Author: secretary

S.H.E., reminiscing in 1938, looks back on the strange hobbies of some Stamford men in late Victorian times.

“A BLIND ORGANIST

Then, there was Mr. Hilary Hewitt. the blind organist at St. Mary’s. he lived with the petite, golden-haired Miss Hewitt, who kept a private school in St. Martin’s, next to Hibbin’s carriage works. You would see him tapping his stick at the edge of the pavement, usually humming cheerfully to himself. It was a great mystery to me how he learnt his pieces.

Three men stand out in my memory on account of their interesting hobbies. One was a chimney-sweep named Barlow, who lived in the Sheep-market. You went down two steps direct into his living-room – the brightest, cheeriest room you ever saw. How Mrs. Barlow gave her fire grate such a beautiful polish I do not know. She was as bright and as cheery as her room. But the great attraction was the pictures on the walls – needlework pictures worked in wool on canvas, the work of the sweep himself. He did not follow the usual method of counting the stitches from a copy – so many stitches of one colour, so many of another. No! He took an ordinary picture and made his own interpretation of it. I remember ‘Burghley House,’ ‘Peterborough Cathedral’ and ‘Melrose Abbey.’ I wonder if he finished the bunch of flowers he was engaged on, when a lady called with a handful of flowers, and he begged a water-lily for a model.

There was a wood-turner in Brookes’-court named Hawkins. He made cork models of public buildings with just a penknife and ordinary corks. he showed one at Stamford Fair one year. Now was it Burghley House or Peterborough Cathedral? I forget, but I know I paid a penny to go into a booth in Red Lion-Square, at the corner near Snarrt’s chemist shop, a the top of St. John’s-street.

I expect old Hitchcock is forgotten now. He was an old man with a fine head and face. He might have sat as a model for one of the twelve Apostles. I don’t know what his occupation was, but he collected the rents of the houses in Lumby’s-court (now terrace). It was said that he taught himself to read and write after he turned seventy, but the most extraordinary thing about him was his hobby. He had spent all his life trying to discover the secret of perpetual motion. Think of it!”

The Stamford Mercury, 6th May, 1938.

The Rutland Education Committee was opening a new school, which would appear to be what is now Casterton College, opened in 1939. It is not known whether earth closets were installed or if it had a change of heart and found the funds for flush toilets.

“If my information is correct – and I have no reason to think otherwise – the building sub-committee of the Rutland Education Committee have taken a remarkable attitude with regard to the new central school in Great Casterton.

The place, as is usual with all similar buildings, will be complete with all modern facilities, but there is one exception: the authorities have decided to instal earth closets – and in the year 1938 at that!

It is to be hoped that the decision is not final, for, with an adequate water supply such as Great Casterton is fortunate enough to possess, to build such antiquated and unhygienic conveniences is a step which should on no account be taken by any committee who pride themselves on being efficient.

It may be on the score of expense that the suggestion was agreed to , but is should be remembered that, with to-day’s restrictions, coupled with the recurring expense associated with the old-fashioned method of disposal, the latter may well be found to be the more costly. But in a question of this sort, which vitally affects the health of the rising generation, cost should not act as a deterrent, especially when one remembers the heavy expenditure incurred in other educational directions.

I hope the committee will rescind their resolution and thus save the name of Rutland, which, even if the smallest county in England, has the reputation of being among the most progressive and up-to-date.”

The Stamford Mercury, 13th May, 1938.

Boots, cleaning and blacking – another reminiscence from the nineteenth century by ‘S.H.E.’.

“ELASTIC-SIDED BOOTS FOR SUNDAYS.

Men, if course, wore heavy boots for work, but on Sundays they had lighter boots, laced, buttoned, or elastic sides. So did women. Elastic sides looked very smart when they were new, but were tiresome getting, on and off. Many a time I have had to pull off the elastic-sided boots of an elder. You took hold of the toe with one hand and the foot with the other and wriggled and pulled, until all at once you found yourself sitting on the floor, with the boot in your hand.

It was not very nice, especially when you had come home tired from a long walk, and we took long walks in those days. When I was quite small the whole family would walk from Stamford to Barnack and back on a Sunday.

Elastic sides were usually made of a soft dull kid, which could not be cleaned with blacking. You could buy kid reviver, but many people used milk or ink, but whatever you used, it was sponged on and left to dry dull.

For other kinds of leather there were none of the tins of boot-polish we use today. All boots were black and there were two kinds of blacking – liquid in stone bottles that was put on with a small sponge on the end of a stick or pats of blacking wrapped in oiled paper. This last was emptied into a saucer or tin and thinned down with water. It was applied with a small brush or rabbit’s foot, worked well into the leather with a medium brush and then polished with a soft one. People who were very particular kept and old silk handkerchief to give a finishing touch. It took a lot of time and hard brushing to make your boots look nice, but I think the old-fashioned blacking was a better preservative. Or perhaps it was that the leather of those days was of a superior quality.”

The Stamford Mercury, 8th April, 1938.

Flames alerted people living in St. Georges’ Street to a fire raging in the home of a local carpenter early one morning. Luckily no one was harmed, although much damage was caused.

“At two o’clock on Tuesday morning the inhabitants of St. George’s-street in this place were alarmed with the cry of fire, and it was found that flames were raging with great force in the ground floor of Mr. Maugham, cabinet-maker. The fire-engines were promptly obtained; and through the well-directed exertions of the neighbours, the conflagration was subdued in an hour, though not until very considerable damage was done to the house, which is the property of Mr. Alderman Coddington, and fortunately was insured. Mr. Maugham, before retiring to bed, had been writing a letter at a bureau in the sitting-room, and it is imagined that the fire proceeded from the spark or snuff of a candle, which had been unobservedly shut up in the piece of furniture – as when the alarm was given, it was found that the bureau was almost entirely consumed, and the flames had extended to the ceiling of the room, which was also burnt through. But for the discovery of the fire by Miss Batson (a lodger in the house), who slept immediately over the apartment in which it began, the whole house must have been in flames in a few minutes; and as it was, the inmates escaped with difficulty in their nightclothes. A clock, and nearly all the other articles of furniture, were destroyed, as well as 3l. in money, which had been deposited in the bureau. Mr. Maugham’s circumstances making the loss severe to him, a subscription has been opened for his relief.”

The Stamford Mercury, 9th November, 1827.

A tooth extraction is remembered in a regular column by ‘S.H.E.’, entitled ‘As I Remember Stamford’ which was published in the 1930s. Here she looks back to her childhood in the late 19th century.

“EXPERIENCES AT THE DENTIST’S.

The first tooth I had out was extracted by Mr. Cotnam Field, the chemist, of Scotgate. He was a stout, fatherly man, and I remember the delicate touch of his plump, white hands. I was only eight years old and he assured me he would not hurt me very much, and he didn’t! He patted me and said I was very brave. Of course, he had never seen a tooth with such fangs in his life! I took the tooth home, wrapped in tissue paper, as a memento.

I think there was only one resident dentist at that time – the late Mr. A. S. Jones. He lived next to the Town-bridge, opposite the Conservative Club. We used to climb on the bridge to peep down at his aviary of pretty little birds. I believe they were all drowned in the July flood of 1880. How sorry we children were! For quite a long time we looked, at intervals, to see if he had a new collection.

There was a visiting dentist from Peterborough, named Eskell. He had his surgery in St. Martin’s at one time and afterwards in St. Mary’s-street. He had a very bright brass plate, and less than ten years ago, when I was spending a few days in Oxford, I suddenly stopped short for there was a brass plate – “Eskell, surgeon-dentist.” It must have been the same plate, as bright as ever, although the lettering was more worn. It was like meeting an old friend among strangers.”

The Stamford Mercury, 8th April, 1938.

Is a coconut dangerous? This was the question faced by Boston magistrates when an over-eager policeman charged a docker for throwing one across a street. Perhaps he had wanted the nut for himself? In any case, at the start of the second world war, this must have been a slow news day!

FOOLISH INCIDENT AT BOSTON

NUT WAS NOT CAUGHT

One man asked for a coconut, another threw one across the road and the result was police court proceedings.

The case was heard at the Boston borough petty sessions on Friday, before Dr. R. E. E. South and other magistrates when Cyril Dawson, of Fountain-Lane, Boston, a dock labourer, was summoned for throwing a coconut in Wide-bargate, Boston to the danger of persons or animals or damage to property, on 20 August.

The defendant denied the offence.

The evidence of P.S. Hodson was to the effect that he was in Wide-bargate when he saw defendant throw a coconut across the road. It fell about 20 yards away and smashed to pieces.

COULD NOT CATCH

Dawson had nothing to say but called a witness, Curil Betts, 13, Kyme-road, Boston, who said he saw the defendant the other side of the road with two coconuts in his hand. Witness shouted asking the defendant to give him one of the nuts and the defendant threw one. Witness, however, could not catch it.

The magistrates’ clerk informed the defendant that the magistrates were inclined to take a lenient view of the circumstances. Was he prepared to pay the costs, 4s.

Defendant expressed his willingness and the magistrates dismissed the case.

The Stamford Mercury, 8th September, 1939.

An accomplice turned Queen’s evidence to save his own skin. Although, reading between the lines, he might have been, in fact, the mastermind behind this string of robberies.

WEDNESDAY. – before Chief Baron Alexander.

THE KESTEVEN GANG.

Robberies in the Neighbourhood of Bourn & Stamford.

GEORGE COLLINS, aged 24, late of Edenham, laborer, was indicted for stealing a sheep, the property of Mr. Robert Stubley, of Edenham, on the night of the 5th December last. The principal witness was an accomplice, of the name of Wm. Osborn, of Carlby, in whose house the prisoner lodged; they slaughtered the sheep in a field, and hiding the skin in some furze, carried the carcass to an old house which Osborn had at Carlby: on the following Sunday the prisoner was married, and part of this stolen sheep furnished forth the wedding feast. ~When the prisoner was apprehended in February, he said that he ” did not kill the sheep, but only helped to fetch it away; he should not have gone but for Osborn, who had been his ruin.” – Guilty – The Judge said it was not his intention to press judgement against the prisoner to the utmost; but he must be removed from this country, and never expect to see it again.

The prisoner was then arraigned on an indictment charging him with having stolen a gun from Mr. Stubley’s house on the 9th of November; and WILLIAM (alias Corporal) WRIGHT, aged 34, late of Stamford, was charged with having feloniously received the gun. – The principal witness in the case also was Osborn, the accomplice in the theft; whose evidence was conclusive as to the guilt of Collins; but the Judge thought there was not evidence of a guilty knowledge on the part of Wright sufficient to warrant a conviction. – Collins guilty, Wright not guilty.

The Same WM. WRIGHT was indicted for stealing two iron bars, the property of the Trustees of the Bourn turnpike-road, from the stone-pits 6 miles from Stamford, on the 23rd of November last. – He was found guilty on this charge, and sentenced to seven years’ transportation.

JOHN JIBB, aged 40, late of Stamford, was indicted for burglariously breaking into the dwelling house of Mr. Robt. Stubley, at Edenham, in the night of the 24th of January, and stealing a quantity of bacon, lard and other articles. – The principal witness in this case likewise was the accomplice Osborn, who detailed the plan and execution of the robbery: from his statement it appeared that he and Jibb met at the house of Corporal Wright a few days before the robbery, when Jibb asked Osborn where they could go to get any thing, and he suggested Stubley’s. On the evening of the robbery, Jibb went to Osborn’s house at Carlby, and after staying some time in Mr. Bank’s barn at that place, they went about 11 at night to Stubley’s, and broke through the wall into the cellar; they took tow forks out of the stable, to carry away their spoil with. One of these forks, and a pig’s head, were found by Blades, the constable, at Jibb’s house in February. – Jibb protested his innocence, and declared that Osborn had requested him to join in various robberies, which he had refused. – the Jury immediately returned a verdict of guilty, and judgement of death was recorded against Jibb. – The Judge intimated that is was unnecessary to proceed with those charges against Jibb wherein he was indicted alone, for his Lordship was already satisfied that he must be sent abroad for life – the country must be for ever freed from his depredations.

The same prisoner was again arraigned, with JAMES SQUIRES, aged 35, late of Barnack, laborer on a charge of stealing, on the 19th of January last, from the dwelling-house of Thos. Miller , of Barnack, a quantity of wearing apparel. Osborn was an accomplice in this robbery also, and the principal evidence for the prosecution. Jibb and he proceeded together from STamford to the house of the prisoner Squires at Barnack, who, with Wm. Squires, joined them in the robbery, which they effected by taking off the thatch, and making a hole through the ceiling. Jibb entered the shop, and reached the goods through the hole to Jas. Squires, who handed them to Osborn, whilst Wm. Squires kept watch: the goods were conveyed to Osborn’s house at Carlby, which appears to have been the general rendezvous for this daring gang, and on the following Sunday night they met there to divide the spoil: Jibb purchased Jas. Squires’ share for 15s , and Mw. Squires’ was left at Osborn’s house. Some of the goods were found at Jibb’s house on the 7th February, but none at Squires’. – Guilty.

WM. WIRGHT, aged 34, late of ~Edenham, butcher, was charged with breaking into the shop of Mr. Thos. Burrows, at Edenham, on 21st December, and stealing 150lbs. of beef. Jibb was charged with feloniously receiving the same. – For the seventh time in one day, Osborn appeared again as the accomplice and principal witness. He stated that on the Friday before Christmas-day he went to the public house at Thurlby, where he was joined by the prisoner, Wright and Corporal Wright. the former and witness left between 11 and 12 at night, and went to Edenham, where Wright said “Here’s the shop of a butcher, well to do, hs has good friends, and a deal of good beef for this Christmas.” In this instance also they effected an entry by taking off the thatch and breaking a hole through the ceiling. The accomplice was corroborated in some particulars by other witnesses. – There was no evidence to affect Jibb, consequently he was acquitted; but Wright was found guilty.

Thus terminated the trials of as desperate and successful gang of depredators as ever infested the county, and whose apprehension and conviction is a subject of congratulations to all in the neighbourhood to which they have so long been a terror: there is but one circumstance to regret, namely, that the ends of justice could not be accomplished without suffering the ringleader to save his own neck by giving evidence against those who have probably been deluded by his evil example.

The Stamford Mercury, 14th March, 1828.

To have ‘a smoke’ was a common enough pastime before the First World War, but popularity increased greatly after the War started. Most servicemen smoked and cigarettes were becoming more convenient than a pipe. This German tobacco, however, sounds thoroughly disgusting.

“Men who have a taste for beer and other stimulants have now found other grievances in the shortage of tobacco and matches, and the smoker who has said for years that he could only smoke a certain brand of the fragrant weed now feels pleased if he is allowed to purchase something for his pipe in any other form.  Germans are evidently troubled with a similar shortage, and there is a standard cigarette on the market there which is not relished.  “Vorwaerts” * says : “When one lights this cigarette one feels at once that Germany’s strength much be tremendous to stand such awful stuff.  If one inhales the smoke, then the first feelings of sea-sickness set in.  If the paper be removed, a greyish mixture of substances is seen, and the smell is like that of a musty cellar dwelling in which there is a shoemaker’s workshop.”

The Stamford Mercury, 30^th August, 1918.

* A German newspaper.

The act which gave women over 30 a vote, had come into law in February, 1918. But it was not until the 1928 ‘equal franchise’ act that they were able to vote on the same terms as men. The attitudes expressed in the following item were, unfortunately, still common and thankfully, seem very outdated nowadays. Interestingly, Mr W. Holt-White does not appear to be a ‘well-known author’ today.

“Women who have made History.

In an interesting article written by Mr. W. Holt-White, the well-known author, in the November number of the Royal Magazine (C. A. Pearson, Ltd.), a review is given of women’s demands as embodied in a recent manifesto, and of the probate results should they be granted.  Dealing with “Women who have made History,” Mr. Holt-White says:-

“I hate to be unkind to women, I detest to appear unchivalrous, but, if woman forces the issue she must, at least, face the facts.  And the facts, so far as history goes, are not very much in her favour.  If you run through the names of women who have won to fame in this world – Helen of Troy, Cleopatra Beatrice, Catherine de Medici, Madame de Pompadour, and so on, one has to admit that their fame has rested entirely on their sex.  There are, of course, a few exceptions, such as Boadicea and Joan of Arc.  Poor dears! How they have been overworked!

For the rest, notable accomplishments on the part of woman have been neither frequent nor famous.  In art, literature, and music she has produced some notabilities but no geniuses who will live.  In science she can record Madame Currie (sic), but in medicine, for instance, beyond Dr. Garrett Anderson, she has produced few physicians or surgeons of lasting utility or note.  Then, though architecture urgently demands the attention of the female mind for the better planning of the home, architecture has no great charms for her.  The great domestic businesses such as Department Stores, have been created by men, and are run by men.  It is a horrible thought that the most beautiful gowns in the world are still designed by men.

“Woman may argue that she has not had time to make good, that it will take generations of education and progress to place her in a position when she can fairly, and with a decent chance, compete with man.  I do not dispute it. I would only remind the good lady that if this is so, she mistakes revolution for evolution, that she is trying to run before she has learnt to toddle, and that in formulation her present formidable demands she is really asking too much of poor man.””

The Stamford Mercury, 22^nd November, 1918.

Why do Oakham stocks have three holes? An intriguing question and an even more intriguing answer! Actually, Oakham stocks have five holes – four and a smaller one. Perhaps the story is of old Tommy is true, but the BBC found a more prosaic answer.

“A great deal has been written from time to time about the stocks which are still preserved in several places throughout the country. Among the best specimens to be seen now are those at Oakham, and in regard to these stocks a Leicester correspondent has discovered something puzzling, which no doubt has escaped the notice of many visitors, and probably residents. The writer says : “I have seen illustrations of stocks made to secure one or two persons, that is with two or four holes to fasten their legs, and others with holes for hands as well, but never one with three, and one of these very much smaller than the others. What was its purpose? I set out in search of information, and was fortunate enough to come into contact with one of the ‘ancient’ inhabitants of the quiet old town, who was able to satisfy my curiosity.” That little hole? Why that was made for old Tommy -‘s wooden leg! He was always getting tipsy or doing something for which he was sent to the stocks. For some time he got off because of his wooden leg. But he became such a nuisance that at last that little hole was made, and there he used to sit, the butt of all and sundry, with his sound leg through one of the larger holes and his wooden peg fastened in the small one!”

The Stamford Mercury, 16th August, 1918.