< Back The Archaeological Excavation of Exeter Down, Stamford West, Lincolnshire By Kate McLauchlan Introduction Wessex Archaeology conducted an archaeological excavation in 2017, on the land at Exeter Down, Stamford, Lincolnshire. The excavation was undertaken before a mixed-use development was constructed. Prior to the excavation an archaeological desk-based assessment, fieldwalking, geophysical survey and trial trenching was undertaken. This report implied the presence of Iron Age archaeological remains and the site was dated to the Early to Middle Iron Age (c5th to 2 nd Century BCE). There were two excavation areas: Area 1 and 2 (see Figure 1). Area 1 contained the remains of a sequence of three roundhouses, the latest of which was set within an enclosure defined by a ditch and probable internal bank. Area 2 contained industrialised features: two furnaces used for iron smelting and a group of pits. The ceramic and technological finds date this area also to the Early to Middle Iron Age. Figure 1. OS Map of Exeter Down area displaying the location of the two excavation areas before development of the area. The Archaeological Findings 1. Features Overall, three roundhouses (ring gullies) were found at Stamford West, in Area 1, along with associated features; and Area 2 contained the industrial activity with a series of ore smelting features. An Iron Age roundhouse is a circular structure that uses, in Stamford’s case, timber posts to form the structure and the roof. Four phases (1, 2, 3 and 4) have been assigned to this site. The dating of the ranges was provided by radiocarbon dating and pottery sherds. Where some of the features are ambiguous to date to a phase they were assigned to two phases, i.e. Phase 1 / 2. Most of the phases were found in Area 1, in particular the settlement and Area 2 for the iron ore smelting. Phase 4 is post-occupation and seems to be an agricultural setting. Listed below are the phases and the sub-phase and what features were found. There are two plans below: Phase 1 and 2 (figure 2), and a Phase 3 and 4 in Figure 3. Phase 1 (Early Iron Age; 5 th Century BCE): A roundhouse (ring gully 1), which was not enclosed, was identified in Area 1, along with a possible post-hole and pit outside of the roundhouse. Between roundhouse 1 and 2, three postholes were found and not able to associate them to either ring gully, however it is possible that they were like roundhouse 2 and were enclosing the ring gully. Phase 1 / 2: Between ring gullies 1 and 2, a series of features were found with little dating material so assigned to phase 1 and 2. One pit, part of a gully and eighteen postholes were excavated. The postholes were found to be in two groups: part of an external ring and a cluster. Phase 2 (Early Iron Age; 6 th to 4 th Century BCE): The building of a second roundhouse (ring gully 2), was found in Area 1, encircled by at least 19 postholes. Four postholes were found at the entrance and two others within the proximity of the structure. Figure 2. Phase 1 and 2 in Area 1 (Copyright Wessex Archaeology, 2017, p162). Phase 3 (Early to Middle Iron Age; 4 th to 3 rd Century BCE): A third roundhouse (ring gully 3) and its associated postholes, enclosure ditch and recut ditch were excavated in Area 1. Whilst in Area 2, there were 41 pit features, two postholes, two gullies, a ditch and two metalworking furnaces. Thereby suggesting industrial activity began in this phase. Phase 4 (Middle to Late Iron Age; 2 nd Century BCE): Two ditches and four pits were found in Area 1. These features were indicative of agriculture now happening here. Figure 3. Phase 3 and 4 in Area 1 (Copyright Wessex Archaeology, 2017, p162). Unphased Features: Ten pits were found and excavated in Area 1 and were not able to be assigned to a phase or if they were Iron Age due to the lack of dating material. Post-medieval Features: Natural water courses were found with clay tobacco pipe and pottery that dates to the Post-Medieval period. 2. Archaeological Artefacts Ceramic: Early to Middle Iron Age pottery, typical to this region, was found. Unfortunately, the report had no photographs of the pot sherds, but there was a selection of drawings of the profile and markings (see figure 4). Some Scored Ware was also found; an East Midland pottery produced during the Middle Iron Age, possibly later. Figure 4. Illustrations of some the pottery found (Copywright Wessex Archaeology, 2017, p178). With regards to the iron smelting, the ceramic remains were in relation to the furnaces, dating to the Early to Middle Iron Age. The technological evidence infers that iron smelting was the main activity and this technology was at its early stages. The furnaces were not well preserved and were possibly the bowl type (figure 5). Figure 5. Furnace 2074; Area 2 (Copyright Wessex Archaeology, logy, 2017, p182) Animal Bone: A large assemblage of remains were discovered in Phases 1 to 4. These consisted of domesticated cattle, sheep/goat, pig, horse and dog. In Phase 1 there were small amount found of cattle, sheep/goat and pig. Then in Phase 3, there was a large increase in domesticated animals (when the site was at its most prolific) and included the horse and the dog. A small number of other animals remains were also found, again in Phase 3: the woodpigeon, fox, red and roe deer. Other Finds: Some metalworking debris (mostly slag, some fired clay, stone and flint), a fragment of human skull (in a ditch in Area 2), a part of a clay pipe and a piece of ceramic building material. Environmental: Charred plant matter consisted of barley, emmer and spelt wheat and some weed species indicative of the surrounding area (hedgerows, meadows and woodland). Conclusion This site was an Early to Middle Iron Age settlement that undertook iron smelting in Phase 3. Figure 6 gives an example of what a roundhouse may have looked like. Phase 3 was when the site peaked; evidenced by the features, and the greater amount of animal remains, agriculture, and ceramic finds. The small-scale iron production (smelting) was used for local usage, based on the type of furnace they used; a bowl type furnace. Radiocarbon dates indicates the occupation of the site had started by the 5th century BCE and lasted for about two centuries, ending by the early 2nd century BCE; the Early to Middle Iron Age. By 2 nd Century BCE the site seemed to stop being used as a settlement and iron production, and focused on agriculture. As to why, this is unknown. Site preservation was satisfactory and yielded some informative. Unfortunately, there was extensive plough damage and poor soil conditions at this site. Despite this, the preservation was satisfactory and enlightened us as to what happened here, in a local, and to some degree regional, context of Iron Age settlements and their farming practices, and iron technology. Figure 6. Copyright Chiltern Open Air Museum 2017. An example of what an Iron Age roundhouse may look like ( https://www.coam.org.uk/buildings/iron-age-roundhouse ). For further information about this site, and the Wessex Archaeology paper, please go to: https://www.wessexarch.co.uk/our-work/exeter-down-stamford . The link to the paper is at the bottom of the page under Downloads. Glossary Bowl-type furnace – one of the earliest types of furnace used for smelting. A basic round external wall and a deep crucible chamber inside. Radiocarbon dating – a scientific method used to date the carbon component of organic matter (e.g. bone, charcoal and wood) found by measuring the rate of decay of the radioactive carbon-14 isotope. Ring Gully - a ring ditch that is a trench of circular or penannular plan, cut into bedrock that encloses the roundhouse. Roundhouse – the main type of domestic housing used in Britain. Dating from 800BCE (Iron Age) to the Roman Conquest. It was a circular house that had post-holes or stone for the walls, wattle and daub insulation and a thatched roof. Scored Ware – pottery that was used between c300BCE and the Roman Conquest. They have deep cut marks on the exterior wall of the pottery. Primarily used as functional ware. Slag – waste material from iron smelting. Wattle and Daub – wattle is woven strips of wood, and the daub would be a mud-type paste to seal the wall. Figures 2 to 5 – are reproduced by kind permission of Wessex Archaeology. Figure 6 is reproduced by kind permission of Chiltern Open Air Museum. Copyright applies to these images. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Barton Transport Limited Concrete Bus Stop Post Survivor By Chris Hunt There is an odd-looking concrete post sited between St George’s School on Kesteven Road and the top end of Lincoln Road in Stamford. It is a Barton Bus Stop post; a timetable panel would have been attached to the flat areas. They were manufactured in the company’s own concrete casting plant in Nottingham. At one time, such posts would have been found all over the town and in some of the surrounding villages where Barton Transport Ltd. had routes. By the 1970s Barton Transport Ltd. was the largest independent operator of buses in the UK. Barton’s headquarters were in Chilwell where they had a large depot. Other bus depots were sited across the East Midlands. In 1961 Barton’s acquired Cream Buses which had been established in Stamford in 1924 by Mr W. H. Patch, when he left the employ of Peter Brotherhood’s in Peterborough. Cream Buses claimed that they had over a million passengers a year in the late 1950s, with a fleet of twenty-two buses and coaches. On being bought out by Barton’s the familiar Cream Buses were replaced with newer red ones. One of the reasons was that Barton’s had a diesel fleet, whilst Cream Buses had been fuelled by petrol. The depot in Stamford, off Radcliffe Road in Halliday’s Yard, remained in use. Barton’s remained independent until 1989 when they were bought out by Trent Buses, with the firm being rebranded Trent Barton, although buses branded as Barton were still running between Stamford and Oakham in 2000. Few of the concrete bus stops have survived; locally there is the one on Kesteven Road, another in Marholm and a couple in Wittering. They must have been introduced in the 1960s soon after Barton’s took over Cream Buses. This type of post gradually fell into disuse as a result of nationally agreed standards for bus stops which were introduced in the 1970s. Today the bus stop on Kesteven Road is still served by a bus, the Stamford Hopper Service No. 182. Note If you come across any others locally could you please contact the author through the Stamford Local History Website messaging portal. 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 An Amusing Apology from a Lincolnshire Newspaper 1806 Whereas I, Benjamin Birch, Of Boston town (and near the church), At Stamford Market, o’er the bowl, Got drunk and slandered neighbour Cole. For which he has --- to my vexation --- By law compelled this declaration: That I, without just cause or reason, Made use of words as base as treason, And therefore do his pardon ask --- A most unpleasant, painful task. But as I own I was to blame, Why dang it! Then I sign my name. By B.Birch Boston January 1806. Source. The Million (a London Magazine) September 2nd 1893 (Saturday) p17/c1, in the Queer, Quaint and Curious Section. A printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Anonymous Abuse – 1830s style: or Little Changes in Politics. By John S Hartley There has rightly been much criticism of certain social networks which have permitted anonymous personal abuse of their members. Today it all happens quickly and openly. In the 1830s abuse may not have been public in the same way, and its delivery took rather longer, but the scurrilous anonymous attack occurred then also. This is a companion piece to my longer article, Eat, Drink and be Merry , to be found elsewhere on this website. Two surviving anonymous letters were sent to the successful candidate in the 1831 Election at Stamford illustrate such abuse: both were sent to Charles Tennyson, uncle of the poet. Between 1735 and 1868 he was the only Stamford MP against the “Burghley interest”, represented below by Lord Thomas Cecil, brother of the second Marquess. Tennyson was elected the second MP for Stamford in 1831. He was initially mildly radical and a member of Grey’s 1831 administration. The 1831 campaign had been, literally, a bruising campaign, at the very height of the clamour for reform of the electoral system throughout the country. Three days after this first letter was postmarked, the new Stamford Members of Parliament, Cecil and Tennyson, fought a duel on Wormwood Scrubs, the source of much later ridicule. Cecil’s remarks relating to Tennyson’s election campaign had given offence, probably as intended. Neither was injured, both were arrested but no prosecutions followed. Anonymous letter to Charles Tennyson Lincolnshire Archives 2 T d’E, H/26/8 Sir [Postmark – 15 June 1831] You are a low foul mouthed blackguard and like most of your party a bully and contemptible coward. It is only to be regretted that Lord Cecil should have placed himself on an equal footing with a fellow who wants the manliness and courage to avow expressions that were heard distinctly by 30 persons including myself, and who would condescend to the meanness of a lie to escape the punishment that awaited Him. Had I been Lord Cecil I would have horsewhipped you on the spot, instead of treating you as a Gentleman; a character your coward heart has proved you to have no pretension to. You may anonymously throw dirt at your noble antagonist through the daily press, but it will not answer; you are branded at my club in St. James Street as a dastardly 1 poltroon and may throw your slime how or where you please. A friend of Lord Cecil A member of White’s St James Street C Tennyson Esqr. Ordnance Office Pall Mall 1 This word might equally well be read bastardly , thanks to an extra riser on the “d”. It is hard to imagine this was a careless slip of the pen! The second letter , also to Tennyson, written after the Reform Act became law on 7 June 1832, laments the fact that Tennyson has decided not to contest the next election for Stamford, preferring to seek the newly created seat of Lambeth. Ironically , after the passing of the First Reform Act in 1832, Stamford became even more securely a pocket borough for the Marquess of Exeter and the Tory party; voters in St Martin’s now became electors for Stamford Borough. The new enfranchisements, apparently overwhelmingly in the Exeter interest since the family owned most of St Martin’s, seem to have been the chief cause for Tennyson’s withdrawal. His fellow reformers, rejoicing in the emancipation of so many large towns in England seem scarcely to have noticed that Stamford had become even more firmly a Tory stronghold. A brief biography of Tennyson may be found in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (available online with a library ticket number); a full report of the three elections at the start of the 1830s may be found in the 1820-32 volume of the History of Parliament. In Stamford in the first half of the nineteenth century political colours were reversed from what we would expect today – “Blues” were the radicals, reformers and Whig/Liberal supporters, while the “Reds” (or often actually nearer orange!) were the Tory and subsequently Conservative supporters of the Exeter interest. The punctuation, spelling and grammar of this letter, a far cry from the sophistication of the first, probably reflect accurately the social divisions of the voters in the town. It goes without saying that Burghley House patronage, in various forms, both overt and covert, played a highly significant part in their seemingly unshakeable hegemony – until the arrival of the secret ballot in 1872. Anonymous letter to Charles Tennyson LAO T d’E H/36/27 Stamford July 2nd 1832 Sir is this the Reform Bill Passing It is with gratitude for my fellow Cuntrymen I now take up my Pen to write to you asking you Weather you have forgot the Words you mad use of on the Hustings if you have I will remind you of them. Did you not say that if you ever forsook the Borough of Stamford might God forsake you and another thing I will remind you of When you was at the George and Angel window you said that if you ever forsook Stamford you wished your Right Harm might drop from your Body and now has forsook it O What a Oath to take My Dear friend Pray Write and give your at your end Resons for not Coming God will forsake you for Our town is all of the Devil will take you an upRoar the People of Stamford is as Blue as ever it was we have Hopes that this may be a false Report becaus you Cannot Leive becaus of St Martins voting there is about 40 or 50 voters and we know of 19 Blues and 8 as will not vote at all. Had you Have Come again Stamford would soon of been its Self and there is a great many fresh votes I know of 20 fresh ones. Who would of thought you would of forsook Stamford Whilst you Had Breath in your Boddy I once thougt we should Beet the marquis of Exeter but now we must give all up to the Red Party, but Stop let me think. know we will not give up to them till thay make us and thay shall have work to mak us for thay shall kill me before I will give up to them your tital is Rit Honl is this Rt Hon no if this Report be true it is not but we Have Hopes yet but if it be true I will give my Hearty good wishes I wish you may Never get another place in Parlement Can you forget the Thousands that Came to meet you when you first Came to Stamford I never shall forget though you have forgot us but I must Conclud By saying that I shall Ever remain a true BLUE We will give all up now but ah now we are forsaken the Tears that have been Shed in Stamford is unacountable To the Right Honerable Chas Tennyson You Have Fought the Battle Till you thought you have done Get Beet and then you gone John S Hartley A printed version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

Find out about The Stamford Local History Society who meet once a month in Stamford to discuss and learn about the history of the town. ABOUT The Society was created in its current form in 2013 and follows a number of aims managed by it s committee. The history of our organisation Stamford Local History Society (SLHS) exists for anyone interested in the rich history of Stamford and its satellite settlements and communities. The society was formed in 2013 as the successor to the Stamford Survey Group (SSG) and is a member of the British Association for Local History. Founded in the 1960s, SSG began as a research group whose principal aim was to study and publicise Stamford’s past. It published a series of important works on the town’s ancient buildings and institutions (listed in the Publications section of this website) and numerous smaller scale articles of research and comment which were collected into six volumes of the journal The Stamford Historian between 1977 and 1982. In addition to the collective output of SSG and SLHS, individual members of the two organisations have independently published articles and books on a broad range of topics relating to the history of Stamford and the neighbouring areas. SLHS meets monthly between September and June, excluding January, usually on a Thursday evening in Barn Hill Methodist Church. As well as talks by local and visiting speakers, its programme includes a members' evening. It holds its AGM in June and excursions to places of historical interest are organised in the early summer. Members are encouraged to form sub-groups under their own leadership in order to research and discuss issues of specific interest to them. Our aims The Society aims to bring like-minded people together to engage in four main areas of activity: To hear lectures and presentations relating to people, places and issues of interest and relevance to its members. To visit places of interest in the local area and further afield. To foster research and publication in topics about the town and district and, where possible, to engage in and facilitate both group and personal research. To collect, record and publish by display or lecture, in print or on the web, information about the history of the area which might otherwise be lost or unknown. To support the formation of Stamford Museum alongside Stamford Town Council. The Committee Chair Chris Hunt Vice Chair Steve Dunne Secretary Richard Asher Treasurer Trish Auciello Website Co-ordinator Ronald Teasdale / Eugene Perrett Membership Secretary Eugene Perrett Functions Co-ordinator Diane Perrett Committee Member Katy McLauchlan Other responsibilities including publicity, talks and events are shared amongst the committee members. Volunteers to join the committee are always welcome.

< Back Move of Police Station from Stamford Town Hall to the Portico Submitted by Chris Hunt MOVE OF POLICE STATION FROM STAMFORD TOWN HALL TO THE PORTICO The police offices at Stamford are this week being transferred from the Town-hall to the Portico. SOURCE STAMFORD MERCURY FRIDAY APRIL 4TH 1890 p4/c2 Note. The Portico on High Street is now part of Stamford Library. The police station was sited in an adjoining building to the left of the Portico, between the Portico and Goldsmiths Lane, and is now part of the library. The clock above the entrance is there to this day (January 2025). A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Peterborough GNR Loco v Stamford Rutland Ironworks November 9th 1895 Chris Hunt The Ironworks journeyed to Peterborough on Saturday to fulfil their engagement with the Loco team. There was not a large attendance considering the great rivalry that exists between these old opponents. The teams were composed as follows: Ironworks . – Goal, Morris; backs, Rudkin and Middleton; half-backs, Avery, T.Braunston and Glithero; right wing, C.Atter and Pentelow; centre, Burcombe; left wing, Miller and J.Atter. Loc. – Goal, Shaw; backs, Randall and Palmer; half-backs, Pearson, F.Palmer and Bean; right wing, Cannon and Darnill; centre, Fox; left wing, Burbage and Garner. Referee, Mr Carter. The home team won the toss, and the Reds had to face the breeze in the first half. The opening exchanges were in the favour of the visitors, whose forwards displayed admirable combination. Burbage early showed up well, and from him alone did it appear that much danger was likely to ensue. J.Atter and Miller passed nicely down the left and the sphere was lifted over to the right. C.Atter secured and with a clinking shot drew first blood for the Reds. A few minutes later the homesters were giving Rudkin and Middleton plenty of employment. The first mentioned back dropped the sphere down the right wing and C.Atter, getting the better of a tussle with Palmer and Randall, was on the point of shooting at very close range when he was ruled off-side, most unfairly, as he had beaten three opponents. Following this piece of work, the referee awarded a corner against Avery, who was yards from the ball. The visitors showed great dissatisfaction at this, but matters reached a climax a few minutes later when a home forward standing almost under the cross-bar slipped the leather into the net from a shot by a half-back at long range. In spite of all protestations to the contrary, the referee adjudged this point to be a legitimate one. These most disgraceful decisions caused RUCTIONS and a lively scene ensued. The visitors decided to take no further part in the contest, but did not leave the field. They kicked the ball off from the centre, but offered no opposition to the homesters, who under the personal direction of the referee took the leather down the field and put in between the Reds’ sticks. The important but perverse functionary whose abominable decisions had caused this miserable state of affairs informed the Loco players that they must be careful not to get “off-side". J.Atter took exception to this mode of procedure, but was politely requested to “shut up”. The spectators were talking in knots on the playing piece, and Mr J.Atter, town clerk of Stamford, and the father of the left winger, stepped on to the field with a view of pointing out duties of a referee to the “knight of the whistle”, but he was ordered off and promptly complied with the request. The Ironworks simply kicked the ball when necessary to keep it in play, such as in the case of goal-kicks and throwing in, and by so doing did not lay themselves open to the charge of leaving the field without the referee’s permission. Several of the home players had adjourned to the neighbouring pub to discuss the matter, but were ordered to resume their position on the field and were cautioned. Again was a farcical order of the referee complied with, and the Loco took the ball down the field and scored a fourth point. Half time arrived with the score reading Peterborough Loco 1 goal Rutland Ironworks 1 goal Referee 3 goals. The forty-five minutes in the second half were whiled away by the players in any way they chose, as long as they remained on the ground. Pipes were lighted and discussions friendly and otherwise took place. Before the players were allowed to leave the field the darkness spread its mantle over the scene, and stars became visible. A more unsatisfactory game can scarce be imagined, and it is evident that scenes of a similar but milder nature are not rare on the Loco ground, as the spectators acquainted the visitors that they were as bad as Boston and Spalding. ************ The Stamford and Rutland Guardian’s football comments in 1895 were written under the by-line ‘Half –Backs’ and he stated that: The “game” at Peterborough on Saturday, “Ironworks v Peterborough G.N.Loco”, was a perfect fiasco, and it is high time that the Association interfered in the matter of referees. It is only fair to the Loco players to say that the majority of them were equally disgusted with the decisions of the ruling official. Note The above article appeared in the Stamford and Rutland Guardian of Friday November 15th 1895. It shows that criticisms today’s crowds express about referring decisions are nothing new. 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 Stamford in Domesday Book Dr David Roffe 2018 Stamford and District Local History Society, 15 February 2018 Introduction Thank you so much for inviting me to Stamford. It is a great delight to be back here again and to be invited to reflect on the history of the town. I first began thinking about its origins and early history in 1975. I had volunteered to work on the castle excavation directed by Christine Mahany. Many of you will remember the site. It was at the time one of the largest medieval excavations ever undertaken and certainly unprecedented in terms of a castle. The finds were quite spectacular, not that I had much to do with them: it soon became apparent, in fact by lunchtime on the first day, that I was not a natural digger. Bang went another career option. I could read Latin, though, and in the afternoon I was sent off to the office in Kings Mill House to try to make sense of the medieval documents relating to the castle and the town generally. The rest is history. Chris and I presented a synthesis of the historical and archaeological evidence for the origins and growth of Stamford at the Battle Conference in 1982. The paper was published in Anglo-Norman Studies in the following year. Much of the conclusions was based on the first comprehensive analysis of the Domesday account of the town. Historians had long mined the source for information, but there had never been a comprehensive analysis in terms of the later history of the lands that it describes. Tonight I shall revisit that study for the first time in 35 years. The intervening years has seen much new research in the field of Domesday studies, but I am glad to say that, by and large, our analysis has stood up well. The Domesday account of Stamford Domesday Book comes in two parts. Volume 2 is known as Little Domesday Book and describes the three eastern counties of Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk. Volume 1, Great Domesday, covers the rest of the country south of the Tees and just a tiny bit of Wales. The relationship between the two parts does not concern us today. Suffice it to say that the account of Stamford occurs on folio 336d of Great Domesday. It appears at the head of the Lincolnshire folios after the account of Lincoln and is followed by Torksey and then the body of the text, the account of the lands of the tenants-in-chief, substantially the barons of the shire. It is written in Latin, but in a highly contracted form. You will notice that almost every word in the text exhibits diacriticals, that is distinctive marks that indicate the omission of letters (figure 1). This system of shorthand speeded up writing, but sometimes it is difficult to reconstruct exactly what the scribe wanted to say. Fortunately, our chap was on his best behaviour when he wrote up Stamford, for there are relatively few contractions and suspensions. We are not always so lucky, but here we can be confident of what he intended (figure 1). Figure 1: the Domesday account of Stamford The Domesday Survey Before we dive in and examine what he wrote we must first get some idea of why the Domesday survey, and Domesday Book that was compiled from its returns, was commissioned in the first place. Otherwise, we shall not be able to interpret what is recorded. You may have a vague idea from schooldays of the Domesday survey as a census. Well, it wasn't. To start with, at least half of the population is missing: there are next-to-no women mentioned in the text. More credible is the notion that Domesday was compiled as an inventory of William the Conqueror's new realm. Even so, there are still problems. William defeated King Harold at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Why, then, did he leave it until 1086 to undertake the survey? True the Conquest was not complete until the fall of Ely in 1071, but the Domesday survey was still 15 years after. In reality the survey addressed urgent problems in 1085. England was threatened with invasion. King Cnut of Denmark had formed an alliance with Count Robert of Flanders and had mustered a fleet to conquer England. His claim to the throne was arguably stronger than William's and he must have thought that large parts of England were in one way or another sympathetic to his cause. William clearly saw Cnut as an existential threat to his rule. He was in Normandy when he heard of the imminent invasion, and acted with characteristic decisiveness. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us that he crossed the channel with the largest force of mercenaries that had ever been seen in England. Meanwhile, Archbishop Lanfranc of Canterbury had convened a conference and it was decided to billet the troops on landholders throughout the country. In the event for various reasons the invasion was put off until the spring of 1086 and was then abandoned after the death of Cnut. William, though, was not to know this in late 1085. He laid off some of the mercenaries over the winter, but nevertheless continued with preparations for a renewed onslaught. He ordered the coast to be wasted to deprive any invading army of sustenance. All military enterprises depended on foraging for supplies in the eleventh cent ury. Further, at his Christmas court in Gloucester he appointed trusted agents to East Anglia which, with its Anglo-Scandinavian population, was seen as a particularly exposed Achilles heel. Wulfketel at Crowland was replaced by Ingulf and Gunter was appointed to Thorney and Maurice to the see of London (with extensive estates in Essex and East Anglia, the bishopric was a key player in the east of England). All three were trusted royal priests whom William could rely upon to represent his interests and act decisively. This was the context in which the Domesday survey was commissioned. At the same Christmas court, as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, William ordered a survey of the king's income in land and taxes and an equally exhaustive inquiry into the income and services of his tenants- in-chief, that is the barons. It is clear that the immediate aim was to raise cash to pay the mercenaries, but there was also a determination to plan for the future. The survey began in January 1086 and seems to have been complete by late June or early July. At a meeting, 'of all those who held land in England', at Salisbury in August 1086 taxation was extended to the lord's demesne and, it seems, new quotas of knights were determined. Never again was the realm to be dependent on mercenaries for its defence or at least that was the aim. The writing of the Book All of the data that were collected were then written up in what we now know as Domesday Book. When is a matter of debate. Many insist that it was compiled as part of the 1086 programme. But it is odd that it was not a complete record of the survey: it omits much of the data. I have therefore argued that it was a later enterprise ordered by William's son, William Rufus, in 1090. In 1088 there had been a rebellion against the new king which had occasioned much tenurial chaos. Domesday Book may have been compiled to inform a settlement. Writing in 1125 or so, the Anglo-Norman historian Orderic Vitalis probably makes an oblique reference to the enterprise. However, there is no explicit mention of the Book until the early years of the reign of Henry I, so it may have been compiled anytime up to 1102. The structure of the Stamford account Whatever its date, Domesday Book was clearly a royal feodary, that is a work of reference drawn up to inform government of the king's interests and dues. As such, it was an abstract – most noticeably the livestock so carefully recorded in the survey was jettisoned – but it drew all its data from the survey. The sort of information we get, then, is determined by the concerns of 1086. It is thus not surprising to find that the account of Stamford is divided into two broad sections, that is the income of the king and those of his tenants-in-chief. Both are signalled by capital letters and, intermittently, by paragraphoi, that is gallows marks, for the latter (figure 1). Now, Domesday talks in terms of land, terra in Latin, but we must take care not to be misled thereby. What is mostly involved is rights over land rather than in what we would call real estate. In an urban context those rights were various. Foremost was landgabel or gafol. This was a rent, usually around a shilling a year, due from the community of the borough. This sum, however, if prominent, was not the sum total of what 'land' signified. There were also renders that Domesday generically calls consuetudines, 'customs', payments in coin and kind that represent a former food rent, and occasional labour services such as mowing on the king or lord's demesne. Then there was soca, 'soke', that included dues for the right to bake and brew as well as the amercements, fines in modern terms, that were paid in the borough court. Finally, there were tolls which were taxes on the buying, selling, and the passage of goods. Land itself, freehold to be anachronistic, generally resided in the townsmen. The king's income Having cleared the ground, we can now get down to the nitty-gritty. We first get a statement of the tax the town paid to the king (figure 2); it was assessed at 12½ hundreds. In the Danelaw the hundred was not the institution of the same name of hidated England. That was represented by the wapentake. The northern hundred was more like a vill, the unit of local government at its lowest level – think the civil parish of today – and it was rated at 12 carucates. So Stamford was assessed at 150 carucates for the geld, army and navy service, and Danegeld. The town was divided into six wards. We have no further information, but they were probably each associated with the gates of the town. That was certainly the pattern elsewhere. The ward was a unit of policing – hence watch and ward – and an association with routes into a town is common. In the later Middle Ages there were five gates north of the river in Stamford and probably a sixth in Stamford Baron. All the dues that resulted accrued to the king. It should be noted that the ward south of the river was an integral part of the town even though in Northamptonshire. There is no evidence that it was ever constituted as a separate borough. Figure 2: tax and the wards of the town Then we move onto the number of properties that owed their dues to the king – 141 and half a mill in 1066 and the same in 1086 less 5 that had been destroyed in the building of the castle (figure 3). The dues of 4 others had been taken away by Brand, whom we can identify as abbot of Peterborough. A further two belonged to a Wulfketel son of Merewine who was almost certainly the former abbot of Crowland. Figure 3: the land of the king Finally, there were 77 properties that belonged to privileged sokemen over whom the king had more limited rights, namely heriot, forfeiture, and toll alone, that is death duty, the right to land consequent to felony and the like, and, as we have seen, taxes on traded goods (figure 4). Sokemen are not usually found in towns. Indeed, this reference is all but unique in an urban context. But in status they were akin to burgesses. Both, for example, had similar inheritance customs. In Stamford throughout the Middle Ages the property of an intestate burgess passed to his youngest son rather than his eldest. Many rural sokemen were also subject to this custom which became known in English law as Borough English. Eustace of Huntingdon who took away the mill was sheriff of Huntingdonshire. He, like sheriffs in general, was a notorious despoiler of land. How he came to put his oar into Stamford is unrecorded. Figure 4: the land of the sokemen The land and income of senior townsmen and tenants-in-chief As we have seen, the second section deals with dues that did not go to the king. Lawmen come first (figure 5). Twelve in 1066 and 9 in 1086 and holding in all 51½ properties, they held with sake and soke, that is all customs apart from the ones explicitly excluded here. They were judges of the law, receptacles of local custom rather than the bewigged panjandrums of today, but it is clear from a twelfth-century text called the Leges Edwardi Confessoris that they also acted as royal agents. They were responsible for recording crimes – in Stamford in 1226 they are called coroners – and they made distraints, that is took goods as bail, for offenders to appear in court. These are functions that were later granted by charter and so we are effectively looking at a town council. Unlike in Lincoln, the lawmen are not named. We do, however, have a valuable record of the properties they held. They were substantial townsmen and in all likelihood English. Fastolf too was English, holding a single church in 1086 which was quit, that is no dues were paid to the king (figure 6). Unfortunately, there is no record of who held the church in 1086. Figure 5: lawmen Figure 6: Fastolf Then we have a series of barons who had interests in Stamford. We can best start with the 9 properties held by Leofwine in 1066 and Alfred of Lincoln in 1086, We learn from Alfred's chapter in the body of the text that these belonged to his manor of Uffington (figure 7). We have no explicit evidence of this kind for other holdings, but the later history of some indicate other connections with rural manors. We learn from the 1212 survey of Stamford that the 23 properties held by Earnwine the priest and Eadsige and then Eudo Dapifer belonged to the manor of Wakerley in Northamptonshire (figure 8). The same source indicates that the 7 properties of Azor and Gunfrid de Chocques belonged to the manor of Casewick. Edward Cild's 14 properties belonged to Witham, Sproxton, or Tickencote. Finally, there were 10 properties in Lincolnshire, that is north of the river, that belonged to Peterborough abbey. I have been unable to place them in any particular manor. Figure 7: the manor of Uffington Figure 8: properties belonging to rural manors Queen Edith's fee Contributory manors, as they are known, of this kind are a common characteristic of English towns. They have been used to indicate the territory that was assigned to boroughs. Here, though, they are few in number and so little can be made of the pattern they describe. The 70 properties held by Queen Edith, the wife of King Edward the Confessor, which are described next may superficially appear to be of the same order. In reality, however, they are of a completely different type of holding (figure 9). Domesday indicates that the fee belonged to Roteland, that is the northern part of what became Rutland in the next century. This was an ancient dowage estate of the queens of England that consisted of a number of separate manors. The value at the end of the Stamford entry clearly indicates that the 70 properties had been one of them. Thus, in 1066 Queen Edith's fee was adjacent to the borough but not part of it. As odd as it may seem, this was by no means a unique characteristic of Stamford. Most English boroughs had royal and/or comital (earl's) estates closely associated with them. What is usual here, however, it that the estate was administered by the sheriff of Nottingham as Domesday indicates at the beginning of the account of Roteland. Figure 9: Queen Edith's fee By 1086 the 70 properties had become incorporated into Lincolnshire and Stanford. The fee of Albert of Lorraine, a priest of the royal household, hints at a reason. Albert held the church of St Peter's in Stamford which is said to have belonged to the church of Hambledon (figure 10). The same point is made in a reference to Albert's land in the account of Roteland itself (figure 11). However, we know from a charter of William Rufus that Albert had been granted all the churches of Roteland. We can, then, understand that St Peter's was the church of Queen Edith's manor here in Stamford. You are all familiar with the site of the church. It was adjacent to the castle and so it is likely the castle site too was originally in Roteland. If so, the whole area was moved into Lincolnshire to bring it under the control of the sheriff of Lincoln. In the later Middle Ages the combined lands were known as 'the castle and manor of Stamford'. Figure 10: Albert of Lorraine's church St Peter Figure 11: Albert's fee in Roteland The boundary between Roteland and Lincolnshire was moved out of the town to Ermine Street to the west. Domesday Book recognizes the change by describing the Roteland portion of Stamford in a postscriptal entry in the Northamptonshire folios where it is called Portland (figure 12). The churches of St Peter's and All Saints held land there under the king. In the later Middle Ages the area, the West Field of Stamford, was known as Sundersoken which means 'estate apart'. Figure 12: Portland Stamford in the late eleventh century Well, what does all of this tell us about the town in 1086? We can start with size. The assessment at 12½ hundreds, ie 150 carucates, tells us Stamford was by far the largest settlement in south Lincolnshire in terms of the tax it paid. The number of properties might be expected to give some indication of just how big it was (figure 13). In total 405½ are recorded. But the Latin term, mansio, plural mansiones, is an unknown quantity. It is usually translated as something like messuage or tenement; I have used the more neutral 'property' advisedly. What it was definitely not was a house: in Nottingham we have a reference to 3 mansiones in which there were 11 houses (domus). So, there were probably considerably more houses in Stamford in 1086. Moreover, the account is demonstrably incomplete. Although Stamford Baron was already in existence, no details are given. The earliest survey comes from 1125 when there were 74 properties of various kinds. Many of them must have been in existence in 1086. We must, then, be careful how we interpret the figures. It has often been stated, for example, that the castle was built on the fringe of settlement since only five mansiones were destroyed. In reality, we don't know how any houses this implies and anyway we are told only about those that had rendered dues to the king. Figure 13: summary Our numbers are uncertain, but we can say something more about the physical extent of the town north of the river. We have four explicit markers. First, there is the bridge. It was on the same site as today judging from the twelfth-century structure at its south end. Second, the castle, the earliest part of the extant structure being the motte, the present bus station. Third, St Peter's church, now marked by a mound on St Peter's Hill. Finally, All Saints church – later known as All Saints in the Market – which still stands in Red Lion Square. Although somewhat better than for some towns, this is seemingly a poor yield from such a detailed survey. Fortunately, though, other markers can be deduced from the later history of the fees described. In the early thirteenth century William de Lanvalie granted the church of St Clement's to St Michael's nunnery in Stamford. William was the lord of Wakerley and the successor to Eudo Dapifer. It seems likely, then, that one of the churches that Eudo held in 1086 was St Clements. It was situated somewhere close to Barn Hill House in Scotgate – skeletons have come to light from the garden – and so it seems that the area was already developed in 1086. William is not recorded as granting any other church, so the second one held by Eudo cannot be identified. Fastolf and his church present a more difficult problem. We have no record of who held in 1086, so we cannot trace its later descent. Its status, however, may provide a clue. It was quit, so it was held in chief of the king. This profile fits Holy Trinity outside St Paul's gate. In the thirteenth century it was the only church in Stamford that had its own court, as did other lords in Stamford who held in chief of the king. Finally, there is the land held by Crowland. Abbot Ulfketil is not recorded as holding a church. By the mid twelfth century, however, the abbey held St Michael's and this church is likely to mark at least one of Ulfketil's properties. We end up with a somewhat detailed topography for such an early period. By 1086 Stamford seems to have reached the full extent of the thirteenth-century town (figure 14). There were certainly no walls at this time – they are of later construction – but it is possible that even the line of the later defences, in part or whole, was already established. It might be doubtful, though, that the town was infilled to the same degree as later. Figure 14: the thirteenth-century town Despite such riches, ranking Stamford among the 70 or so boroughs of England in 1086 remains a difficult task, not the least because different units are used from town to town. Had all of them been measured in terms of mansiones, comparison would be possible. But they aren't. Beside mansiones we also find burgenses, domus, hagae, acrae, or a combination of two or more. So it is that value to the king is the best metric of size, as imperfect as it is (figure 15). Stamford rendered in total £78 in 1086. This does not put it in the Premier League of the English boroughs recorded in Domesday Book. Lincoln, York, Norwich and, of course, London although not fully described, were altogether much bigger and richer boroughs. But Stamford was well up in the First Division. Figure 15: the value of the town Conclusion Tonight I have confined myself to the Domesday evidence. There is, of course, a lot more evidence out there (figure 16). I have not touched on the archaeology, topography, nor numismatics. However, it is Domesday that provides the framework for understanding the early history of Stamford. The most important conclusion that Chris and I reached in 1982 was that the castle perpetuated a centre of authority of long standing. Adjacent to St Peter's church, it almost certainly replaced the manor house of Queen Edith's fee. That association in its turn provided context to late ninth-century defences that we found beneath the bailey. If we are looking at one area that we can identify as the origin of the town it is here. How it relates to the rest of the town is another story and another lecture. Figure 16: archaeology ©David Roffe 2018 A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next

< Back Transcript of Bert Bailey's WWI diary P Massey & K Hansell 2014 Pte Bert Bailey Following the Society's WW1 exhibition in November 2018, to commemorate the signing of the Armistice, we have been given kind permission from the family of Bert Bailey to publish the following transcript below from his diary. For further details and the location of Bert’s residence please visit the Stamford Boys of 1911 . The diary transcript can be accessed HERE Previous Next

< Back F Dawson, Grocer, Stamford. Unofficial Farthing (W.4820) Martin R Warburton The Token Book 2 (Galata 2013) indicated that no information could be found about this issuer. Research at Stamford Library and in the British Newspaper Archive has revealed that Frederick Dawson was in business for only two years, from 1854 to 1856, and so avoided being recorded as a Grocer in either the 1851 or the 1861 census. Being in business for only a short time probably accounts for the scarcity of the token. During his short time as a shopkeeper he was, however, a frequent advertiser in the local papers. Examples include the start of his business in the Stamford Mercury of April 28th 1854; The apparent success of his business by advertising in June 1855 for an ‘...APPRENTICE. A Dissenter preferred...’; And the suggestion that perhaps all was not well with the business in his announcement in the Stamford Mercury of January 25th 1856; Frederick Dawson was born in 1832/3, a son of William Dawson, Baker and Confectioner of St Mary’s Street, Stamford. He is probably the same Frederick Dawson who died in Stamford in 1881, aged 48. Chandos House in the High Street is thought to be the first building on the right leading from Red Lion Square (to the left of St John’s Church) and is currently an outdoor clothing shop. Frederick Dawson’s short-lived business can possibly be connected with the decline in passing trade experienced by Stamford when the railways arrived from the late 1840s onwards. Before this his shop was in a prime location next to Red Lion Square on the old Great North Road from London to Edinburgh. Coaches stopped and horses were changed in Stamford. The other side of Red Lion Square still boasts The Millstone public house offering ‘good stabling and loose boxes’. It all changed though with the coming of the railways; progressively east and west from Stamford (Town) from 1846 to 1851, and from Stamford (East) in 1856. Many thanks for assistance go to Chris Hunt of the Stamford Local History Society and to Dave Smith of the Token Corresponding Society. A print version can be downloaded HERE Previous Next