Author: secretary

A Miss Blackwell and her maid stoutly defended their home against a party of robbers, seeing them off with a salvo of shots.

“A few nights since a [pa]rty of ruffians, about seven or eight in number, attacked the house of Lieut. Blackwell, of Cookstown, near Ardee with the view of robbing it. Lieut. B. was on the continent a[t] the time (but has since returned), and the only persons in the house were his sister and a servant maid. It was near one o’clock, when Miss Blackwell was awakened by hearing persons attempting to force the door and windows: on her demanding what they wanted, they replied that they has a message from her brother. She desired them to deliver the message, as she would not open the door at that unseasonable hour. They threatened, if they were not admitted, they would break in the house and afterwards set it on fire, and accordingly they commenced a violent attack on both front and rear; but the house, which was very strong, having been recently built, resisted all their efforts. In the mean time, Miss B., fearing they might be successful, charged with some arms which were in the house: she then commenced firing out right and left, which so daunted the assailants that they decamped, after breaking a number of windows. They fired one shot into the house, the heroic protectress of which fired no less than six in return. It is conjectured that robbery, either of money or arms, was the object of the gang. – Droghera Journal.”

The Stamford Mercury , 22nd December, 1837.

Three or four years ago, we published a series of posts about Wife selling. The more we read these old newspapers, the more instances we find. Here’s another one!

“BUYING AND SELLING WIVES. – The London papers state that a disgusting and disgraceful scene happened in Smithfield market on Monday. A fellow led his wife by a halter, and gave her to a drover, desiring him to tie her up to the pens, and sell her to the best bidder. The woman, who did not appear to be above 25 years of age, and not bad-looking, suffered herself to be tied up very quietly. A crowd of persons soon gathered round, and a rather respectable man entered into a negociation with the drover for the purchase of the wife: after some higgling, she was knocked down for the sum of 10s. The money was paid, but the driver refused to release her except on the payment of 2s. as his commission for the sale which he had effected. Some confusion took place about the demand, but it was eventually paid, and she was released from the pens opposite the Half-Moon public-house, and delivered to her purchaser, who appeared highly pleased with his bargain. The parties adjourned to a neighbouring public-house, where the late husband spent the greater part of the money in brandy and water. – As a caution to persons who figure in scenes of this description, and for the instruction of Magistrates, who, from the frequency of such occurrences, must either be ignorant of negligent of their duty, we quote the following passage from a very useful popular digest of the laws, which is well known by the title of The Cabinet Lawyer:- ‘The Court of King’s Bench is the guardian of public morals, and has the judicial animadversion of offences against public decency and good behaviour. In that court an information was granted against a number of persons concerned iin assigning a young girl to a gentleman under pretence of learning music, but for the purpose of prostitution – 3 Bur., 1438. There is no doubt that the vulgar and brutal exhibition, too often tolerated, of a man selling his wife, and delivering her in a halter is a misdemeanours, both in the buyer and seller, punishable with fine and imprisonment, or by an endictment preferred at the assizes or quarter sessions.'”

The Stamford Mercury, 2nd March, 1832.

A new Rector’s ego and an inexperienced builder combined to produce the ruins of St. Michael’s church in Stamford.

“Early on Friday morning the 1st Inst., nearly the whole of the roof and body of St. Michael’s church in Stamford fell into a mass of ruins. the building had been for some time under the hands of masons who were employed to effect what it was hoped would be an improvement, by widening the span of the arched and diminishing the number of pillars, so as to admit of a better view and hearing of the clergyman by the congregation. In the course of this work, it was discovered that some of the pillars which were removed had given support to the tower of the church; and so great was the alarm which arose for the safety of that part of the edifice, that the contract, which had entered into with a young builder was suspended, and more experienced architects were called in. Their attention was immediately directed to shoring up and propping the tower: and this difficult job seemed to be nearly effected, when heavy raid unfortunately set in last week, and as part of the walls of the church, being uncovered, were exposed to the influence of the wet, at the time we have mentioned the whole of the roof and part of the parapets fell in, and the church is now a heap of ruins which it is dangerous to approach. To add to the calamity, the fall and wrench of the timbers of the roof have still further weakened the supports of the tower, which has in consequence declined from the perpendicular so considerably towards the south-east, and is so extensively cracked from the bottom to the top on both the south and east sides, that it is hourly expected to come down, and it is even feared that great mischief may by its fall be done to surrounding houses. – So extensive and unforeseen a consequence of meddling with the masonry of the church has perhaps rarely before occurred. The parish, on the suggestion of the newly-presented Rector (the Rev. Chas. Swan), had at first agreed to re-pew the church with a view to increase the number of sittings; and as this improvement would necessarily interrupt the performance of divine service for some months, the further suggestion of removing at the same time some masses on antient stone-work, and giving lightness to the body of the church, was entertained, and contracts were entered into for executing the whole of the work at an expense of about 650l. According to the present aspect of things, a charge of at least three thousand pounds will be incurred in restoring the church and the tower, every stone of which, it seems, must be taken down! – Dr. Goddard, the Archdeacon of Lincoln, has twice within these ten days visited Stamford on this business; and hopes are entertained that through his representation considerable assistance will be afforded to the parish, from the funds of the society in London for building and repairing churches and chapels; but still a frightful amount of charge will remain to be defrayed by a small parish, – and upon some Dissenters who are assessed for considerable property within it the burthen will be particularly had. – The accident is one of so extraordinary a nature that we humbly think a public subscription might with propriety be solicited; and we have pleasure in stating that this view of the case is countenanced by the spontaneous liberality of two gentlemen, who have, by notes addressed to a parishioner, signified their desire to contribute 5l. each should a subscription be formed: those benevolent individuals are, the Rev. H Mortlock, of Morcott, Rutland, and W. L. Hopkinson, Esq. M.D., of St. George’s parish, Stamford.”

The Stamford Mercury, 8th June, 1832.

This letter to the Editor proposes the use of some land (presumably on the north side of what is now Uffington Road) for use as a new burial ground for victims of contagious diseases. He choses not to give his name, perhaps because of his poor grammar! Stamford Cemetery was opened in 1855.

“Burial Ground at Stamford,

And other Benefactions to the Town.

Mr. Editor, – The Board of Health* in Stamford have (sic) lately called the attention of the town to the crowded state of the church-yard, and the necessity of providing a burial-ground without the town for the interment of persons who may die of contagious disease. I beg leave to point out an ample site which through the beneficence of an early patron of the town was provided as a place of sepulture; and which, though it is has not been for some centuries resorted to as such, but has latterly been used as a stack-yard and as feeding pasture, is nevertheless, there is every reason to believe, consecrated ground, and is rightly available to the town for the purpose contemplated by the Board of Health. The ground to which I refer is situation at the East end of Stamford, and is the tongue of land which extends, in three small inclosures, on the North side of the turnpike road leading from the town to the Infirmary. These inclosures (one used as a stack-yard) are now in the occupation of Mr. Alderman Francis Simpson, and are rented by him of the Rector of St. Michael’s church; but it is indisputable that they form the piece of land which, in the reign of King John, was given to Earl Warren to the town as a burial-ground; and being ground used or available for such purpose, they have been properly entered in the Ecclesiastical Terrier as part of the possessions of the Rectory, (the Clergyman having a right to the herbage of church-yards), but they are really the property of the parish. This gift is noticed by all the historians of the town, – Butcher, Peck, Howgrave, Harrod, and Blore. In Harrod’s History of Stamford, information on this subject will be found in pages 59 and 86: and from Howgrave’s history I copy the following useful account of the above and many other gifts to the town.

Your’s(sic), AN INHABITANT.”

The Stamford Mercury, 1st June, 1832.

*The Board of Health was not introduced until the Public Health Act 1848, so he must be referring to a local body.

Homeopathy has been around a long time – it was proposed by Samuel Hahnemann in 1796. Opinions vary, but seem to go in cycles. It became popular in the 19th century, but attracted criticism, too. There was a revival in the 20th century, but NHS funding ceased in 2017.

“The German papers give an amusing account of the successful dexterity of a young author at Berlin, who, by the skillful management of this powers of reasoning, contrived to carry off two prizes which had been offered by learned bodies for the best essays upon the opposite sides of the same question. The subject in contention was that of what is called the homeopathic system in medicine – a subject upon which the medial men very generally, throughout the continent, appear now to be fairly at loggerheads. The faculty of medicine at Riga, it seems, lately offered a prize of 100 ducats for the best treatise upon, and in favour of, the system in question. The faculty of medicine at St. Petersburgh, on the other hand, and about the same time, offered a prize of 60 golden Fredericks for the strongest proofs that it was a delusion. Under these circumstances a smart young surgeon at Berlin stepped forward, and, incognito to both, by treating his subjects to suit their different tastes, succeeded in assuring the Doctors of Riga that homeopathy was not a system of quackery, and of convincing those of St. Petersburgh that it was. As the candidates’ essays were anonymous, and little direct intercourse exists between the two societies, it was of course not known that the favourite reasoner cut with a two-edged sword; but, now that the discovery had been made, it has subjected those learned Doctors to a very general banter throughout Germany.”

The Stamford Mercury, 13th October, 1837.

A husband finds his way out of an unhappy marriage to an officious wife . It’s a funny story but quite how true it is, I’ll leave to you to decide. (Note the eighteenth century custom of capitalising the initial letters of the nouns.)

“An odd Accident happened last Week in Bedfordshire, about three Miles from Leighton, of the Truth of which we are well assured, viz.

A Man lately married, was so unhappy in his Bargain, that in a short time after he swore to his Wife, he would drown himself in a neighbouring Pond, in a Fortnight; which Time he thought was necessary to make his Peace with God. The Day fixed being come, the Man took no Notice of it; upon which his Wife officiously reminded him of his Resolution. To which he answered, that, upon second Thoughts, he could not drown himself, because that was Self-Murder: but if that she would throw, or push him in, he would stand on the Brink of the Pond, which accordingly he did; the Woman ran at him with all her Force, but he, flipping a little on one Side, in fell his Wife, and was drowned instantly. She was afterwards taken out and buried, to the no small Admiration of the Villages round about.”

The Stamford Mercury, 3rd January, 1745.

Following last week’s post, we found this item which explains that ventriloquism may have been the means by which the trick was achieved.

“The Double-sighted phenomenon. – We lately copied, from a London paper, a paragraph giving an account of a boy now exhibiting, who, it was stated, described the legend, &c. on a piece of coin, although his back was turned to it, and performed several other similar wonders. A correspondent suggests that then whole, in all probability, is a juggle, and that the deceit is accomplished by the father of the boy being a ventriloquist, and that the answers were given by him in such a way as to cause it to be believed that they came from the boy. This solution (which, we observe, has also been given in a London journal), is extremely probable. We have, however, never ourselves had the good fortune to hear any professor of ventriloquism so expert in his art as to be able to deceive a large body of persons in the way stated. It is, nevertheless, the most reasonable mode of accounting for the wonder in question.”

The Stamford Mercury, 2 December, 1831.

A witness tells of the phenomenon of an eight-year old boy who appeared able to see objects behind his back. The mention of Mr. Irving refers to the Reverend Edward Irving, the man behind the founding of the Catholic Apostolic Church, whose great eloquence made him a popular speaker of the time.

“On Tuesday, we visited the Eqyptian-hall, Piccadilly, induced by the published account of ‘The astonishing powers of Master McKean, only eight years old, one of the greatest prodigies of the age, just arrived in London from the Highlands of Scotland, and now exhibiting at the Egyptian-hall Bazaar.’ We there found a boy about the age mentioned, and without any thing extraordinary in his appearance, and a numerous company of ladies and gentlemen assembled to witness his performance, in which he was assisted by his father, and which evidently excited the very highest degree of wonder. It would be impossible to make room for any particular description of the various performances that were exhibited. A brief sketch of a few may serve to give some idea of what, in a different age of the world, would certainly be deemed supernatural. The child or phenomenon stood at a chair in a corner of the room, with his back turned to the company, and on a schoolboy’s slate, which answered for a plate, collected from the company any thing they chose to put on. Some put money – some a trinket – some a button, and some a glove. The father then took the articles severally in his hand, calling on the phenomenon to describe each, which he did, or appeared to do, in the minutest particular; and even when an attempt was made to mislead him, he instantly detected it. for instance, the father took a glove from the plate, saying, declare what piece of money I have taken up? – It’s not money. What is it? – A glove. What colour is it? – Black. What hand is it for? – The left hand. All answers perfectly correct. Another instance:-What have I taken up now? – Money. What coin? – Half a crown. What King’s reign? – George the Fourth. What year? – 1824. All perfectly correct. There was coin of various dates, and some of the reign of George the Third and William the Fourth, but he never made any mistake. The father asked some of the company to write their names on a slate. A lady and two gentlemen did so. We can answer for it there was no collusion in one of the names, and we are not less certain of the others. They were all called over by the phenomenon in the order they were written, without a moment’s hesitation. – We shall mention by one wonder more. The phenomenon was lead out of the room, and door closed; his father then stood at the opposite side of the room, and called upon any of the company who chose to go to him, and whisper to him to him in the lowest possible voice. Three gentlemen did so. There could certainly be no collusion – one of the gentlemen was one of the most distinguished barristers at the bar. The phenomenon was brought into the room, and after taking his post at the chair, with his back to the company, was asked what the first gentleman said, what the second said, and what the third? They all declared the answers to be true to the letter. We doubt whether the gift of tongues excited more wonder amongst Mr. Irving’s congregation, than the performances, of which we have mentioned but a part, excited amongst those who witnessed them, though in justice to ourselves we must say that we by no means intend to confound Mr. McKean, who makes no pretensions to supernatural gifts, with the pretenders of the Caledonian chapel – Morning Advertiser.”

The Stamford Mercury, 11th November, 1831.

Were these corpse-stealers the notorious ‘London Burkers’ (named after Burke and Hare)? Their discovery in 1831 brought about an Act of Parliament which allowed anatomists to use dead bodies from the workhouse for their research

“On Sunday morning, between three and four o’clock, a gang of corpse-stealers, in the employ of the anatomical lecturers, contrived to get possession of three dead bodies which had been placed in the bone-house of St. Sepulchre’s work-house, preparatory to interment. They were stopped by the watchmen in West-street, Smithfield, and a sort of general battle took place between the guardians of the night and the corpse-stealers, which ended in the capture of three of them; but in the mean time the rest of the gang succeeded in carrying off the dead bodies. Among those who came to the assistance of the watchmen were a number of Irishmen, who happened to be just then engaged in waking a dead friend of their’s (sic) in a garret near the scene of action. The battle over, they returned to finish their ‘Wake,’ but to their utter astonishment they found the room in darkness and their deceased friend missing. A loud and piercing howl instantly arose; and, again rushing forth, a party of them overtook their dead companion in Fox and Knot-court, in the possession of some of the corpse-stealers. A second fight took place, and eventually the Irishmen regained possession of the corpse an carried it back in triumph to its garret.”

The Stamford Mercury, 23rd September, 1831.

A theft of many silver items from a Stamford House caused the Stamford Association for prosecuting Robbers to place an advert offering huge rewards for information. This was well before the Metropolitan Police force was formed by Sir Robert Peel in 1829. County Police forces were not formed until 1839/40. But quite why Mr. Robinson was hoarding such a huge number of counterfeit halfpennies (between 1200 and 1440 coins), is unclear!

“STAMFORD ASSOCIAITION for prosecuting Robbers, &c. November 29th, 1783.

Whereas the Dwelling-House of Mr. JOSEPH ROBINSON, in Stamford, situate in St. Michael’s Parish, was last Night Broke Open and the following Articles stole:

One Silver Half Pint Mug, very old, plain; a Silver Cream Jug, mark’d E W on one side of the Feet, also plain; Five Silver Tea Spoons, mark’d S R; and Two old plated Butter Boats.

Also from the Counting-House, between Fifty and Sixty Shillings in Halfpence, chiefly counterfeited, and One Shilling. W. G. with a date engraved thereon, and in a canvas Purse a small enamelled Snuff Box, a Penknife Tortoiseshell hafted, and Two Steel Watch Chains, all new; One Guinea and an Half in Gold, and about Six Shillings and Six pence in Silver.

> An old Chissel, with a Deal Handle, newly and badly put on, was found in the Counting House and seems to have been used in forcing the Lock.

If any Person will give information of the Offender or Offenders, so that they may be convicted of Burglary, shall receive from Mr. Thomas Smith, the Treasurer of this Society, FIVE GUINEAS, and from Mr. Robinson TEN GUINEAS, over and above the Reward of FORTY POUNDS offered by Act of Parliament, and all reasonable Expenses.”

The Stamford Mercury, 4th December, 1783.