PETERBOROUGH SOKE 



STAMFORD BARON 



with a mill ; this probably refers to land north of the 

 bridge, for about 1 125 Peterborough had in Stamford 

 forty-two men having houses with land and seventeen 

 without land, except ' manses,' all in Northampton- 

 shire, and in Lincoln five men with ' manses ' and 

 two 'manses' vacant.' In 1 146 Pope Eugenius con- 

 firmed to Peterborough in Stamford 49 ' manses ' of 

 land with mills, churches, toll and coinage of money, 

 and in Lincoln 7 ' manses.' ' Some claim appears to 

 have been made against the abbot's rights in the 

 latter p.irt of the 12th century-, for, according to Hugo 

 Candidus, Abbot William of Waterville redeemed 

 with money all the vill on this side of the bridge 

 of Stamford, and beyond the bridge 14 'manses' 

 which were claimed by a certain knight as his 

 inheritance.^ 



In 1 1 82 William de Humez, du Hommet or de 

 Humeto, constable of Normandy, at that time lord of 

 the vill of Stamford, agreed that the abbot of Peter- 

 borough should hold his land beyond the bridge and in 

 the vill of Stamford in Lincoln with sac and soc, toll 

 and team, infangenthef and outfangenthef and other 

 liberties.' Richard I in 1 189 and Henry III in 1227 

 confirmed to Peterborough all Stamford south of the 

 bridge with the churches of St. Martin and All 

 Saints, and beyond the bridge 14 'manses.'* The 

 manor continued in the hands of the abbey until 

 1539, when the profits of Stamford, of which 

 Richard Cecil was bailiff, were £18 14J. ^d.' It was 

 granted in 1541 to the dean and chapter,' but does 

 not, however, appear to have remained long in their 

 hands, for in 1598 William Cecil Lord Burghley died 

 seised of the manor of Stamford Baron, late parcel of 

 the possessions of Peterborough Abbey.' He pro- 

 bably acquired it about 1550, for the latest court roll 

 of the dean and chapter is dated i 549.° The Marquis 

 of Exeter, descendant of Lord Burghley, is now lord of 

 the manor. 



There was a mint in Stamford Baron belonging to 

 the abbot of Peterborough for a long period before 

 the Conquest. It was granted to the abbey by 

 King Edgar in 972,'° and was confirmed to them 

 by Turkil, earl of the East Anglians, in the reign of 

 Canute." It was included among the appurtenances 

 of the abbey's land in Stamford about 1125," and is 

 mentioned in the confirmation by Pope Eugenius ^ 

 of the possessions of Peterborough. Many Anglo- 

 Saxon coins minted here exist ; they decrease in 

 number after the Conquest, but there are a few as late 

 as Henry II.'* 



BURGHLEr.—{BaTgh.lc3, xi cent. ; Burle, xii- 

 XV cent.). Burghley is mentioned by name as part 

 of the possessions of Peterborough in the spurious 

 charter of Wulfhere in 664,'* and must have been in- 

 cluded within the boundaries of the liberty of Peter- 



borough given in the charter of Edgar in the loth cen- 

 tury.'* The monastery apparently lost it in some way be- 

 tween this time and the reign of Edward the Confessor, 

 for Leofric, who ruled the abbey from 1057 to 1066, 

 gave the king 8 marks of gold for Burghley, which had 

 been granted to Elfgar, one of the queen's chaplains, for 

 life." In spite of this gift, on the death of Elfgar the 

 king and queen tried to take the land away. In 1086 

 Geoffrey was holding three virgates of land of the 

 abbot;" he may probably be identified with the Geoffrey 

 of Winchester, whose fee in Burghley and Armston 

 was confirmed to Peterborough by Pope Eugenius in 

 1 146." In the reign of Henry I this land was held 

 by William of Burghley, who also claimed to hold the 

 reeveship of Stamford in fee for j^io."* In 1 189 and 

 1 2 1 1 the fee was still held by a William of Burghley." 

 Between 1 1 77 and 1 1 84 William of Burghley pledged 

 all his land in Stamford which he held at farm to 

 Benedict abbot of Peterborough for 40 marks of silver 

 to acquit him against the king and 36 marks to acquit 

 himself against the Jews of Stamford, by whom he 

 would have been disinherited without this loan." 

 About 1260 Roger son of William of Burghley quit- 

 claimed all right in this land to John de Caux, abbot 

 of Peterborough for a further loan of 40 marks." 

 Roger died in 1280" and was succeeded by Peter, 

 who, in 1309, obtained a grant of free warren in his 

 desmesne lands of Burghley next Stamford." His 

 son Geoffrey did homage for his lands in 1322,°° but 

 he can have enjoyed them only a short time, for in 

 1330 his widow Mary, then the wife of John of 

 Titchmarsh was holding Burghley for life of the in- 

 heritance of her son Peter.'' He, in 1356, sold his 

 estate under the name of ' the manor of Burlee par\'a 

 juxta Stamford," to Robert Wykes of Stamford. This 

 is the earliest occasion of which the name of Little 

 Burghley is mentioned, though it was frequent later 

 and it has sometimes been thought in consequence that 

 there were two manors in Burghley. This does not seem 

 to have been the case, but the Wykes family leased the 

 manor or part of it to tenants, while they themselves 

 continued to pay the dues to Peterborough," perhaps 

 because of the entail created by Robert Wykes about 

 1362.^° They were a family of some consideration in 

 Stamford, Gervase Wykes, grandson of Robert being 

 first alderman of Stamford under its new constitution 

 in 1401." His father, Thomas, or possibly his grand- 

 father had leased Burghley to Michael de la Pole, earl 

 of Suffolk, who granted it for life to Alice widow of Sir 

 John Nevill who returned it to him and his brother 

 Edmund for 100 marks yearly." In 1 388, when the earl 

 was attainted for treason, he was found to hold the manor 

 of Little Burghley at farm of Thomas Wykes and the 

 abbot of Peterborough for rent to each." In 1390 the 

 king granted a messuage, 1 20 acres of land, and one rood 



1 Cbronicon, p. 165, 



■^ Sparke, Scriptores, p. 78. 



* Ibid. p. 92. 



■• Cott. Cleo. C. ii, 156*. 



s Cart. Antiq. DD. 17 ; Cart. R. 

 II Hen. Ill, pt. i, m. 19. 



« Falor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), iv, 282. 



" Pat. 33 Hen. VIII, pt. iii, m. 14-17. 



^ Chan. Inq. p.m. (Ser. 2), cclvii, 91. 



« Ct. R. at Peterborough. 



>" Birch, Carl. Sax. No. 1,258. It has 

 becQ often stated, on the authority of 

 Stow, that there was a mint in Stamford 

 in the reign of Athelstan. Stow, however, 

 does not mention Stamford by name, 

 though he says Athelstan placed ' in every 



good town one coiner* (ed. 1615, p. 82), 

 which may include Stamford. 



^* Sparke, Scriptorei^ p. 44.. 



1* Chronicon, p. 1 65. 



^ Sparke, Scriptoretj p. 78, 



'* Arch, xviii. 2. 



'^ Birch, Cart. Sax. No. 22. 



"^ A. S. Chron. (Rolls Ser.), i, 200. 



'? Sparke, ScrifKres, p. 42. 



18 y. C. H. Northann, i, 31 54. 



" Sparke, ScrifKres, p. 78. 



^ Chronicon, p. 169. 



2' Cart. Antiq. DD. 17 ; Red Bi. of 

 fjffA. (Rolls Ser.), p. 61S. 



^ Swapham, 246 J. 



"Ibid. fol. 263^. 



« Peck, Stamford, ix, 8 ; Cott. Vesp. 

 £. xjcii, 46 d, 



« Chart R. 3 Edw. II, m. i. No. 35. 



» Cott. Vesp. E. xxxi, 78 </. 



»? Quo. Warr. R. (Rec. Com.), p. 509; 

 Close, 30 Edw. Ill, pt. i. 



« Ibid. 29 Edw. Ill, m. 8<^. 



» Chan. Inq. p.m. 11 Ric. II, No. 

 131 ; Cott. Nero C. vii, fol. 130 and 

 202^ ; Misc. Bks. (Eich. K.R.), iv, 235. 



^ Peck, Desiderata Curiosa, p. 79, 

 quoting from documents in possession of 

 the Cecil family. 



'^ Peck, Stamford, xiii, 5. 



«> Close, 2 Ric. II, m. 12 d. 



^ Chan. Inq. p.m. 11 Ric. II, No. 131. 



