Lynne About Loughborough

Sunday, 15 March 2026

Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 8, Part 3

We pick up the story of Loughborough as presented by journalist Edwin Goady, in his serialization in the ‘Loughborough Monitor’ of which he was editor, which ran from 1864 to 1966.

As I mentioned last time, Goadby’s Chapter 8, although only listed as Chapter 8, and without any part numbers, actually appears in three issues of the ‘Loughborough Monitor’, so I shall follow suit, and split it over three blog posts, but will also give each post a Part number. This is Part 3, and the final part.

As usual, some of Goadby’s paragraphs are rather long, so in order to make reading the chapter a little easier, I have added a few spaces and created new paragraphs. This particular chapter seems fairly straightforward, so I’ve not added any notes this time. Other than that, I’ve changed nothing, so do bear in mind that this text is now about 160 years old, and may no longer be accurate, as there are many more discoveries that have been made that illuminate the history of Loughborough, and some terminology will have changed, so some of the information in this article will be wrong. I have not tried to amend these in any way, so reader, beware!

____________________________________

THE HISTORY OF LOUGHBOROUGH FROM THE TIME OF THE BRITONS TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

In: ‘Loughborough Monitor’ 11 May 1865, pg.5, continued from 13 April 1865, pg.5

CHAPTER VIII. [Part 3]

A Tradition, and its Final Settlement—Henry VII.’s Progress through the Town—Its Curious Accessories—Thomas Burton, and the Wool Staple—Scarcity of Facts concerning him—His Will—His Deed of Enfeoffment, and Death.

____________________________________

If some of the sums of money bequeathed, as seen in our last [part], seem small in these days, it should be remembered that money was then many times more valuable than it is now, and a man or a woman might be more than “passing rich” upon considerably less than “forty pounds a year.” The latter clause in the will [of Thomas Burton] is seen to refer to the Chantry, the history of which is so intimately connected with the fortunes of the town. The terms of the bequest are somewhat vague, but very likely there was a purpose in so putting them. What the security there spoken of may mean is hardly clear, but in the following year (1495) Burton executed a deed of Enfeoffment whereby he granted all his lands and possessions in Loughborough and neighbouring villages to eight persons, and by a Letter of Attorney to Thomas Barker, of Loughborough, empowered him to enter upon them and deliver them over into the full and peaceable possession of the same.

The deed, which contains no declaration of trust, but is sufficiently intelligible when viewed in the light thrown upon it by the clause of the will especially referring to the property therein named, is as follows

“Know ye all men present, and to come, that, I, Thomas Burton, of Loughborough, in the County of Leicester, Senior, a Merchant of the Staple of Calais, have given, granted, and by this my present deed confirmed to Ralph Lemyngdon, of Loughborough aforesaid, merchant, Edward Canell, Thomas Mason, John Crosby, Thomas Colcrofte, John Podyam, James Redman, and Ralph Smythe, of the same place, all my tenements in Loughborough aforesaid, Willoobe upon the Wold, Eastleyke, Hardby, Statherne, and Thrussington, with all lands and tenements, meadows, feedings, and pastures (pratis, pascuis, et pasturis) to the same belonging. To have and to hold the aforesaid lands and tenements, with all their appurtenances, meadows, feedings, and pastures to the same adjoining, to the aforesaid Ralph, Edward, Thomas, John, Thomas, John, James, and Ralph, their heirs and assigns for ever, of the Chief Lord of that Fee by the services therefore due and of right accustomed.

And I truly, the aforesaid Thomas Burton, Senior, and my heirs, will warrant against all persons the aforesaid lands and tenements, with all lands and tenements, meadows, feedings, and pastures, with all their appurtenances, to the aforesaid Ralph, Edward, Thomas, John, Thomas, John, James, and Ralph, their heirs and assigns. These being witness, Richard Cannell, Public Notary, Thomas Spicer, and Robert Barker.

Dated the 29th day of April, in the Tenth year of the reign of King Henry the Seventh, and in the Year of our Lord, 1495.”

This deed was not signed by Burton himself, it being sufficiently valid in point of law without it. It may also be reasonably believed that this enfeoffment evaded the law relative to the alienation of lands for religious purposes which had been in force ever since the feudal system had rooted itself in England.

The will declared that the lands in question should be applied for a special purpose, but did not take them out of the family. This enfeoffment, however, by its very nature took effect at once, and so the Chantry was established without any one but the parties immediately concerned being cognizant of the nature of what high legal authorities state was then a very common proceeding.

Burton appears to have died either late in the same or early in the following year, his will being proved by his Executors on the 19th of January, 1496. He was buried just within the threshold of the old vestry, and the attendant ceremonies are already described by anticipation in his will.

If a monumental inscription were placed over his remains, as would be pretty sure to be the case, it must have either become entirely obliterated in the course of a century, or the historian William Burton could not have been shown it when he visited the church early in the seventeenth century, since he gives not the slightest hint as to its existence (in fact, never mentions Burton’s name at all in his account of the place), although he refers to two monuments of an earlier date, one 1415, and the other 1481, and expressly notices the monument to Robert Lemington, a merchant of the Staple, who in all probability was nearly related to, if not the very Ralph Lemington so prominently mentioned in Burton’s Deed of Enfeoffment, and who died in 1512.

Very likely the position of the monument would prevent it attracting his notice, but the entire omission of any reference to his illustrious namesake can only be explained by conceiving an amount of apathy on the part of the historian’s attendants and informants which it would be well if we could congratulate our townsmen had since been entirely dissipated.

A monument, however, was unquestionably in existence in the eighteenth century, but was rapidly becoming defaced. It was a massive marble block, worn away by the tread of many generations of rectors and parish clerks, and only a few words could be read at the top of the stone. It became, therefore, a question with the Feoffees of the Charity in 1793 - we quote the precise words of the minute - “wether (sic) the stone should be taken up and the letters fresh cut,” but wisely considering that the situation of the stone would always “subject ye inscription to be soon effaced,” they agreed to let the original stone, if such it were, remain in its place, and that the memory of so great a benefactor might not be “obliterated,” they ordered that the inscription should be “cut in a handsome manner on Swithland slate,” and placed on the wall of the vestry, as near as could be to the original stone.

If the original inscription were copied, which is stated to be the case, the memorial could not have been a very old one, for it refers to the uses of his charity which did not begin until nearly the close of the sixteenth century. The inscription, now removed to the northern wall of the tower, is as follows

Hic prope jacet Thomas Burton,

Maecenas nostrum primus et summus,

publicae scholae fundator,

cujus et pontium solus conservator,

pauperum dulce praesidium et nostrarum

aeternum decus, columenque rerum.

Obiit Anno xti., 1496.

Hoc monumentum posuit

et antiquam inscriptionem instauravit

Curator Pontium, Anno Salutis 1793.

For the benefit of English readers the above may be rendered as follows:

“Near here lies Thomas Burton, our first and greatest Maecenas, the founder of the Public School of which and the bridges he was the sole sustainer; the kindly guardian of the Poor, and our eternal ornament and head of all things. He died, the Year of Christ, 1496. This monument was erected and the old inscription restored by the Bridgemaster, the Year of our Salvation, 1793.”

The Bridgemaster for that year was Mr. J. Fry, and as no other entry can be found in the Bridgemaster’s accounts for the expenses connected with this monument, it is but fair and reasonable to suppose that they were defrayed by the voluntary subscriptions of the Feoffees themselves, assisted by the townspeople.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is remarkable to see how the town took steps in 1793 to preserve the memory of their "greatest Maecenas" by commissioning the Swithland slate memorial when the original marble was worn away. This highlights the lasting impact of his 1495 Deed of Enfeoffment, which legally established his charitable legacy while navigating the complex laws of the time.

End of Chapter 8.

____________________________________

Links to older chapters

So Who Was Edwin Goadby?

____________________________________

Transcribed and presented here with the kind permission of the British Newspaper Archive. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/

____________________________________

Posted by lynneaboutloughborough

With apologies for typos which are all mine!

_______________________________________________

Thank you for reading this blog.

Copyright:

Dyer, Lynne (2026). Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 8, Part 3. Available from: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2026/02/goadbys-history-of-loughborough-chapter_0212394646.html [Accessed 15 March 2026]

Take down policy:

I post no pictures that are not my own, unless I have express permission so to do. All text is my own, and not copied from any other information sources, printed or electronic, unless identified and credited as such. If you find I have posted something in contravention of these statements, or if there are photographs of you which you would prefer not to be here, please contact me at the address listed on the About Me page, and I will remove these.

External Links:

By including links to external sources I am not endorsing the websites, the authors, nor the information contained therein, and will not check back to update out-of-date links. Using these links to access external information is entirely the responsibility of the reader of the blog.

Blog archive and tags:

If you are viewing this blog in mobile format, you will not be able to easily access the blog archive, or the clickable links to various topics. These can be accessed if you scroll to the bottom of the page, and click 'View Web Version'. Alternatively, there is also a complete list of posts, which when clicked will take you to the page you are interested in.

Searching the blog:

You can search the blog using the dedicated search box that appears near the top of the blog when viewed in the web version. Alternatively, you can search using your usual search engine (e.g. Bing, Google, DuckDuckGo etc.) by following this example:

site: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/ “Radmoor House”

NOTE – the words you’re actually looking for must be in “” and the first of these must be preceded by a space

Thank you for reading this blog.

Lynne

Sunday, 8 March 2026

International Women's Day

I feel I should offer a trigger warning for the post I am sharing with you today, as it contains discussions of both physical and mental health, and situations that you may feel uncomfortable with.

____________________________________

In previous posts for International Women’s Day, I have concentrated on presenting the stories of women of Loughborough who perhaps we may not have heard of, but who certainly made their mark on society (see list below).

Today, on the blog, I am focussing on a woman who one might have expected to lead a charmed life, someone who was the daughter of a very successful middle-class family, who married a successful man from Nottingham, but whose life did not perhaps take the course one would have liked.

Our woman shall remain nameless, but not faceless or characterless, although sometimes it is difficult to discover the stories behind women whose lives were lived during the late-Victorian – early-twentieth-century period, as so often they were just the daughters, just the wives, just the mothers, just the grandmothers, with little widely known characters of their own outside of these roles. Middle-class women, who were reported for their good and charitable works for the community, but like all women, known only as Mrs [insert husband’s initials and surname].

The woman I’m writing about today was born in 1874 in Loughborough, to a very middle-class family, at the head of which was a strong, influential, and well-known man. She was the second child, and the first daughter, to the couple, who went on to have eight children altogether. How she met her future husband we are never likely to know, but at 8 years her senior, and a successful owner of a lace manufacturing company in Nottingham, when the pair married at Loughborough parish church, in the summer of 1897, when our woman was aged 24, there was every reason to expect an optimistic future for the couple.

After a wedding reception in Loughborough Town Hall, and a honeymoon in Germany and Switzerland, the pair made their home in Nottingham, and on 27 March 1898, their first child, a baby daughter, was born. However, as was often the case in those days (sometimes because a couple waited until there were several children of the marriage to be baptised at the same time), she wasn’t baptised until a few years later, actually on 25 September 1901. However, in this case, the gap between registration of the baby’s birth, and the ensuing baptism was not only because by 1901 there was another baby to baptise, but also because immediately after the birth of the first-born, our woman was removed to The Retreat in York, which she later described as like being “put into a glass house”.

The Retreat had been founded in 1792, and opened in 1796, by William Tuke with the Society of Friends (Quakers) who were totally against the kind of treatment administerted to mentally ill patients at the time. Although The Retreat was originally opened for Quakers, it later came to accept people from other religious beliefs – for a higher cost. Patients at The Retreat were far better treated than those in the ‘lunatic asylums’ of the time, who were regarded almost as sub-human, and treated as such.

It is only later that we learn that our woman believed she was at The Retreat because “she was having fever at the time & that there were several other cases of puerperal sepsis [1] that her doctor had attended”.

From a newspaper report in 1899, we discover that the stay at The Retreat covered the period from mid-August to mid-October 1898, after which it is believed our woman went back to the family home in Nottingham. However, could this have been a happy reunion given what happened next?

Our woman’s parents brought a libel suit against their son-in-law to recover £2,000. He had presented a petition under the Lunacy Act of 1890, for the reception of his wife as a person of unsound mind. Answering a question in the paperwork, which asked whether any near relative had been afflicted with insanity, he wrote “Yes … and he further stated that his wife’s mother had been afflicted with puerperal mania…” [2]. The defendants, our woman’s parents, claimed that this inferred that it was likely that their children would inherit this condition, and this would adversely affect the position and standing of our woman’s family, especially the marriageability of her sisters.

In the end, the case was thrown out as not being appropriate for this particular court. Whether or not that was the end to it, I cannot say, although I have found no further evidence of the case being carried on, and of course, I cannot say whether or not the whole experience soured the relationship between our woman, her parents, and their son-in-law.

On the surface, it looks as though things improved for our woman, and although her father died in 1907, she and her husband went on to have three more children, in 1908, 1910, and 1911. All but the eldest were boys. Sadly, one of our woman’s sisters died in 1912, at Cheadle Royal Hospital [3], specialists in mental health, and in 1917 one of her brothers died at the Three Counties Lunatic Asylum in Stotfold, Bedfordshire [4].

Then, towards the end of 1920, our woman was again admitted into care. Initially this was at Redhaes [5], a private nursing home on London Road, Guildford, run by the owner, Laura Mitchell, who was assisted, certainly in 1921, by an assistant principal, two sick nurses, a housemaid and a kitchen maid. At the time of the 1921 census return, there appears to be only one patient (not our woman), who has two visitors. On 20 December 1920, our woman was moved to The Holloway Sanatorium, at Virginia Water, [6] and the following was reported from Redhaes:

"Laura Mitchell, matron of Red Braes Nursing home, London Road Guildford, informed me that the patient refused her breakfast this morning because she believed her tea was tampered with (which is untrue)."

The report from The Holloway Sanatorium, which covers the period 20 December 1920 to end November 1921, is detailed, and distressing, and it is hard to imagine what life must have been like for our woman. At the time of admission, she is aged 47, is a Christian (Church of England), is married, and lives in Nottingham. This is not her first ‘attack’ - that took place when she was 25 (i.e. in 1898), and this current attack has been ongoing for about three years, but has worsened in the past few days. The cause of the current situation remains unknown (although perhaps related to the death of her younger brother?) but she is regarded as being neither epileptic, nor suicidal, nor a danger to others. There is a note to say, however, that there is a family history of insanity, the cases quoted being that of her brother & sister, and her mother, included in brackets and a question mark thus - (mother?).

Her physical appearance at admission is reported as follows:

“Patient is of moderate height, face thin. The whole of the skin on her chest & limbs is pale & oedematous - feeling somewhat like sclerodermia. [7] Hair light brown, scanty, & faded. Features good. Eyes blue. React slowly to light, well to accommodation. Pulse regular. Heart normal in area & sounds.”

Regarding her physical health:

“Lungs: Breath sounds rather poor. Note normal. Abdomen: n.a.d. [no abnormality detected]. Prolapsed uterus from old perineal tear [8]. Bruises on both legs & right elbow. Small suppurating blister left palm. Menstruation regular. Knee jerks exag. [exaggerated] especially left. Some false ankle clonus.”

She believes she was nominated in 1918 as an independent labour candidate for parliament, but her husband persuaded her nominator to withdraw, and so since then she has been so angry with her husband that she has been away from home a large part of the time. This is a quote from the actual patient notes, under the heading ‘Mental Condition’:

“Since she was not allowed by her husband to stand for parliament she has been much away from him. She says she is not needed at home as "the boys are at school all day". The youngest is about 8. She also considers it a good thing for the eldest girl of 22 to have the whole management of the house.”

As an aside, concerning ‘the eldest girl’, our woman was probably right, for although she never married, ‘the eldest girl’ did take on the role of school matron in a very well-known public school, having done well herself at school, and having trained as a teacher at what was in 1917 the Froebel Training College in Bedford.

Our woman also believes that she has been injected with some substance, which might explain the bruises on her elbow and legs – or might not. She believes her husband has placed her in Holloway Sanatorium.

Over the course of 1921, our woman’s mental health fluctuates, continually moving from being over-talkative, to the point of rambling, to being withdrawn; from being kind, calm, and considerate to being destructive, excited, aggressive, and abusive. Sometimes she appears tidy, other times she is untidy, and tries to tear off her clothes. At times she believes she is being poisoned.

Finally, after four weeks of being relatively well, on 17 November 1921 our woman was discharged, although there had actually been no improvement in her condition since entering Holloway Sanatorium, and she was sent to Moat House in Tamworth, a place about which I can find no information. Nor do I know how long she stayed there, nor if she ever went home.

In February 1921, while our woman was in Holloway Sanatorium, her mother-in-law died, and it seems she would have liked to go to the funeral but, of course, was not allowed to. In August 1924, our woman’s own mother died, which must surely have been a sad time.

By April 1939, our woman is living at The Lawns on Union Road, Lincoln [9]: her husband, meanwhile is still living and working in Nottingham. How long had she been here? Perhaps moved straight from Tamworth? Maybe she had been well and had been back to live at the marital home? I don’t know the answer, but I do know that after the death of her mother, our woman must have been devastated by the death of her eldest son, who took his own life in 1931. He was well-liked and respected, and part of his father’s firm, but he felt he hadn’t helped in the business enough, even though all the witnesses at the inquest said he was “a gallant, self-sacrificing son who was the prop of the family.”

The headline in the local newspaper ran:

“MAN’S DISMEMBERED BODY ON RAILWAY LINE.

EARLY MORNING DISCOVERY NEAR BRUTON.

SEQUEL TO LACE MANUFACTURER’S HOLIDAY AT BATCOMBE.

VICTIM OF DEPRESSION AND OVERWORK.”

I don’t think I need to include any of the description of what was found at the scene of the tragedy. Suffice to say, I cannot imagine that any mother would not be seriously badly affected by such an awful happening.

I have not been able to find much further information about our woman, after 1939, other than that after a long illness, our woman’s husband died in 1952, at the Lawns in Lincoln. As I mentioned above, this is also where our woman was residing in 1939, but again, whether or not she stayed there for the whole period from 1939 (and possibly before) until her death in 1954 is not known.

____________________________________

*If you have been affected by anything in this post,

please consult a medical, or other suitable professional*

____________________________________

Notes

[1] Puerperal sepsis – is mentioned by our patient, in the context of her stay at the York Retreat, immediately after the birth of her first child, and that there were several other patients also suffering with the condition. Today, the most common cause of puerperal sepsis is a bacterial infection in the uterus, either during pregnancy, or just after childbirth, or after giving birth, it could be a urinary tract infection, or pneumonia. This information is from the UK Sepsis Trust website, which unfortunately doesn’t give any indication of treatment, however the NHS website suggests that treatment for sepsis in general includes antibiotics.

[2] Puerperal mania – today we would call this postpartum psychosis, and according to the NHS website, it affects around 1 in 1,000 mothers after having given birth, and usually within the first two weeks of giving birth. It is classed as a “serious mental illness and should be treated as a medical emergency”. Symptoms can include hallucinations and delusions, feeling overactive and perhaps talking too much or too quickly, experiencing a low mood and quick mood changes, and often feeling confused: this illness can last up to around 12 weeks, but can take up to a year to recover fully. In the case of the person who is the subject of this blogpost, the medical reports indicate that at various times, she suffered with most, if not all of these symptoms, but seems to have recovered reasonably quickly, although I am making this assumption because she was sent home from the York Retreat after only a couple of months. Treatment today might include antipsychotic drugs, mood stabilisers, antidepressants, and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT). According to the NHS the actual causes of this illness are not very clear, but someone would be more are risk if they have been diagnosed before pregnancy with specific conditions, if there is a family history of postpartum psychosis, or if the person has suffered with it before.

[3] Cheadle Royal Hospital took this name in 1902, having opened in 1763 as the Manchester Lunatic Hospital, which moved to Cheadle in 1849, changing its name to Manchester Royal Hospital. As the Cheadle Royal Hospital, in 1928 it had the capacity to treat around 400 patients. The hospital didn’t join the NHS in 1948, choosing to remain private.

[4] The Three Counties Asylum at Stotfold, opened in 1860, was so called because its patients came from Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, and Huntingdonshire, and replaced an earlier hospital, the Bedford Lunatic Asylum, built 1812. During the First World War, and afterwards, the hospital treated patients suffering from shellshock. I have not been able to find any record of war service for our woman’s brother, but it is quite possible, given that he died in 1917, that this might be the cause of his death.

[5] I have been unable to find any information relating to the nursing home, Redhaes in Guildford, apart from the mention in the admission papers of our woman, in which it is referred to as Red Braes, and in the 1921 census return, where it is called Redbraes.

[6] The Holloway Sanatorium at Virginia Water opened in 1885. It was a private establishment which catered for the wealthy and middle-class patients who required care for mental health problems. The building was in the Victorian Gothic style, and was surrounded by the extensive pleasure grounds at Virginia Water, as well as being close to the local railway station. A wealthy patient could pay to have their own private sitting room, and those who paid the highest fees subsidised those who couldn’t afford those fees. The hospital transferred to the NHS in 1948, closed as a hospital in 1980, and is now part of a housing development.

[7] Sclerodermia – during the initial examination of our patient, her skin is said to look and feel as though she had sclerodermia. This is a condition that affects the immune systems, says the NHS website, and can show in symptoms like hardened and thickened skin, and problems with muscles, bones, internal organs, and blood vessels. Today, this condition might be treated with medicine to improve circulation and reduce activity in the immune system, and steroids. The condition appears to be closely related to Reynaud’s Syndrome.

[8] Prolapsed uterus – the initial assessment of our patient suggests that she is living with this condition, which was probably caused by a perineal tear, which would have happened during childbirth, although since she had five children (in 1898, 1901, 1908, 1910, and 1911) this might not have happened during the birth of her first child. In this condition, which can be caused by pregnancy and childbirth, hysterectomy, or being overweight, the womb descends, and can cause a feeling of heaviness. Today, treatment might include hormone cream, pessaries, physiotherapy, specific pelvic floor exercises, or in severe cases, surgery.

[9] The Lawns in Lincoln, now a Grade II listed building, is very close to the cathedral, and was built in the early 19th century, in a Greek Revival style. It opened as the Lincoln Lunatic Asylum in 1820, but from 1921 until 1985 it was known as the Lawn Hospital for Mental and Nervous Diseases. According to an article on Victorian mental hospitals in Lincolnshire, written in 2021, its patients were of the class of people who could contribute to the general expenses of the hospital, which meant that people in more limited financial positions could helped at a lower cost. In 1948, The Lawn became part of the NHS.

____________________________________

Previous posts

The Royal Victoria Order of Druidesses

Avery and Ida Woodward of Loughborough

Gertrude Mary Hutton

____________________________________

Posted by lynneaboutloughborough

With apologies for typos which are all mine!

_______________________________________________

Thank you for reading this blog.

Copyright:

Dyer, Lynne (2026). International Women's Day. Available from: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2026/03/international-womens-day.html [Accessed 8 March 2026]

Take down policy:

External Links:

Blog archive and tags:

Searching the blog:

site: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/ “Radmoor House”

NOTE – the words you’re actually looking for must be in “” and the first of these must be preceded by a space

Thank you for reading this blog.

Lynne

Sunday, 1 March 2026

Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 8, Part 2

We pick up the story of Loughborough as presented by journalist Edwin Goady, in his serialization in the ‘Loughborough Monitor’ of which he was editor, which ran from 1864 to 1966.

____________________________________

THE HISTORY OF LOUGHBOROUGH FROM THE TIME OF THE BRITONS TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

In: ‘Loughborough Monitor’ 13 April 1865, pg.5, continued from 30 March 1865, pg.5

CHAPTER VIII. [Part 2]

____________________________________

If it be true that great geniuses always have the shortest biographies, then Thomas Burton most certainly deserves to be reckoned amongst them. We know next to nothing about him. Whether he was born in Loughborough, descended from a local family, or had merely come hither for the purpose of trading in the locality, is not apparent. It is very singular that he should have lived in the town, acquired property there and in the neighbourhood, have been in every way a remarkable example of an industrious, successful merchant, and yet so few details respecting him should have come down to us, and these only to be reached through the sources that have made his name so memorable to posterity.

Had he done some daring deed of villany, history, general as well as local, would have given us the complexion of the man, the colour of his hair, and possibly the facts and motives of his life, but since he was only virtuous, and provided in a princely way for what he conscientiously deemed to be a great religious duty and privilege, this latter bold and eloquent fact, with a few others grouping themselves about it, are all that we have to gratify a laudable curiosity and satisfy a just admiration.

He was, as we have said, an enterprising and successful merchant, and had acquired considerable property in the town, and the neighbouring villages of Long Whatton, Coleorton, Mountsorrel, Burton, East Leake, Willoughby, Hardby, Statherne, Bottesford, and Thrussington. He appears to have had four sons, Edward, Christopher, Roger, and Thomas, and three daughters, Elizabeth, Alice, and one whose name does not occur, but who was married in his lifetime to a Mr. Charles Villers.

Two years before his death he made his will, and it is to this document that we are indebted for these and other facts. This singular and lengthy document was made June 12, 1494. It is in Latin, and was drawn up by Richard Canill, the public notary, and attested by “Master John Fisher,” then Rector of the parish.

Some of the bequests are very interesting, and nothing but the length of the document prevents us from giving it entire. After commending his soul to the “Omnipotent God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and all the Saints,” and stating that his body shall be buried in the Parish Church, when those things shall be done to him “as by common authority and custom appertain to the dead,” it proceeds

“Item, I leave to the High Altar of the Parish Church of Loughborough, for my tenth-offering £x. Item, I leave to the High Altar of the Cathedral Church of the Blessed Mary of Lincoln the sum of three shillings and fourpence. Item, I leave to the fabric of the same church three shillings and fourpence. Item, I give and bequeath to the Guild of Jesus Corpus Christi, the woven drapery of the chariot (textorum carpentarionum), and to the Guild of the King twenty shillings, to be equally divided between them.”

The drapery here referred to was part of the ornament of the moveable platform used in the annual celebration of the Guild already mentioned in Chapter VI., and was doubtless a very costly representation of the Crucifixion or some other scene in the life of Our Lord. The royal guild also mentioned was very likely the guild of St. George, but may possibly have been a distinct merchant’s guild in which the principal men of the town were enrolled, as no mention is made of any especial title.

The next following item is important, because there can be no doubt that it was the one which suggested the disposition of his property after it was put into the Court of Chancery.

“Item, I leave to each several bridge and common highway within the parish of Loughborough the sum of twenty shillings, and more if it shall appear necessary according to the judgment of my Executors. Item, I leave to the Monastery of ‘Garredon’ (Garendon) the sum of twenty shillings. Item, I leave to the Priory of Wollestrofte (Ulverscroft) twenty shillings. Item, to the Monastery of Nuns of Gracedieu twenty shillings, and to the Priory of Langley twenty shillings. * * * *

I will have four wax candles continually, and xii pound of candles burning about my body on the day of its sepulture, and for the next seven days, twice daily, I will faithfully expend ten pounds in money according to the discretion of my Executors.

Item, I give and bequeath for the proper furnishing and repairing of the altar in honour of Saint Nicholas, the ruler of the sea, thirty pounds, six shillings, and eightpence.

Item, I will that my wife Emma have counted out to her in money v marcs (£3 6s 8d), with all the goods and chattels of my house if she will not marry during the remainder of her life, and after her death I will that the aforesaid goods or chattels be equally divided amongst my children. * *

Item, I will that my wife Emma, if she joyfully continue a widow, shall have all my lands and tenements with their appurtenances and goods (or riches), in Coleorton, Long Whatton, Mountsorrel, Burton, and all freehold tenements of mine in Loughborough, and further all those tenements of mine in which those goods are kept in Loughborough aforesaid, during her lifetime, and after her decease I will that my son Edward have all those lands and tenements of mine in which my goods are commonly kept, and I will that then my son Christopher shall have all those free lands and tenements in the Vill and fields (Villa et Campis) of L. aforesaid * *

Item, I will that my son Edward have counted out to him in money the sum of forty pounds. And I will that Christopher have in money lxx£, of which he shall receive into his own hands thirty-six pounds, six shillings, and eightpence. Item, I will that my son Roger have Lxx£. Item, I will that my daughter Elizabeth have iii marcs, and that my daughter Alice have iii marcs, and that the wife of Charles Villers have five pounds. * * *

Item, I will that all my Lands and Tenements, with their appurtenances in Willoughby, Hardby, Leeke, Thrussington, and Statherne, shall remain in full, after my decease, in the hands of my son Edward, the use of which shall be for a Benefice, and after it shall be a Benefice I will that my wife Emma and my son Edward shall have all those lands and tenements of mine above named, with the whole of the appurtenances thereunto belonging.

And I will that the whole of the money thence coming shall be annually expended in the Exhibition (or sustenance) of one Priest to celebrate in the Parish Church of Loughborough for the salvation of my soul, the soul of my wife, and in honour of our friends and all the faithful dead as long as it shall endure. And I will that the aforesaid lands and tenements shall pass to other of my sons if sufficient security be given for the money thence derived as readily as by the others of them.”

Chapter 8 – to be continued.

____________________________________

Links to older chapters

So Who Was Edwin Goadby?

____________________________________

Transcribed and presented here with the kind permission of the British Newspaper Archive. https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/

____________________________________

Posted by lynneaboutloughborough

With apologies for typos which are all mine!

_______________________________________________

Thank you for reading this blog.

Copyright:

Dyer, Lynne (2026). Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 8, Part 2. Available from: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/2026/03/goadbys-history-of-loughborough-chapter.html [Accessed 1 March 2026]

Take down policy:

External Links:

Blog archive and tags:

Searching the blog:

site: https://lynneaboutloughborough.blogspot.com/ “Radmoor House”

NOTE – the words you’re actually looking for must be in “” and the first of these must be preceded by a space

Thank you for reading this blog.

Lynne

Thursday, 26 February 2026

Goadby’s History of Loughborough, Chapter 8, Part 1

We pick up the story of Loughborough as presented by journalist Edwin Goady, in his serialization in the ‘Loughborough Monitor’ of which he was editor, which ran from 1864 to 1966.

Chapter 8, although only listed as such, actually appears in three issues of the ‘Loughborough Monitor’, so I shall follow suit, and split it over three blog posts, but will also give each post a Part number.

As usual, some of Goadby’s paragraphs are rather long, so in order to make reading the chapter a little easier, I have added a few spaces and created new paragraphs. I’ve also added some notes at the bottom of the post, which serve to clarify things appearing in the text which might not be terribly clear to us today. Other than that, I’ve changed nothing, so do bear in mind that this text is now about 160 years old, and may no longer be accurate, as there are many more discoveries that have been made that illuminate the history of Loughborough, and some terminology will have changed, so some of the information in this article will be wrong. I have not tried to amend these in any way, so reader, beware!

____________________________________

THE HISTORY OF LOUGHBOROUGH FROM THE TIME OF THE BRITONS TO THE MIDDLE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

In: ‘Loughborough Monitor’ 30 March 1865, pg.5

CHAPTER VIII. [Part 1]

____________________________________

The year following the curious petition of the Lord Beaumont who was last Lord of the Manor, that is, in 1486, an event occurred that was duly registered in the traditions of the town, but has never before been actually authenticated by historical evidence. We refer to the visit of King Henry VIIth. The curious antiquary Leland [1] appears to have been the only authority for the fact, and his statement, in default of anything to support it, has been generally considered as nothing more than a probable assertion made on the basis of a tradition current when he wrote, and since obscured and confused. Apparent support was given to any scepticism in the matter by the fact, that in one of the Harleian MSS [2]. the Royal progress takes a route which leaves Loughboro’ entirely out of the way, so that there is no mention of it whatever. This document, however, is incomplete, and after considerable research we are now able to supply the other portion of the account which confirms the tradition as to the simple fact, and only leaves us to the mercy of such uncertainty as to the locality of the residence where the King slept [3].

After his coronation, Henry VIIth determined to try, the effect of a tour of policy to the Northern counties, where the memory of his predecessor, Richard III., was still fragrant, and adherents of his cause were very numerous. It is not easy to make out a clear line of route, but he appears to have gone from London to Waltham, and thence to Cambridge. The Harleian MSS. takes him thence by Huntingdon, Stamford, and Lincoln to Nottingham, but the other MS. describes possibly a branch route, and the quotation we are about to give from it very plainly sets forth some of the then common accessories of a Royal progress, namely, hordes of loose people who followed in the Royal train for curiosity, gain, and plunder.

“From Coventrie the King removed unto Leycester, wher by the comaundement of the mooste Rerende Fader in God, the Archbishop of Canterbury, then Chancellor of England, the King’s Proclamacions were put in execusion. And in the especyal voydyng comen Women and Vagabonds, for ther wer imprisoned great Nomber of both.

Wherefor there was more Reste in the Kinge’s Hooste, and the better Rule. And on the Morow, which was on the Monday, the King left ther the foresaid Reverende Fader in God, and roode to Loughborough ; and the saide Lorde Chancellors Folks were comytted by his nevew Robert Morton unto the Stander of the Erle of Oxinforde in the Forwarde (vanguard).

And at Loughborough the Stokks and Prisonnes wer reasonabley fylled with Harlatts and Vagabounds. And after that wer but fewe in the Hooste, unto the tyme the Fielde was doon. On Tewsday the King removede, and lay at nyght in the Felde, under a Wode, called Bonley Rice.”

This account may be relied upon, as it is from the pen of an eyewitness. The preparation, rejoicing, and consternation of the inhabitants must be imagined, since we have no facts relative to them to give. Respecting the site of the house opinions differ. Leland, writing in 1551, says

“At the South est Ende of the Chirch is a fair House of Tymbre, where ons King Henry VII did lye,”

and the description will fit either the site of the present old Manor House [4], jointly occupied by Mr. W. Tyler and Mr. A. Smith, or that occupied by Mr. Deane [5]. The abstract of the title deeds of the former, however, carries it no further back than 1565, so that it must have been a previous house upon the same site [6], if the preference be given to that. But the balance of probabilities is in favour of the latter, some of the middle portions of which are undoubtedly very old.

We know also that a hundred years later there stoed upon the latter site, a very extensive building, called the Great House, or the Lord’s Place, which had been granted by Letters Patent to Thomas Butler and Walter Coppinger of Londen by Queen Elizabeth, and this was very likely the identical house in which the King slept.

The Guilds of Jesus and St. George would no doubt play an important part in the rejoicings and processions consequent upon this visit. They appear to have gradually passed from an exclusively social and religious character to that of trade associations, and so would be sure to embrace all the principal inhabitants of the town. Our great benefactor and Mœcenas [7], Thomas Burton, the Mayor of the Guild, was then living in the town, in a house, if tradition be credited, close by the present schools in Church Gate, once known as “The Dungeon,” from the use to which it was afterwards converted, as appears by one or two portions of it still remaining in the houses now in the occupancy of Miss Fowkes and Mr. Caulfield.

Burton was a wealthy merchant who had acquired his property by extensive trading in wool, a commodity then forming the principal part of the staple trade of England. He was a merchant of the staple of Calais, an honour which requires some little explanation. Formerly, instead of the present freedom of trade, there were certain fixed places whither merchants were by law obliged to carry certain goods, wool especially, to dispose of them by wholesale.

The custom originated abroad in 1248, and it was not until 1353 that any English towns became staple places for wool. The staple of Calais was fixed there in 1348, and it continued for more than a century afterwards to be a noted staple. The merchants collected their wools of the farmers in their own localities, and then exported them. This was long a source of great grievance to liberal minds, and considerably diminished the manufacturing trade of the country. Margaret Paston [8], in writing to her husband about 1465, says

“Ye have many good prayers of the poor people that God speed you at this Parliament, for they live in hope that ye should help to set a way that they might live in better peace in this country than they have done before, and that wools should be purveyed for that they should not go out of the land, as it hath been suffered to do before, and then shall the poor people more live better than they have done by their occupation. Thomas Bone,” she adds, “hath sold your wool here for 20d a stone, and good surety found to you therefore to be paid at Michaelmas next coming, and it is sold right well after that (i.e., for that), because the wool was for the most part right feeble.”

Chapter 8 – to be continued.

____________________________________

Notes

[1] John Leland (c.1503-c.1552) was a poet and an antiquary, who wrote “An Itinerary” a kind of travelogue which was to influence later local historians.

[2] Harleian MSS – a huge collection of manuscripts and charters collected together by Robert Harley, who was the 1st Earl of Oxford, and which is kept in the British Library

[3] There is a plaque on the outside wall of what is now Lowe’s which mentions Henry VII sleeping there

[4] The former Manor House is now Caravelli’s, an Italian restaurant

[5] In the 1871 census return, there is a Henry Deane, a 31-year-old solicitor, who is lodging at a property called Burtons Houses, but I cannot be certain that this is the right Mr Deane. Reading further into Goadby’s text, it is clear that he is referring to the former Guildhall, which is now Lowe’s on Church Gate.

[6] Actually, the timbers in the former Manor House, now Caravelli’s have been dendrodated to c.1485

[7] Mœcenas – a word which means generous benefactor

[8] Margaret Paston was a member of a gentry family from Norfolk whose correspondence was vast

____________________________________

Links to older chapters

So Who Was Edwin Goadby?