; some cut their throats, but no records survive to show cutting of wrists as the cause of death. Hanging and drowning were most common of all. Juries had to be satisfied that a drowned person had intended to take his own life, and so the detail of the witnesses’ evidence is often considerable. ‘Gibraltar Pitt’ in the town meadows seems to have been a most dangerous place, since swimmers drowned there, as well as its having been the site of at least one suicide. An inmate of Browne’s Hospital, a medieval almshouse, Francis Allen aged eighty-two, put his head in a butt of water while troubled by a painful hernia, and a verdict of ‘delerium and despondency’ leading to suicide was returned. Others chose poisons: mercury, opium and even a ‘sublimate’ for treating venereal disease, but laudanum seems to have been especially favoured. Natural Causes Many deaths were, of course, attributed to natural causes, and one can often see in the medical evidence at these inquests an attempt by the doctors to get to grips with pathology. Many deaths are recorded as ‘from apoplexy’ and left at that. Some cases were however clear for all to see. Jane, the wife of John Chamberlain White, met her end according to the jury through too much ‘drinking of ardent spirits’, and there is the evidence of various witnesses to show that she had been in the habit of ‘drinking large quantities of spirits of lavender, spirits of wine, and other stimulants’ ( Mercury , 11 Mar 1831). Equally simple for the doctors to decide was the case of William Fletcher who died in the winter of 1800 through the ‘natural causes’ of starvation, illness and infirmity. The medical profession, and the Coroners’ juries, faced their stiffest test when confronted with the body of a very young child. It was often impossible to get any other evidence than the mother’s and this might be suspect. Thus ‘open’ verdicts may be returned in cases of this kind. But a jury in 1840 found that a new born female child of Frances Palmer, a widow, had died from ‘natural causes accelerated by improper treatment’. Perhaps the most perplexing case of all, both to the jury then and the reader today, was that of a ‘male infant child’ found dead in 1827. On the Inquisition its age is given as five days, yet at the inquest the jury returned the verdict of ‘stillborn’. With the Inquisition is a thick sheaf of papers containing evidence and the supposed mother, Elizabeth Cunnlngton, was held in custody by the Magistrates for inquiries to be made. Accidents at Home Not surprisingly poisons were also a common source of accidents in the home. In several cases laudanum, used by parents as an opiate to keep their children quiet, was accidentally administered. Edward Alexander, aged fourteen weeks, was given laudanum instead of children’s cordial in 1834, while James Addleshaw, a victualler, was given the same by mistake instead of tincture of Rhubarb. Samuel Spencer’s mother also intended to give her son tincture of Rhubarb but instead gave the three week old baby oil of vitriol (sulphuric acid). She realised her mistake immediately, but the doctors could do nothing to help the child. Other accidents in the home were quite common, especially to the very young or old. There are a number of cases of clothes catching fire, while dangerous cellar steps at Truesdale’s Hospital led to one death. Accidents at Work Work was always accompanied by hazards. On the last day of December 1795 the Coroner’s jury ‘sat on the body’ of Thomas Wing, aged eleven, who had fallen into the Welland the previous day and drowned. He had been fetching water for a forge nearby owned by his master, Thomas Harper. The Mercury (1 Jan. 1796) carried a report of the accident and criticised his parents: ‘his tender (sic) parents were soon apprised of the circumstance (singular we hope it.) His body was left to cool in the river till the next morning.’ Even a simple task like washing out a cart could be dangerous. Edward Jackson was drowned in a patch of deep water in the Welland when his cart went out of control. Not surprisingly the accidents at work were very varied. Richard Sandall fell from a ladder when a rung broke; Richard Scholes fell from a haystack he was making onto the upturned prongs of a pitchfork. At W. B. Edwards’ brewery at least one of two accidents was caused by intoxication. While Francis Cole was emptying hops into the boiling copper he fell in and was scalded very severely, but he survived long enough to make the uncomfortable journey in a jolting cart the half mile from the brewery to his home where he died eight hours later. Six years after this, in 1832, John Andrews did not take proper precautions, according to his workmate Ambrose Ripping, before going into a vat to clear out the dregs of the stale ale and he was suffocated by the gases that remained. It took several attempts by the foreman, Joseph Wilson, before he could stay long enough to attach a rope to Andrews’ leg ( Mercury , 5 Jan 1832). Abraham Ryley was knocked from the staging of Mr. Brown’s bark mill in 1813. It seems likely that a gust of wind started the mill sails unexpectedly. The force of the sails was such that he was thrown over some buildings, across a road and into a paddock. He left a widow and seven children, five of them under eleven, for whom the Mayor and the owner of the Mercury started a subscription ( Mercury , Aug. 1813). A similar accident had happened to Alice Wilson in 1745. At Hudd’s Mill in 1814 Job Topley, ‘an industrious man in the employ of Mr. Smith, miller’ ( Mercury , 28 Jan.) was standing on the water wheel clearing ice when it suddenly started, crushing him and nearly killing Stephen White, his helper, who gave detailed evidence at the Inquest. Although the range and variety of accidents is very great, certain trades were rather more dangerous than others. In spite of the incompleteness of the inquest papers it is possible to suggest that the most dangerous occupations were those connected with building and transport. The Building Trades seem to have had many accidents, involving most of the separate occupations within the trade. Unsurprisingly, stone quarrying was very dangerous and there are several inquests on people like Christopher Wilson and William Peasgood, both killed in 1818 when there was a rock fall in a stone pit. Once the stone had been won, other risks arose. Ladders and scaffolding caused accidents - Robert Pilkington, a member of a well-known Stamford family of builders, fell from a ladder in 1825 while the Gas Works was being made. Though the collapse of St. Michael’s Church in 1832 was not attended by any fatalities, repairs on churches were always dangerous. In 1788 Robert Shaw was working on the steeple of St. Mary’s Church when the rope of a basket used for lifting stone caught on one of the crockets of the spire and this fell on him; a ‘Charitable Card Assembly’ (the eighteenth century equivalent of a whist drive) was held for the benefit of his widow and her six children, and over £26 was raised ( Mercury , 29 Aug., 5 Sept. 1788). Surprisingly, only one death of a slater is recorded, perhaps because the job was obviously dangerous and more precautions were taken. In 1811 Thomas Jorden was working on the house of the Rev. John Butt and though others were at work there, nobody saw him fall. It was reported that he was subject to fits and it is possible that this was the cause of his mishap. Another member of the same family, Joseph Jorden, had been killed in 1786 while making alterations to a house when an arch collapsed on him. Finally, there was the case of Thomas Pierce, an architect who was responsible for work at the Stamford Hotel Cockpit in 1825. He was found dying by his own workmen at the foot of some stairs. If building was a dangerous occupation, transport in one form or another seems to have accounted for the largest number of accidental deaths. Cases were recorded, much as one might find today, of children run over - Charles Hudson was playing with a ball when he was hit by a cart; in 1793 Thomas Jackson, aged four, was run over; most tragic of all was the death of Mary Ann North, also aged four, who was run over by the cart her father was driving. Innocent pedestrians might suffer as well as careless children. Thomas Thompson, aged about eighty, called to a carter to beware of some holes at the side of Red Lion Square, a section of the Great North road. Whether the carter heard or not, the wheels of the waggon fell into the holes and the cart shed its load of elm tree trunks over the pavement and over Thompson. A stationary wagon was not necessarily safe either - William Olphin, nine, was playing with his friends near a cart, when its load of pipeclay fell over him. Whether he or one of his friends caused the cart to tip up was not proved satisfactorily, though the owner of the cart assured the jury that it was the fault of the children rather than negligence on his part that caused the accident. According to the Mercury (10 Jan. 1823) Olphin was in the act of removing the support of the cart when the load fell on him. Richard Pitt’s death in 1776 reminds us of the dangers for the pedestrian in winter journeys. He died, accidentally, so we are told, while travelling from Oakham to Stamford in cold, snowy weather. During the period between 1770 and 1840 several travellers along the Great North Road gave evidence to inquests that they had found a cart or wagon stationary beside the road without any driver. Further along the road they had found the driver dead, more often than not run over by the wheels ofhis own wagon. In some cases medical reasons were adduced for the prior death of the driver, but more frequently the evidence was that the driver had fallen from his bench, perhaps while drunk. It would appear that many carters tended to take advantage of the facilities which main streets in Stamford offered to the thirsty. Occasionally a coach, chaise or cart overturned, or the horses bolted, with fatal results to drivers or riders. In 1839 John Clarke tried to climb onto the Wonder coach as it left up the long hill from Duddington, about five miles from Stamford, to get a free ride into town, but he fell and his legs became entangled with a wheel. He was taken to the Stamford Infirmary but his injuries were too severe for him to survive. Even the arched entry to a yard could be dangerous; in 1729 Thomas Blain tried to drive a coach into Henry Dove’s yard but the archway was too low and he was crushed to death. Those looking after horses were also at risk - kicks from horses while they were being groomed proved fatal in a number of cases. In another instance a lad aged thirteen, George Waterfield, had, without permission, taken a horse out of a stable to graze. He lay down and slept, having first fastened his arm round the halter of the horse in such a way as to prevent its escaping from him. Something made the horse bolt, and Waterfield was dragged through the town. ‘When the body was disengaged’, the Mercury reported (18 July 1811), ‘It was in a state too shocking to describe’; nevertheless the account did continue: - ‘the upper part of the head had been literally beaten off against a stone’. The river seems to have been a much safer place for those earning their living. Only one person was reported as having drowned in a fall from a boat, though another was drowned while helping to build the town bridge in 1848. While some inquest papers must have been lost it would seem significant that none refer to people being killed while following a waterborne trade, in spite of the fact that many boats came up the Welland and the Stamford Canal during the period under review. By contrast the building of the railway between Stamford and Collyweston in 1847 led to four deaths in seven months with two more the following year. One man died during blasting operations when rocks fell on his head; two more were killed by falls of soil while undermining for cuttings; the other three were run over by horse drawn railway waggons removing spoil from cuttings to places where embankments were being made. In Stamford in January 1847, only a fortnight after direct railway communication with London had been established, James Bowley died as a result of an accident in the engine shed. Bowley was employed lighting fires and preparing engines for the early morning trains, a job which entailed arrival at work at about four o’clock in the morning every day. Unfortunately, the train due in from London at 10.30 p.m. on 21st January had arrived about five hours late and though its engine, No. 122, had been raked out there was still steam left in the boiler. By all accounts given to the inquest, Bowley went between the buffers of this engine and another, No. 17, to uncouple them, and thus broke the rule of his Company (as the Superintendent of the coaching department of the Eastern Counties Railway was quick to point out) by not ducking under them. As he went between the engines, No. 122 moved slightly and he was trapped and crushed. However, he did not die until six days later and was able to give his own version of the accident. This has been preserved among the inquest papers. According to Bowley, Charles Mitchell, a sixteen-year-old who was employed to clean the engines, “was on the tender of No. 122 shifting the rods, and I told him to leave off doing so and come off the engine.” Bowley claimed that Mitchell was “a bad boy and always full of mischief. I have frequently told him to leave the Engines alone as he has no business to touch them, he was very impudent to me, and I should have reported him .... but was afraid he might lose his situation.” Mitchell was questioned very closely by the jury, and his evidence tells rather a different story. “He instructed me to get on the Engine 122 and to put her back to the other engine No. 17 . . . I put her in motion but a little bit. . . ." The Mercury report (29 Jan. 1847) which was published during the inquest, since an adjournment was made for a post mortem to be held, was unequivocal - it was Mitchell’s fault, they said. However, the jury found no evidence to suggest manslaughter and decided that since Bowley had broken Company Regulations, his death must be attributed to accident. This case has been dealt with at length to show something of the detail which inquest papers may contain. Other information which emerges from the evidence includes the report that Bowley and Mitchell were the only ones in the shed at the time of the accident, two other workmen having gone to the Exeter Arms, whether for breakfast or for a drink we do not know - and this at 4.30 a.m. In addition, Mitchell’s hours of work and wages are specified; 4 a.m. to 4 p.m. and a quarter of an hour each evening with some occasional extra duties for 10/6 (52½p) a week. Leisure One final group of inquests remains to be mentioned. Many leisure activities also had their dangers. One must interpret the term ‘leisure’ very loosely, since an evening’s drinking must fit this description. On 30 May 1791 Charles Myers spent the day drinking with his cousin, and in the evening he went alone to the Bull Inn. They refused to serve him there and gave him a chair in the kitchen so that he might sleep off the alcohol, but later he awoke and was taken upstairs to a first-floor room. He had a dream, so he told the doctor who attended him after his accident, that his cousin was leaving the Inn by the main gate, and he thought he would climb from the window to stop him, having no memory of being taken upstairs. In his consequent fall he fractured his thigh and died outside the Inn about an hour later. Many other fatalities, including falls from haylofts and down cellar steps of inns, occurred as a result of drunkenness. During winter, skating was always a popular activity and in 1814 William Freeman fell through the ice on a pond at Burghley House. According to the Mercury (4 Mar. 1814) the “weather and the ice afforded a warning of danger” but Freeman took no notice. Only one person saw him fall in, and though he was able to cling on for twenty minutes no help arrived for him in that time. It was said that the witness was unable to convince any of the people standing on Burghley Bridge that he was not hoaxing them. During the summer, when swimming in the Welland was popular, a number of drownings happened, either in the river itself or in the ponds which were then in the meadows. Among the inquests only one records a fatal accident as a result of the annual Bull Running in November, though another death as a result of being tossed by a bull occurred in January 1728. In 1801 Benjamin Overton, a horse keeper aged twenty-six, followed the bull on Bull Running day into the Welland. By all accounts he was very drunk at the time and most thought that the death was caused by the sudden shock of the cold water. Overton’s death is mentioned in the burial register of St. George’s parish with the simple comment ‘drowned on Bull Running day’. One other unclassifiable case deserves a mention. On 31 March 1802 William Reisby (or Reesby) aged fourteen had joined with many others in celebrating the Peace of Amiens. The news of the Treaty had reached Stamford the previous day and the Mercury published a special single page edition to announce that Napoleon’s France had agreed a peace with Britain. Though the Treaty lasted for no more than a year, it was thought at the time that it really would be the end of the war, and thus it was celebrated extravagantly throughout England. The Mercury (2 Apr. 1802) tells us that “the general mirth was unfortunately interrupted during the firing of the military in the Hay Market by the accidental discharge of a small piece of ordnance while loading, by which we are concerned to say a son of Mr. Reesby, baker in Scotgate had his head blown to pieces”. The Coroner’s inquest papers make it clear why the accident was so terrible; at the time the cannon went off the ramrod was still in the barrel, and it was this that hit William Reisby on the side of the head. If Reisby’s death is one of the most bizarre of all those that occurred and whose records have survived for us to read about in detail, it does nevertheless illustrate something of the richness of Coroners’ inquests as a source for the local historian. They can provide useful illustrations and examples for many different studies. APPENDIX This Inquisition with its sworn evidence is fairly typical of those that have survived at Stamford. It has been chosen because it shows a parish officer, the Beadle of St. Martin’s, showing little humanity as he ensures that his parish will not become liable for any costs associated with the traveller by forcibly removing him to the next door parish; in addition it is interesting to find a reference to a sedan chair carrier at work at this late date. Until 1835 St Martin’s parish, south of the river Welland came under the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Peterborough while north of the river the five parishes owed their allegiance to Lincoln; the town’s magistrates were ultimately responsible for all aspects of local government north of the river. In addition, until 1832, Stamford voted for two members of Parliament while St Martin’s householders voted in Northamptonshire. FORMAL VERDICT OF THE INQUEST The Town or Borough of An Inquisition indented and taken for STAMFORD our Lord the King within the Borough aforesaid, on Saturday the TwentyIn the County of Lincoln. fifth Day of October in the ninth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Fourth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, and in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and twenty eight before Matthew Rooe Esquire, Coroner of our said Lord the King in and for the said Borough, on View of the Body of a person unknown aged about Twenty Years, then and there lying dead, by the Oath of Thomas Peatling, John Abbott, William Chambers, William Cox, Daniel Whitehead, Francis Coy, Joseph Tomlinson, Samuel Lightfoot, Thomas Bainton, William Barton Parker, William Dawson the younger, William Lowson and Elijah Dixon, good and lawful Men of the said Borough, duly chosen, and who, being then and there duly sworn and charged to inquire, for our said Lord the King, when, how, and by what Means the said person unknown came to his Death, Do upon their Oath say, That on Tuesday last between five and six o’clock the deceased who said he was an Irishman was seen in this Borough in an ill state of Health being an entire stranger, that the next morning Wednesday he was found very ill and nearly exhausted, that in consequence he was taken to the Workhouse in the Parish of St. George in the said Borough where he languished for a short space of time and then and there died by the visitation of God in a natural way and so the jurors aforesaid upon their Oath aforesaid do say that the said deceased came to his death in manner aforesaid by the visitation of God in a natural way and not otherwise. In witness whereof as well the said Coroner as the Jurors aforesaid have to this Inquisition set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. (Signature of N. Rooe, Coroner with seal of the Borough of Stamford, and signatures and blank seals of thirteen jurors.) SWORN EVIDENCE TO THE INQUEST The Town or Borough of Informations of Witnesses severally STAMFORD taken upon Oath, within the BoroughIn the County of Lincoln aforesaid, on Behalf of our Lord the King touching the Death of a person unknown aged about Twenty Years, onSaturday the Twenty fifth Day of October in the ninth Year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Fourth by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, and in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and twenty eight before Matthew Rooe Esquire, Coroner of our said Lord the King in and for the said Borough, on an Inquisition then and there taken on View of the Body of the said person unknown then and there lying dead. John Arden of the said Borough, mason, sworn saith that on Tuesday last between five and six o’clock In the evening he was going into Saint Martin’s over Stamford Bridge and near to the end of the Bridge on the Stamford side he saw the deceased who appeared to be very ill and that William Scuithorpe the Beadle of Saint Martin’s was with him and shoving or forcing, him along over the Bridge into Stamford, that deceased declared himself to be very ill several times and the said Sculthorpe said he was drunk, that the said Sculthorpe shoved the deceased down and he fell upon his face on the Ground when the said Sculthorpe said I have done with you now (meaning the deceased) I have got you clean out of the Parish, that this Deponent being employed in carrying a sedan chair passed on and does not know what further took place at that time. That the next morning this Deponent being near to Mr. Lincoln’s back gate about half past six o’clock saw the deceased walking very slowly with his dress in a disordered state and he then seemed to be very ill. John Arden X his mark William Hudson, Tanner, sworn, saith that about six o’clock on Wednesday morning last on going into the Bark Mill upon Mr. Stevenson’s Premises he found the deceased lying on his back with his head hanging over a Basket and his Hat off, that he seemed to be in an intoxicated state and to have been there all night, that this Deponent removed him from the premises and he walked a little way and wanted to come back again but this Deponent told him he could not be allowed to do so, that he could scarcely speak but mentioned his name which this Deponent has forgotten and he said he was an Irishman - that about eight o’clock this Deponent again saw the Deceased under the Gas Wall and he seemed then to be in a state of exhaustion or intoxication which this Deponent did not know. William Hudson X his mark Leonard Stevenson, Surgeon, sworn Saith that on Wednesday morning last about seven o’clock he saw the deceased walking in a staggering way towards the Gas Wall, that when near it he turned about and stood fumbling with his hands with his Hat over his face and this Deponent thought he was tipsy but did not take further notice of him - That about an hour afterwards he was sent for to attend a person in Saint George’s Workhouse whom he found to be the deceased who had been taken there and put to bed - that on examination this Deponent found the deceased to be nearly exhausted and in a dying state - that he directed some food and cordials to be immediately given to him neither of which he could take and upon the whole this Deponent thinks that the deceased came to his death from ( ‘want and’ crossed out ) exhaustion and from no other cause. Leo. Stevenson Surgeon Taken and sworn before me M. Rooe Coroner. [1] R. F. Hunnisett, The Medieval Coroner , Cambridge 1961, and references cited there. See also Coroners’ Records in England and Wales , J Gibson & C Rogers 3rd Edn., Bury, Lancs; Family History Partnership, 2009 which gives a guide about the availability of records but little about their contents or uses. [2] Notably Thoroton Society, Record Series, XXV for 1966, Calendar of Nottinghamshire Coroners’ Inquests, 1485-1558 , ed. R. F. Hunnisett; also The Earliest Lincoinshire Assize Rolls, 1202 -1209 , ed. D. M. Stenton, Linc. Rec. Soc. XXII. [3] G. Burton, Chronology of Stamford , Stamford 1846, p. 116. [4] Any edition of the eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century handbook for magistrates, The Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer by Richard Burn, will provide information about the method of holding an inquest. It gives the wording of all the forms and the various technical and legal terms which were used in inquests. [5] The Stamford Coroners’ papers are at present (2012) stored in the Town Hall. It is possible to find an individual Inquisition quite quickly from the contemporary endorsement though currently these records are not available for consultation [See note to List of Inquests]. Newspaper references have generally been given when quoted. [6] Coroner’s comments on suicide in papers for inquest on Mary Ann Black, 17 July 1810; suicide letter in papers for inquest on Jane Congreve, 22 June 1842. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next