View allAll Photos Tagged published
It seems a lifetime ago, but in fact was just four weeks gone, that Jools came up to meet with me in Godmanchester before going to see Mum in Papworth.
I chose Godmanchester because a contact/friend on GWUK had published shots from there, and it looked interesting, and was a ten minute drive from the hospital.
The spire of St Mary can be seen from almost everywhere in the town, drawing me in like a flame to a moth. And thankfully it was open.
------------------------------------------
My children both had their birthdays the same weekend, and announced plans to invite all their friends from around the country to spend the weekend and to go out together, fifty or so of them, some of them staying over. They'd have a party in the back garden first, my son DJing. They are good children, generally trustworthy, and their mother promised to keep an eye on them. Smiling, nodding, I reached for the Holiday Inn Express website and booked myself a Saturday night at Huntingdon Holiday Inn. Two days of exploring the churches of south-west Cambridgeshire were in prospect.
The plan for Day One was to circumnavigate Grafham Water, the great reservoir created to serve Cambridge and Peterborough in the 1960s, taking in all the churches along the way. The slight crimp in the plan is that, to retain the rural nature of the area and to stop traffic cutting between A1 and A14, there is no road running to the north of Grafham Water other than the A14, although using the OS Landranger map I was able to piece together what I thought would be enough bridleways, byways and permissive cycle tracks to achieve this object. During the day I would visit thirteen new churches, all of which were open except for two, and they had keyholder notices.
It was a really hot day, and I didn't want to overstretch myself, so I made a leisurely start from Ipswich arriving in Huntingdon at about half past ten. Huntingdon is a small town really, barely 30,000 people, and it is separated by the Ouse from the older town of Godmanchester, pronounced god-m'n-chester, my first port of call. Indeed, Godmanchester is Cambridgeshire's oldest town, a major Roman settlement where Ermine Street crossed the road from Colchester to Chester. In Roman times it was the third biggest place in the east of England after Colchester and Lincoln, and was there long before Peterborough, Huntingdon and Cambridge were a twinkle in the celestial milkman's eye.
The Ouse and its water meadows are wide enough to make Huntingdon and Godmanchester seem separate places. For a town of less than 10,000 people it is really grand, with lots of 18th Century buildings and a delightful setting along the Ouse with islands and a park.
It was already shaping up into a bright, warm summer day as I reached the huge church, one of the biggest in the county, and typical in style of the Ouse valley. The spire is a familiar sight from the A14 rising above the mill on the river below. The nave south aisle you step into is alone bigger than many churches. A wide, gloomy interior, with acres of Kempe glass leavened somewhat by a good, big Burne-Jones window in the south aisle. Very urban, but with plenty of evidence of the borough's importance up until the 18th Century, at which time it was of equal size with neighbouring Huntingdon. But the Industrial Revolution changed all that. All very impressive, but not a place to gladden the heart.
And so, I headed south.
www.flickr.com/photos/norfolkodyssey/sets/72157653449416853/
-------------------------------------------
Godmundcestre (xi cent.), Gutmuncetre, Gudmencestre, Gumencestre, Guncestre (xii cent.), Gumecestre, Gurmundcestre (xiii cent.), Godmanchester (xiv cent.).
The parish and borough of Godmanchester, (fn. 1) which are co-terminous, contain 4,832 acres of land and 75 acres of land covered by water. The River Ouse forms the northern boundary and divides Godmanchester from the borough of Huntingdon. The land near to the river is liable to floods, but the ground rises gradually to the south, where it is mostly arable. The population is chiefly occupied in agriculture, and in 1921 numbered 2,035 persons. In the 17th century Godmanchester was described as 'a very great county Toune, and of as great name for tillage; situate in an open ground, of a light mould, and bending to ye sun.' (fn. 2) In 1604 the borough charter tells of like conditions, and especially exempted the store horses and others employed in agriculture from the king's service. (fn. 3) The inhabitants boasted that they had formerly received kings on their progress with a pageant of nine score ploughs, (fn. 4) but in the royal progresses to and from Scotland in 1633 the borough apparently only presented Charles I and his queen with pieces of plate. (fn. 5) Later records mention feasts at the election of town officials, (fn. 6) but in the 16th century the bailiffs contributed from the town funds to many entertainments, such as bear-baiting, visits of players and of the Lord of Misrule from Offord Cluny. (fn. 7)
Of other industries besides agriculture, coal porterage on the Ouse was formerly an important business, and in the last century a tan-yard, jute factory, iron foundry and brick works existed, and basket-making was also carried on. (fn. 8) At the present day a stocking factory at the bridge provides a considerable amount of work, and there is also a flour mill.
There is a railway station near Huntingdon Bridge which is a junction for the London Midland and Scottish Railway and the London and North Eastern Railway.
The parish was inclosed by private Act of Parliament in 1803, (fn. 9) and the award is in the possession of the Corporation. Preserved at the Court Hall, (fn. 10) is a remarkable series of records, dating from the charter of King John in 1212 to the present day. These materials were used by Robert Fox, one of the bailiffs of the borough in 1831–2, in his History of Godmanchester. (fn. 11) Other natives of Godmanchester who may be mentioned are William of Godmanchester, who was elected Abbot of Ramsey in 1267, (fn. 12) and Stephen Marshall, the Parliamentarian divine and one of the authors of Smectymnuus, (fn. 13) published in 1641.
The town seems to have arisen on the site of a Roman settlement here, which has already been described. (fn. 14) Its lay-out, however, has apparently been changed to suit the later requirements of a market town. Ermine Street, the Roman road from London to the north, and the Roman roads from Sandy and the south and from Cambridge, which joined it, stop abruptly at the points where they touch what is supposed to be the site of the Roman town, and their place is taken by a road which almost circuits the medieval town and so links them up. It was customary in most medieval market towns to arrange the lay-out of the streets so as to compel the traffic to pass through the market place and pay toll. It would appear that Godmanchester was laid out in this way as a market town, although there is little evidence of an early market here. The road from St. Neots to Huntingdon enters the town by West Street towards the south end of what was intended for the market place and passes that from Cambridge towards the north end, by East Street. In the same way the traffic to and from London and the north is carried by the road on the west side of the town, through the same place.
Entering the town from Huntingdon on the north, after crossing Huntingdon Bridge, which has already been described, (fn. 15) the road passes over a causeway which was apparently of ancient construction, as we find that in 1279 its repair was charged on a meadow in the tenure of the prior of St. Mary's, Huntingdon. (fn. 16) In 1331 it was rebuilt (fn. 17) and in 1433 it appears that the road was carried over a series of small bridges. (fn. 18) The causeway was again rebuilt in 1637 by Robert Cooke as a thank-offering for his escape from drowning in a flood here. A stone in the parapet of the southern of the two bridges, each of eight arches, of which the causeway is composed, bears an inscription copied from an earlier one, 'Robertus Cooke ex aquis emersus hoc viatoribus sacrum D.D. 1637.' The bridges underwent repairs in 1767 and were rebuilt in 1784. The causeway (fn. 19) now forms a fine wide approach to the town, with many half-timbered houses of the 17th century and later, on either side. At the north-west corner of East Street stood the vicarage, a 17th-century house, lately demolished; adjoining it on the east side is Church Lane, leading to St. Mary's Church. A little to the east on the south side of East Street is a range of three picturesque half-timber houses with overhanging upper story and an overhanging gable at the west end. The western of the two original chimney stacks bears the date 1611 and the eastern 1613. Over a fireplace in the east room on the first floor are painted the Stuart royal arms with the initials I.R. for James I. There are other 17th-century houses in East Street. Opposite to East Street in the Causeway is the New Court or Town Hall, built in 1844, at which time this part of the Causeway was raised 2 ft. The Town Hall was largely rebuilt in 1899. (fn. 20) Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, a brick building with tiled roof, built about 1560, faces the new Court Hall. It originally consisted of a hall and two-storied porch, bearing above the window of the upper story the inscription 'Eliz. Reg. hujus scholae fundatrix,' over which is a sundial bearing the words 'Sibi Aliisque.' It was restored in 1851 and some buildings were added on the north side. Near the school was the 'cage' for the temporary safeguarding of prisoners, which was built in 1687. The governors of the school, however, complained that the position was 'very inconvenient and unapt,' and so the overseers were ordered to build it near the Court Hall Yard. (fn. 21) In the main street, probably opposite St. Ann's Lane, was a cross called St. Ann's Cross, mentioned in 1526 (fn. 22) and 1545, (fn. 23) and may have existed as early as 1279; tenants of Godmanchester are described as 'ad crucem.' (fn. 24) The road south to old Court Hall was then apparently called Post Street and later Silver Street. Pinfold Lane, which goes off eastward, is referred to in 1539. (fn. 25) In it are the almshouses erected in 1738 by Mrs. Barbary Manser for four dwellings and rebuilt in 1859 for two dwellings. In West Street are some 17th-century half-timber houses, and on the outskirts of the town is a timber and plaster house, formerly the 'Shepherd and Dog' Inn, which bears the date 1593 in the south-west gable. The upper story formerly projected, but has been underbuilt in brick. Further west on the opposite side is Belle Isle House, a 17th-century half-timber house. Returning to the main street, the house at the northeast corner of the island site has an overhanging upper story. Near this spot stood the Horse Shoe Inn in Post Street, (fn. 26) where much of the business of the town was transacted. Southward is Old Courthall, called from the place where the Court Hall, which was pulled down in 1844, formerly stood at the junction of Silver Street and the old bridle road running to Toseland. (fn. 27) At first apparently the hall was only a covered inclosure (fn. 28) in which the view of frankpledge was held, the courts and council meetings or 'parvis' being frequently held in private houses, a custom which persisted even after the Court House was built in 1508. (fn. 29) The Court House was apparently a half-timber building with overhanging gables, and around the walls in the hall were oak benches for the bailiffs. (fn. 30) Near the hall was the 'Pondefolde,' before the gates of the prior of Merton, which may be identified with the town pound, from which Pinfold Lane possibly took its name. Here the king had the right to impound the cattle distrained at the hundred court. (fn. 31) In Old Courthall are two 17th-century inns, the Queen Victoria Inn, a timber and plaster house with overhanging upper story, and the Red Lion Inn, a brick house. Corpus Christi Lane no doubt takes its name from the gild of that name which existed in the town in the 15th century. Here and in Duck End are some 17th-century cottages.
Ermine Street, which is not on the site of the original street of that name, comprises some interesting 17th-century houses, particularly Tudor House, of timber and plaster, at the north end of the street. It bears the date 1600 in the south gable and 1603 on the doorway. There are also two other good timber and plaster houses of a later date in the street. On the Cambridge Road is a 16th-century half-timber house, and also a brick house with a stone panel bearing the date 1714. On the west side of the London Road, on the outskirts of the town, is Porch Farm, a 16th-century house which takes its name from a picturesque wooden porch with brick base added at the end of the century; on the opposite side of the road is Lookers Farm, a 17th-century house with a good chimney stack.
MANOR
¶The manor of GODMANCHESTER was held by Edward the Confessor as 14 hides. (fn. 32) It was valued at £40 a year, which was a sum which it paid in 1086 to William the Conqueror, who succeeded to it as crown land. (fn. 33) Thus, as ancient demesne of the crown, it acquired certain privileges and obligations. (fn. 34) Before Michaelmas, 1190, (fn. 35) Richard I granted Godmanchester to David Earl of Huntingdon, at the increased farm of £50 to hold at the king's pleasure. (fn. 36) In 1194 a new grant in fee was made to the earl and his heirs. (fn. 37) The manor appears to have been in King John's hands in 1199, (fn. 38) but in the same year a new charter was obtained by the earl, (fn. 39) who held it in 1210–12 by the service of one knight's fee. (fn. 40) It again came into the king's hands in 1212, perhaps the most important date in the history of Godmanchester, for in that year King John granted the manor to 'the men of Godmanchester' to hold at the fee-farm rent of £120 a year. (fn. 41) Subsequent grants of the manor by Henry III in 1217 to Faulkes de Breauté, (fn. 42) in 1224 to the Master of the Templars for a debt, (fn. 43) and in 1236 to Eleanor of Provence as part of her dower, (fn. 44) were presumably grants of the rent only. In 1267 the fee-farm rent was granted to Edmund Earl of Lancaster, the king's second son, to hold by military service. (fn. 45) Queen Eleanor, as a widow, unsuccessfully sued her son in 1278 for the manor. (fn. 46) The possession of the rent was also complicated by the claims of Margaret Countess of Derby, one of the eventual co-heiresses of David of Huntingdon. (fn. 47) She seems to have obtained a grant of the manor from Edward I, and a similar grant was made by Edmund for her life at the annual rent of 12d. (fn. 48) Many of her receipts to the town for the fee-farm rent are still in existence. (fn. 49) On her death it reverted to the earls of Lancaster and the manor formed part of the Duchy of Lancaster, finally merging in the crown on the accession of Henry IV. (fn. 50) In 1662, Charles II granted the annual fee-farm rent to Edward Earl of Sandwich, (fn. 51) and it is still paid by the borough to the present Earl of Sandwich.
The charter of 1212 had transferred all the manorial rights at Godmanchester to the men of the manor to hold from the king and his heirs. (fn. 52) The privileges attached to the manor are not specified, but David Earl of Huntingdon had sac and soc, toll and theam and infangenthief, (fn. 53) and these, with possibly further rights, were exercised by the men of Godmanchester. The grant made the town, what is somewhat rare, a self-governing manor or liberty. It did not become a borough, and except the right of self-government, and the custom of borough-English, had none of the usually accepted marks of a borough. The charter was confirmed by Edward I, Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Edward IV, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary and Elizabeth. (fn. 54) Richard II, however, added a definite list of the privileges enjoyed by the men of Godmanchester. In 1381 he recognised that they and their predecessors in virtue of the charter of 1212 had the chattels of felons and fugitives and waifs and strays, (fn. 55) but in his charter of 1392 they were to have chattels of felons, fugitives, suicides, outlaws and those who renounce the realm of England, infangenthief, outfangenthief, and all forfeitures within the manor, both from residents and foreigners. (fn. 56) He also expressly confirmed their privilege as tenants of ancient demesne, of freedom from toll and similar dues throughout the kingdom. (fn. 57)
The earlier development of the manor from pre-Conquest days, which enabled the men of Godmanchester to obtain a grant of self-government, is unfortunately obscure. We learn little from the Domesday Survey (1086) as to the status of the inhabitants, but it seems probable that the 80 villiens and 16 bordars of Godmanchester, there recorded, (fn. 58) had been a community of free sokemen, holding their lands for a rent payable to the king; indeed in 1279 the tenants of Godmanchester all claimed to be and were accepted as free sokemen, with no bondmen among them. (fn. 59) The pre-Conquest organisation seems to have persisted to some extent during the 12th century, when payments to the sheriff are entered on the Pipe Rolls as due from the commonalty (communis) of Godmanchester. (fn. 60) As already pointed out, the payment of £40 from the manor in 1066 represented the amount received by the king, and it is possible that each holding was already assessed to pay its share of this sum annually. Such a practice was certainly established after 1212, and in 1279 over 500 tenements were assessed for payment of the fee-farm rent, generally at the rate of 8d. an acre. (fn. 61) The system i still in existence, each acre now paying 1d. towards the rent.
The most important result of the grant of the manor was that the king's officers ceased to hold the courts, though the phrases 'the King's manor' or in Elizabeth's reign 'the Queen's court' remained in use. (fn. 62) In 1286 the two town bailiffs claimed on behalf of themselves and the commonalty of the town to have gallows and to hold the view of frankpledge freely, but it was proved that they paid an annual fine of 20s. to the sheriff for the privilege. (fn. 63) In the 15th century the Duchy court decreed that this payment should no longer be made to the sheriff. (fn. 64) The bailiffs also held the usual three-weeks court of the manor, which was peculiarly important on the ancient demesne of the crown. The court rolls are preserved at Godmanchester from 1271; at first no distinction is made in the headings of the rolls between the two courts, the view only being distinguished by the presence of the 12 jurors. (fn. 65) By 1324, however, the roll of the view was kept separately, (fn. 66) though the regular series of rolls does not begin until the reign of Edward III.
The privileges of the liberty of Godmanchester oelonged to the tenants of holdings assessed to the payment of the fee-farm rent, their sons, daughters and widows. (fn. 67) Sons were admitted on reaching the age of twenty, daughters at sixteen. (fn. 68) Foreigners, or those living outside the manor, were also admitted to the freedom of the town at the three-weeks court, by the consent of the commonalty, on payment of a fine and the taking of an oath. (fn. 69) Sureties were required during the 15th century, but the custom disappeared in the reign of Henry VII. (fn. 70) All tenants were bound to be present at the view of frankpledge, and they elected the twelve jurors for the year, but it is not clear whether the tenants or all admitted to the freedom made this election. (fn. 71) Besides the ordinary business of the view, the bailiffs and jurors declared the customs or by-laws of the manor and acted as a town council. The earliest enrolled declaration is in 1278–9, (fn. 72) but in 1324 the commonalty empowered the two bailiffs and the jurors to draw up a custumal which should be accepted by all. The result represents the codification of ancient usage rather than the introduction of new rules. (fn. 73)
A second edition of the custumal was made in 1465, and later additions of the following century have been added on the same roll. (fn. 74) In 1324, for administrative purposes, the town was divided into four quarters or wards named after the chief streets of Godmanchester. The government consisted of two bailiffs, elected for one year by the twelve jurors. The bailiffs were chosen one year from Post Street and Erning (Arning) Street and in the alternate year from West Street and East Street. The elections of all officers took place in the court held next before the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin. All rolls were given into the custody of four keepers of the common chest. The complete list of other officials is not given, but mention is made of the collectors of the fee-farm rents and the chief warden of the mills. All officials were to render account of their year of office to the two bailiffs and the jurors. (fn. 75) The rolls of the coroners of Godmanchester exist for the reign of Edward II, so that they must have been functioning in 1324, although their election is not recorded till 1482. (fn. 76) In the 15th century, the election of the officers is regularly recorded in the court books of the threeweeks court. The officials then consisted of the two bailiffs, two constables, eight collectors of the farm, two from each street, two churchwardens, four collectors of amerciaments of the view, the collectors of the aletoll, the warden of the water and the subbailiff. (fn. 77) In 1484, the record shows that three jurors of the leet were elected from each street; (fn. 78) in 1485, the warden of the swans appears, (fn. 79) and in 1486 the bellman. (fn. 80) The clerk of the court is mentioned in 1376, (fn. 81) but no election is shown till 1497, (fn. 82) and it was probably a permanent and not an annual office. The business at the three weeks court consisted of the admission of freemen, landsuits and the surrenders of land, peculiar to manors of the ancient demesne, and civil cases where the damages claimed were under 40s. (fn. 83) In 1592 it was ordained by the bailiffs and jurors that in future cases in this court should be heard by the two bailiffs, three of the twelve suitors at the court on the day of trial and three or four ex-bailiffs. (fn. 84) Appeals from the manorial court were made to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and were heard in the court of the Duchy. (fn. 85) All land in Godmanchester, except the original endowment of the church, (fn. 86) was, and still is, held in socage of the ancient demesne of the crown. (fn. 87) The tenure was never merged, as elsewhere, in copyhold, although in the 16th century land is occasionally described as held by copy of court roll. (fn. 88) Every tenement when it changed hands was surrendered in court into the hands of the bailiffs, who gave seisin to the incoming tenant on payment of a fine or gersom. (fn. 89) This procedure is still followed, but the surrenders are not made in court, but only to the mayor of the borough and, under the Law of Property (Amendment) Act of 1924, this very rare survival of socage of the ancient demesne is disappearing. Each tenement when it is surrendered to the mayor passes to the incoming tenant as ordinary freehold property. All land suits were heard in the three-weeks court; (fn. 90) the cases were begun by the king's little writ of right close. The first writ appears on a 13th-century court roll (fn. 91) and the actual writs are generally attached to the roll on which the case was recorded. (fn. 92) A writ was brought into the Court of Pleas as late as 1805. (fn. 93) The procedure closely followed that of the royal courts in freehold suits. In the early cases in the 13th and 14th centuries, an assize was held with twenty-four jurors, (fn. 94) but later fines and recoveries 'according to the custom of the manor' were more common. (fn. 95) The town was very jealous of its rights, and there were many complaints in the Duchy Courts that tenants had been impleaded in the common law or other royal courts instead of the manorial court. (fn. 96) Except in the use of the little writ of right close, the Godmanchester tenure approximated to free socage and all the terms of a freehold tenure were used: a daughter was given her land in free marriage; (fn. 97) a widow obtained her dower; (fn. 98) no servile services were paid and the land was held for suit of court and a money rent, without even the boonwork often due from freehold land. (fn. 99) From the customal of 1324, it appears that a tenant could assign, sell or bequeath his land by will, saving only the right of the widow to her dower. (fn. 100) This right of the widow persists at the present day, so that a man still cannot sell his land without his wife's consent. The only other restriction in 1324 was the rule forbidding the sale of land to a foreigner or an ecclesiastic. (fn. 101) Land still descends by the rule of Borough English to the youngest son of the first wife, unless testamentary dispositions have been made bequeathing it differently. (fn. 102)
BOROUGH
Godmanchester remained a selfgoverning manor for nearly 400 years, but in the 16th century the town was increasingly prosperous and the townspeople wished for the privileges of incorporation. In their documents the use of such terms as corporation and burgess crept in, (fn. 103) and during a lawsuit in 1569 it was claimed that Godmanchester was 'an ancient borough time out of mind.' (fn. 104) The town used a common seal, (fn. 105) but legally they were not incorporated and when, in 1585, a newly admitted tenant, named Richard Fairpoint, defied the authority of the bailiffs and commonalty, he threatened to sue the bailiffs, officials, and chief inhabitants one by one. (fn. 106)
A charter of incorporation was obtained from James I in 1604, and Godmanchester became a free borough, under the name of 'the Bailiffs, Assistants and Commonalty of the borough of Gumecestre, alias Godmanchester.' (fn. 107) The government of the town, however, was but slightly altered, the Common Council being formed of two Bailiffs and twelve Assistants, who replaced the jurors of the view of frankpledge in matters of town legislation. The first officials were appointed by King James, but the bailiffs after a year of office were in the future to be elected in the Court next before the Nativity of the Virgin Mary by the existing bailiffs and assistants. The assistants were appointed for life and were replaced from the burgesses of the borough by election by the bailiffs and remaining assistants. (fn. 108) It may be noticed that the new constitution was less democratic and placed the power of election in the hands of the Common Council instead of the tenants and freemen. Even the jurors of the leet were in 1615 to be impanelled by the bailiffs. (fn. 109) Other officials under the new charter were the steward, (fn. 110) recorder and town clerk. The borough and manor were granted to the corporation to hold as previously at a fee-farm rent of £120 of lawful English money. (fn. 111)
During the Commonwealth, preliminaries were begun for obtaining a new charter, but nothing was actually done. (fn. 112)
In 1684, the charter of James I was surrendered to Charles II, but it was not restored before his death (fn. 113) and the following year James II granted a new charter. (fn. 114) The differences in it were small and, after the Revolution of 1688, all corporations were ordered to resume their former charters (fn. 115) and the corporation acted under the charter of 1604 until the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. (fn. 116)
The lesser officials, though not named in the charter, were unchanged after the incorporation of the borough and the jurisdiction of the courts remained the same, though they became the courts of the bailiffs, assistants and commonalty instead of the courts of the King. (fn. 117) The manorial court became known as the Court of Pleas. (fn. 118)
A new edition of the by-laws was promulgated in 1615, repeating the main provisions of the older custumals of 1324 and 1465 and later enactments. Considerable additions had been made in the regulations of common rights; the most important, enacted in 1607, provided that only tenements constituted or divided before 28 September 1601 should have the right of common attached to them. (fn. 119) In consequence of these common rights, the freedom of the borough became of considerable value, and large sums were paid by foreigners for admission. (fn. 120) The curious custom by which a freeman gave a bucket and two scoops on admission is mentioned in 1635. (fn. 121) Afterwards the gift was commuted for money, but the system of purchasing the freedom of the borough came to an end in 1875, and the last payment instead of the bucket and scoops was made in 1876. (fn. 122) Now the freedom is an hereditary right and freemen only sign the roll on admission.
In 1835 the old constitution was swept away under the Municipal Corporations Act; a mayor and 4 aldermen and 12 councillors replaced the two bailiffs and assistants and the franchise was vested in the ratepayers. (fn. 123) The Court of Pleas had been growing of less and less importance, a few cases of debts and surrenders of land being its only business, but it continued as the mayor's court till 1847. (fn. 124) Special courts, however, were held for surrenders and giving seisin of land, (fn. 125) but latterly these have taken place in the mayor's presence only. The business of the court leet is now confined entirely to the stocking of the commons. It is held once a year by the mayor, when the 'grass-hirers' are appointed for the year, but the twelve jurors are no longer impanelled. (fn. 126) The limitation of the enjoyment of common rights to freemen tenants of commonable houses has led to a good deal of litigation, while the gradual exclusion of the freemen from the government of the borough has brought about outbreaks of discontent on their part. (fn. 127)
The seal of the borough is circular, 15/8 in. in diameter, with the device of a fleur de lis, possibly in reference to the dedication of the Parish Church, with the legend 'Commune Sigillum Gumecestre.' It seems to be of 13th century date. The mace is of silver of excellent design and bears the date 1745. The mayoral chain is of gold with enamel medallions, given by different donors since 1896.
For parliamentary purposes the borough was united to Huntingdon, which sent two members to Parliament. In 1867 the representation was reduced to one member and in 1885 it was merged into the county constituency.
No right to hold a market appears to have been granted to Godmanchester, but it seems probable that a market was held at the Horseshoe corner. In the bailiffs' accounts for 1533, there is an item paid for crying a cow and two stray horses in the market, (fn. 128) and in 1615 it certainly was the custom to bring fish to the 'Common Market' on Fridays. (fn. 129)
A fair on Easter Tuesday and the following Wednesday was granted by James I in the charter of 1604, together with a court of pie-powder. (fn. 130) It developed into an important horse and cattle fair held in the streets of the town near the old Court Hall. The cattle and sheep disappeared by 1870 after the rinderpest outbreak of the previous years, (fn. 131) but the horse fair continued till Easter 1914. It had been lessening in importance for some years and has never revived since the war. The charter of James II granted a second fair on the Tuesday after the Feast of SS. Simon and Jude, but the right to hold it ceased after the resumption of the old charter in 1688. (fn. 132) The court of pie-powder was held during the 17th century, (fn. 133) but it certainly was no longer held in 1834. (fn. 134)
¶The control of the waters of the Ouse has always been a matter of great importance to the town of Godmanchester. In the 13th century, the obstructions in the river put up by the Abbot of Ramsey, the Prior of Huntingdon and Reginald de Grey as lords of the mills respectively at Houghton, Hartford and Hemingford Grey led to complaints on the part of Huntingdon and not of Godmanchester, (fn. 135) but in the 15th century the latter town suffered severely by the continual flooding of its meadows. A series of complaints were made to the Court of the Duchy of Lancaster by the bailiffs and commonalty (fn. 136) and finally in 1524 the right to control the floodgates at Houghton and Hemingford was transferred from the Duchy authorities to the men of Godmanchester. (fn. 137) This right still exists and has been safeguarded in the various schemes for the improvement of the Ouse navigation, begun by Arnold Spencer in 1638. (fn. 138) It was finally confirmed to the borough in a judgment of the House of Lords in 1897 against Mr. Simpson, who had in 1893 acquired by purchase the entire rights of navigation granted to Spencer, and in the following year began an action against the corporation to prevent them from opening the sluice gates at Godmanchester, Hemingford and Houghton in times of flood. (fn. 139)
In 1279, the bailiffs of Godmanchester claimed that the town held a free fishery by the grant of King John and that they formerly had the right, as appurtenant to the manor, of fishing from Hayle to Swiftiswere, but were prevented by the Bishop of Lincoln and others from doing so. (fn. 140) The right to the free fishery continued, and from the borough custumal drawn up in 1615, it appears that the 'common fishers' of the town were bound to bring their fish to the common market at the Horseshoe corner every Friday and whenever they had fish to sell, on pain of a fine of 6s. 8d. (fn. 141).
In 1086 three water-mills were attached to the manor of Godmanchester, rendering 100s. yearly to the king. (fn. 142) The mills passed with the manor (q.v.) to the men of Godmanchester and in 1279 they paid 15s. a year to the fee-farm rent and a holm containing 8 acres was attached to them. (fn. 143) At the close of the 15th century they were let on lease, and this system seems to have been continued by the corporation until 1884. (fn. 144) At that time no tenant could be found. The corporation applied for leave to sell the property, but opposition was made on the ground that the freemen had the right to have their corn ground freely on the grist stone. No sale took place and the old mill stood derelict (fn. 145) and has been finally pulled down since 1926. A windmill is mentioned in 1599, when it was sold by Robert Green to Oliver Cromwell, alias Williams. (fn. 146)
CHURCH
The Church of ST. MARY consists of a chancel (44 ft. by 20 ft.) with organ chamber and two vestries on the north side, nave (72 ft. by 27 ft.), north aisle (15 ft. wide), south aisle (19 ft. wide), west tower and spire (19 ft. by 17½ ft.) and north and south porches. The walls are of stone and pebble rubble with stone dressings, except the tower, which is of ashlar. The roof coverings are of lead.
¶The church is mentioned in the Domesday Survey (1086) but, except for a few stones in the walling, nothing of this early building remains. The church seems to have been rebuilt about the middle of the 13th century, and of this period are the chancel, the west wall of the nave, and small parts of the west walls of the aisles. About 1340 a north vestry was added to the chancel, and at the end of this century and extending into the next a further reconstruction took place, beginning at the west end of the aisles and embracing the arcades, clearstory and porches, and the raising and altering of the chancel. The tower and spire, being ruinous, were taken down and rebuilt in 1623. The upper part of the south porch was rebuilt probably in 1669. The roofs and parapets were repaired early in the 19th century; the church was generally restored in 1853, the vestry rebuilt and the organ chamber and choir vestry added in 1860. A general restoration took place in 1885, and the chancel was restored in 1912.
The 13th-century chancel, reconstructed and raised c. 1510, (fn. 147) has an east window of three modern lancets. The north wall has a 15th-century two-light window, a 14th-century doorway to the clergy vestry, a 13th-century doorway (visible in the choir vestry), and a modern arch to the organ chamber. The south wall has three 15th-century windows of two-lights, the western set within an earlier opening, and a 15th-century doorway.
The chancel arch is two centred and of two chamfered orders resting on similar responds; most of the stones are of the 13th century, but the arch has been reconstructed and raised, c. 1490, (fn. 148) cutting into the sills of two 13th-century lancets in the gable above, the splays of which still retain some original painted decoration. Under it is a modern; screen. The low-pitched roof is practically all modern; the jack-legs rest on modern shafts and corbels.
The organ chamber and the two vestries on the north are modern, but in the east wall of the former is a reset 15th-century two-light window doubtless from the north wall of the chancel; and the vestry has a 14th-century single-light window reset.
The nave arcades, c. 1500, are of five bays, with two-centred arches of two moulded orders supported by narrow piers formed by the continuation downward of the outer orders of the arch between two attached shafts with moulded capitals and bases. The contemporary clearstory has five two-light windows on each side. The contemporary roof is of low pitch, has moulded beams, jack-legs and braces, but has been much restored.
The north aisle, c. 1500, has a five-light transomed east window with remains of niches in the splays, which now opens into the organ chamber; (fn. 149) at the extreme south end is a broken piscina. The north wall has four three-light transomed windows, and a reset 13th-century doorway, above which is a blocked doorway opening into a chamber over the porch. The west wall has a four-light transomed window, to the south of which is the splay of an earlier window. The pent roof has plain beams and curved braces, and the jack-legs are supported on carved corbels.
The south aisle, c. 1500, has in the east wall a fivelight transomed window, and a blocked doorway to the rood staircase. The south wall has three threelight windows and a two-light window, all transomed, a doorway with a moulded arch and jamb-shafts flanked on the outside by two niches, and a squareheaded doorway to the stairs leading to the chamber over the porch. The west wall has a four-light transomed window, to the north of which is the jamb and splay of an earlier window. The stairs to the rood loft were in a circular turret outside the wall at the north-east corner, now used as a smoke flue. The roof is similar to that of the north aisle.
The west tower, built in 1623, (fn. 150) has a 13th-century tower arch of three chamfered orders supported on semi-octagonal responds with carved stiff-leaf capitals and moulded bases. The west doorway has a moulded two-centred arch on sunk chamfered jambs and moulded imposts; (fn. 151) above it is a sunk panel with a shield bearing a fleur de lis and a scroll inscribed 'BVRGVS GVMECESTRE,' and above this another panel with date '1623.' Still higher are a pair of twolight windows with semicircular heads. In the next stage the north and south walls have each a two-light; and the belfry has coupled two-light windows with transoms. The tower has buttresses square at the angles, and is finished with an embattled parapet with pinnacles at the angles and a large fleur-de-lis on the central merlons. Behind the parapet rises an octagonal spire with three tiers of lights all on the cardinal faces; the top is 151 ft. 3 in. above the ground. The whole of the details are strongly tinged with Renaissance feeling, but a successful attempt has been made to harmonize with the architecture of the church.
The 15th-century north porch has a moulded two-centred arch on jambs with engaged shafts; the side walls have each a two-light window. Single-light windows in the east and west walls light the chamber above, and there is now a modern single-light window in the north wall. There is a small chamber over this porch, but the present roof and parapets are modern.
The 15th-century south porch has a four-centred outer archway with lily-pot at the apex of the label; on each side of it are large niches. Each side wall has two two-light windows. The chamber above, which is of later date, has a small single-light window in each of the outer walls, and a beam in the roof is dated 1669.
The 13th-century font (fn. 152) is an irregular octagon with crude carved heads projecting from the diagonal faces; the stem and base are modern.
There are eight bells, inscribed (1) Intactum sileo percute dulce cano: T. Osborn, Downham, fecit, 1794; (2) and (3) T. Osborn, founder, 1794; (4) Thomas Osborn, fecit. Our voices shall with joyful sound. Make hills and valleys eccho round. 1794; (5) T. Osborn, fecit, 1794; (6) J. Taylor & Co., Founders, Loughborough, 1870. F. T. Mc.Dougall, D.C.L., Vicar. P. E. Tillard, Henry Quince, Churchwardens; (7) T. Osborn, founder, 1794; (8) Revd. Castle Sherard, Rector, (fn. 153) Jno. Martin, Robt. Waller, Bailiffs, Jno. Scott, Richd. Miles, Ch. Wardens, T. Osborn, fecit: 1794. A sanctus bell seems to have remained as late as 1763. (fn. 154) Osborn had cast the whole peal of eight in 1794, using the metal of an earlier set of five; (fn. 155) the old fourth bell had been cast in 1710, by a shepherd at the Angel Inn in Godmanchester. (fn. 156) The bells were rehung and the 6th bell recast in 1870; it apparently had no inscription on it.
The 15th-century chancel stalls have shaped divisions with carved elbows, poppy heads and misericords, and panelled and traceried fronts. The carvings on the misericords include a falcon displayed, a dog with collar and resting on a cushion, a fleur-de-lis on a shield, a hare in the midst of a sun-in-splendour, (fn. 157) an ape, a wyvern, a fox and goose, the letters W.S. on a shield, (fn. 158) a cat and mouse; on the elbows a jester, angels, crowned heads, &c.; on the poppy heads two owls back to back, four birds, wyverns, etc.
Some of the fronts and backs of the modern seating and some of the bench ends have 15th-century tracery inserted in them.
In the nave is a chained oak poor-box, circular, bound with metal, and with a painted inscription. (fn. 159)
On one of the south buttresses of the chancel is a late 13th-century carved wheel-dial; and on the gable of the south porch is a small dial inscribed 'G. 1623. W.S.'
Lying loose in the porch is a portion of a 12th-century circular stone shaft with scale ornament.
On the floor of the nave is an early 16th-century brass figure of a civilian, with indents for two wives, two groups of children, and inscription panel; and in the chancel is the indent of an inscription plate.
There are the following monuments: In the chancel, to the Rev. Geoffrey Hawkins, Rector of Higham Gobion, Beds, d. 1727 (son of Geoffrey Hawkins, Rector of Chesterton, Hunts), Mary, his wife, d. 1750, and Hannah Worley, widow, d. 1771; Martha (Maylam) wife of George Rowley, d. 1765; John Hawkins, d. 1806; the Rev. Charles Gray, Vicar, d. 1854; and windows to the Rev. Charles Gray, Vicar, 1854; the Rev. W. P. E. Lathbury, Vicar, d. 1855; the Rev. John Hartley Richardson, curate, d. 1863; and the Rev. Henry Hart Chamberlain [d. 1899]. In the nave to Elizabeth (Meadows) wife of Edward Martin, d. 1805, and Edward Martin, d. 1853; Robert Hicks, d. 1825, Mary, widow of Rev. S. Hicks, Rector of Wrestlingworth, Beds, d. 1805, John Hicks, d. 1827, and Mary widow of Robert, d. 1862; floor slabs to Alured Clarke, d. 1744, Ann, his widow, d. 1755, and John Clarke, d. 1745; William Mehew, d. 1772, and Ann his wife, d. 1793; William Mehew, d. 1792; and Richard Miles, d. 1834. In the north aisle, to Alured Clarke, d. 1744, and family; Jos. Bull, d. 1764, Ann his wife, d. 1780, and Elizabeth their daughter, d. 1791; Thomas Townsend, d. 1792, Martha his wife, d. 1789, John, their son, d. 1799, and Ann, widow of John, d. 1817, James Stratton, d. 1800, son-in-law of Tho. Townsend, Ann his wife, d. 1835, Ann their daughter, d. 1826, George Turney her husband, d. 1825, and George Turney their son, d. 1835; John Chapman, d. 1858, and Edward Theodore, his son, d. 1859, Mary Chapman, widow of John, d. 1899; War Memorial 1914–18; and windows to Bishop Francis Thomas McDougall, Vicar, erected 1903; Frederick Robert Beart, d. 1905; Emma Frances Amelia Baumgartner, d. 1911. In the south aisle, to Thomas Betts, d. 1696, and Elizabeth his wife, d. 1700; Edward Martin, d. 1799, Alice his relict, d. 1801, and Harriet their infant daughter, d. 1788; John Martin, d. 1822, and Mary his wife, d. 1854; Henry Percy Tillard, d. 1858; John Thomas Baumgartner, d. 1874; Algernon Tillard, d. 1887; Francis Bonham Tillard, d. 1903, Helen wife of General Robert Julian Baumgartner, d. 1911; Mary Emily (Tillard) wife of Col. I. F. R. Thompson, d. 1915, and Lt.-Col. Ivan Frank Ross Thompson, d. 1917; Allen Victor Herbert, d. 1918; floor slabs to Thomas Bentley, d. 1709; John Martin, d. 1752; Elizabeth daughter of Samuel and Elizabeth Fox, d. 1755; Jane, relict of John Martin, d. 1789; and windows to two children of J. T. and P. Baumgartner, d. 1827 and 1844; Phoebe, wife of John Lancaster, d. 1833; John Thomas Baumgartner, d. 1874; Philipa Julia (Baumgartner) wife of Philip Tillard, d. 1885; Philip Tillard, d. 1887; the Rev. Preston John Williams, Vicar, erected 1894; General Robert Julian Baumgartner, d. 1895. In the tower, windows to Edward Martin, d. 1835, and Elizabeth his wife, d. . . . .; and William Beart, d. 1852. In the south porch to the wife and children of the Rev. H. H. Chamberlain.
The registers are as follows: (i) Baptisms, 23 Dec. 1604 to 3 Jan. 1642–3; marriages, 3 Jan. 1603–4 to 30 Aug. 1653, and 6 March 1742–3 to 8 Sept. 1754; burials, 1 Feb. 1604–5 to Dec. 1647, and 1653; (ii) baptisms, 30 Sept. 1653 to 5 Aug. 1660, and three entries in 1669, 1671 and 1674; marriages, 9 Jan. 1653–4 to 16 April 1718; burials, 3 Oct. 1653 to 14 May 1717; (iii) marriages, 13 April 1718 to 11 Jan. 1753; burials, 31 March 1718 to 24 Dec. 1751; (iv) baptisms and burials, 20 Oct. 1754 to 22 April 1798; (v) the official marriage book, 1 Aug. 1754 to 5 Nov. 1783; (vi) the same, 10 Nov. 1783 to 28 Feb. 1811; (vii) baptisms and burials, 13 Jan. 1798 to 30 Dec. 1812; (viii) the official marriage book, 6 March 1811 to 25 Oct. 1812. The first two books are in considerable disorder and apparently several years are missing, and the second book is much damaged by damp. The first book has been rebound and the second requires similar treatment.
The church plate consists of: A silver cup of Elizabethan date, no date letter; a silver gilt cup and cover paten, hall-marked for 1559–60; a silver plate engraved 'Benedicamus Patrem et filium cum spiritu,' and inscribed 'To the Glory of God and the use of St. Mary's Church, Godmanchester, 1848. E. I. W. dedit,' hall-marked for 1846–7; a silver alms-dish, engraved 'hilarem datorem diligit Deus,' and inscribed as last, hall-marked for 1847–8; a plated dish and flagon, the latter inscribed 'The gift of Charles Gray, M.A., Vicar, to the Parish Church of Godmanchester, A.D. 1834.'
ADVOWSON
The Church of St. Mary (fn. 160) is stated to have been given with 3 hides of land by King Edgar (c. 969) to the monks of Ramsey, (fn. 161) but it was no longer in their possession at the time of the Domesday Survey (fn. 162) and they never seem to have laid claim to it. In 1086 a church and priest were attached to the manor (fn. 163) and remained in royal possession until Stephen gave the church to Merton Priory in Surrey. (fn. 164) In 1284, the endowment of the church consisted of 48 acres of land and also 15 acres of meadow held by the Prior of Merton in commutation for all tithes of hay. (fn. 165) He held other lands, but these were assessed to the fee-farm rent and were not spiritualities. (fn. 166) After the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the rectory was granted in 1542 to the dean and chapter of Westminster (fn. 167) and except during the reign of Mary and the Commonwealth they have owned it ever since. (fn. 168) It has been held by a succession of lessees and in a lease of 1640 the dean and chapter stipulated for entertainment for two days and two nights for themselves or their officers at the lessee's expense. (fn. 169)
Between 1209 and 1219 the vicarage was instituted and two houses, land and meadow, as well as the vicarial tithes were assigned to it. (fn. 170) The advowson of the vicarage has always been held with the rectory, (fn. 171) although the first recorded presentation by the dean and chapter of Westminster was not till 1599. (fn. 172) A custumal of the vicar's tithing was drawn up in 1599 in great detail and is specially interesting in showing the payments made from parishioners who were not landholders. (fn. 173) In the 17th century the vicarage was too poor to support a suitable vicar for the town and consequently in 1655 the Town Council decided to purchase a house called the Star, next to the vicarage, which was ruinous. (fn. 174) The Star was finally annexed to the vicarage when the dean and chapter had recovered the patronage after the Restoration. (fn. 175) The purchase of the Star is an illustration of control of church affairs by the governing body both before and after Godmanchester became a borough. In 1532 the town officials appointed an organist and the expenses incurred over his engagement were charged to the bailiffs' account. (fn. 176) In the reign of Henry VI the two churchwardens appear amongst the elected officials of the town (fn. 177) and they accounted to the bailiffs and jurors. (fn. 178) Throughout the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries the churchwardens' accounts were presented to the Town Council, although in the 18th century protest was apparently made against the practice. In 1712 a churchwarden, apparently not a freeman of the borough, brought the matter into the spiritual courts to the great indignation of the Council, who decreed that he was never to be admitted to the freedom and also indemnified his successors against any damages they might incur during the trial. (fn. 179) In 1824, the Common Council enacted a careful table of precedence for its members in the corporation pews in the chancel. (fn. 180)
CHANTRIES
The Chantry of the Blessed Mary (fn. 181) or Roode's Chantry, (fn. 182) in the parish church, was in existence in 1297 (fn. 183) and possibly earlier, since in 1279 Martin the chaplain was a town tenant of 4½ acres of land and some meadow, though his benefice is not named. (fn. 184) In 1307, Roger de Strateshill, probably the chaplain of the chantry, wished to endow it with 31 acres of land and 4 acres of meadow to provide a daily celebration of mass, but difficulties appear to have arisen with John Dalderby, Bishop of Lincoln (1300–1329). (fn. 185) The matter was taken up by the town, and at the request of Henry Roode, apparently one of the bailiffs, licence was obtained from the king in 1316 for Roger de Strateshill's gift. (fn. 186) Further gifts of land are recorded (fn. 187) and each incumbent was seemingly given seisin for his life by the bailiffs, 'who reserved the right to annul the grant, thus avoiding any grant of the lands in mortmain. (fn. 188) The chantry was thus especially associated with the town and the chaplain was bound to pray, in English, at the daily mass 'for the good state, welfare and prosperity of the Bayliffs of this town, and all the Comynalty of the same, fundars of this Chauntre.' (fn. 189) At the time of the dissolution of the chantries, the chaplain both provided assistance to the vicar and was also master of a grammar school. (fn. 190) The possessions of the chantry, together with those of the Gilds of Corpus Christi (q.v.) and the Holy Trinity (q.v.) were seized by the crown and in 1553 were leased to John Shepherd and others of the royal household for twenty-one years at an annual rent of £35 16s. 10d. (fn. 191) The fee-farm rents of £5 15s. 5d. due to the bailiffs of Godmanchester were paid by the crown until 1592, (fn. 192) when Elizabeth, in a new lease to Peter Proby, remitted the fee-farm rent and a charge of 4s. payable to the poor and received a lower rent from the lessee. (fn. 193) Soon after the grant of the charter of 1604, the borough unsuccessfully attempted to recover the chantry lands and were involved in lawsuits in the Duchy courts and considerable expenses, (fn. 194) the issue being complicated by the grant in fee, in 1606–7 by James I, of the disputed lands to Edward Newport. (fn. 195) In 1657, they were held by Robert Barnard, (fn. 196) but it seems possible that they were seized by the Commissioners for the sale of fee-farm rents during the Protectorate, (fn. 197) since at some subsequent date they were attached to the Rectory on whose 'lessee the old crown rent of £30 per annum is charged as an annuity in augmentation of the vicarage as also with the sum of £5 19s. 5d. to the annual fee-farm rent of the town.' (fn. 198)
The Gild of Corpus Christi is first mentioned in 1366, (fn. 199) and the fraternity was an established body in 1396. (fn. 200) It consisted of brothers and sisters governed by two wardens. (fn. 201) A later benefactor was John Copegray, chaplain of the gild and vicar of Alconbury (1463–69). (fn. 202) After the dissolution of the chantries, the endowments, which amounted in 1536 to £11 7s. 4d. a year, (fn. 203) passed with those of Roode's Chantry (q.v.). The name is still preserved in Corpus Christi Lane.
The Gild of the Holy Trinity was founded before 1279, when William, chaplain of the Trinity, held 1½ acre of land. (fn. 204) It was governed by two wardens (fn. 205) and is mentioned in wills of Godmanchester inhabitants, (fn. 206) but its endowments were small and at its dissolution amounted to only £3 4s. 9d. a year. (fn. 207) Edmund Archpole was then chaplain of both Corpus Christi (q.v.) and Holy Trinity Gilds, (fn. 208) but there does not seem to have been any formal amalgamation of the gilds. The lands of the gild followed the descent of those of Roode's chantry (q.v.).
Little is known of the origin of the Gild of St. John the Baptist, (fn. 209) but it was founded before 1359, when William Balle seems to have been the chaplain. (fn. 210) Possibly the gild had a separate chapel, since 'land next to the chapel' are mentioned at the same date. (fn. 211) The fraternity appears in the town rentals until 1549, (fn. 212) but all trace of it is afterwards lost and its lands do not appear in the certificate of chantry lands at the dissolution of the chantries. Nine acres of land formed the endowment of certain lights and lamps in the church, and they were valued at 22s. 2d. a year after deducting the fee-farm rent. (fn. 213) In 1553, obit lands appear in the lease of chantry lands to John Shepherd and to later tenants (fn. 214) and a payment of 1s. 10½d. a year to the bellman was chargeable on the chantry lands. (fn. 215)
At the present time there is a Particular Baptist Chapel, founded in 1815, and the Union Chapel, built in 1844, to replace an older chapel. (fn. 216)
CHARITIES
The following charities are regulated by a scheme of the Charity Commissioners dated 12 February 1926:—
Christopher Fisher in 1674 gave a piece of land containing 2 a. and 3 r. in Reed Meadow, and John Dryden by a declaration of trust dated 17 Dec. 1708 gave the sum of £200 which was laid out in the purchase of 24 a. 1 r. 20 p. of land, the rents to be applied in apprenticing poor children of the parish. The endowment of the charities now consists of £1,578 8s. 9d., 2½ per cent. Consols and various other sums of stock with the Official Trustees, the whole producing about £60 annually in dividends which are applied in apprenticing.
John Banks by will dated 19 November 1707 charged his lands and hereditaments in Dunton with a yearly payment of £12 to be applied for apprenticing and for the poor. The endowment now consists of a rentcharge of £12 per annum issuing out of Millow Hall Farm, Dunton, £21 1s. 5 per cent. War Stock and £25 4 per cent. Victory Bonds with the Official Trustees. £5, part of the rentcharge, is applied for the benefit of the poor and the residue £7 is applied for apprenticing.
Note.—Under clause 19 of the above-mentioned scheme the trustees are empowered to apply that part of the income applicable for apprenticing and not required for that purpose in assisting poor persons in the case of Banks's charity and in assisting poor boys for their advancement in life in the case of Fisher's and Dryden's charities.
Fishbourne's Charity. This charity consists of a rentcharge of 10s. per annum issuing out of hereditaments at Hartford. The rent is distributed by the mayor to four poor widows not in receipt of parish relief.
Anonymous Charity for Poor founded in 1727. The endowment of this charity consists of a rentcharge of 3s. 4d. per annum charged upon or issuing out of hereditaments in Post Street. This sum is distributed in bread amongst the poor of the parish.
Grainger's Gift. Robert Grainger by will dated 10 October 1578 charged his mansion-house in Godmanchester with one comb of wheat to be made into bread and distributed among the poor. The value of one comb of wheat is now charged upon property in Godmanchester now in the occupation of Mr. W. F. Beart and distributed to the poor of the parish in bread.
¶The charity known as the Rectory Charge was founded by deed dated 27 January 1443 for the benefit of the poor of the parish. The endowment consists of four quarters of wheat and three quarters of barley charged on the Rectory Farm, Godmanchester. Under the provisions of the above-mentioned scheme the vicar and the mayor (ex-officio trustees) and six representative trustees appointed by the Borough Council, were appointed the trustees of the charities.
Almshouses. These consist of four almshouses in East Chadleigh Lane, Godmanchester, built with money given in 1723 by Mr. Dryden, together with two small almshouses in Penfold Lane (known as Manser's Charity) formerly four houses but converted into two. There are no endowments in connection with these almshouses, which are kept in repair at the parish expense.
Koziar's Christmas Village is a seasonal attraction located in Jefferson Township, near Bernville, Berks County, Pennsylvania, U.S.A., approximately 15 miles (24 km) northwest of Reading. Christmas Village utilizes approximately one half million Christmas lights and other decorative effects in a presentation that has repeatedly been listed among the top tourist attractions in Pennsylvania and the top Christmas displays in the United States.
The Christmas Village property was originally known as Spring Lake Dairy Farm, a working dairy farm. William M. Koziar began decorating his rural property for Christmas in 1948. The display was created for the enjoyment of Koziar's wife, Grace, and four children and initially centered on the house and barn. However, the display became increasingly elaborate and grew to incorporate the lake, walkways, trees, and fences. Over time the private display became a popular local attraction, known as "The Christmas House," and traffic on the nearby road was sometimes snarled by passersby stopping to view the display. Eventually, visitors were admitted to the premises and Koziar paved a former wheat field to provide parking. Initially, the dairy farm remained active, and the Koziars had to wait until after the cows were milked to turn on the lights, as there was not enough power for the milking machines and the lights to operate simultaneously. Many of the dioramas are housed in former chicken coops and display toys, clothes and other belongs of the Koziars' children and grandchildren. In 2008 Koziar's Christmas Village celebrated its sixtieth anniversary. It remains a family-owned attraction, currently operated by the Koziars' daughters, and several current employees are second- and third-generation associates.
Christmas Village features the elaborately illuminated home and barn of the Koziar family, as well as numerous smaller buildings. Upon entrance, visitors are greeted by costumed characters Rudolph, Frosty, and the Village's own Buddy the Bear. A marked pathway leads visitors among the illuminated buildings and other displays. Children may visit Santa Claus at his headquarters on Santa Claus Lane. There are several large dioramas depicting scenes such as Christmas Beneath the Sea, Christmas in the Jungle, Santa's Post Office, and Christmas in Other Lands. There are a number of displays featuring cut-out representations of characters from popular comic strips, animated films and fairy tales, as well as manger scenes, presentations of the biblical story of the Nativity, and tellings of seasonal stories such as A Christmas Carol and The Nutcracker. The Village also includes a recreation of the Valley Forge encampment and a G gauge outdoor train layout that encompasses most of the barnyard. The "Kissing Bridge" has been the site of several marriage proposals, engagements and weddings. In addition, there are several indoor features, including an extensive H0 scale model train layout and sales area, as well as shops selling souvenirs, Christmas decorations, refreshments, and other seasonal items.
Perhaps the most dramatic feature of the Village is the first glimpse one sees of the display. Most visitors approach the property from the east, via Christmas Village Road. Being farm country the surrounding area is sparsely inhabited and, after dark, sparsely lit. The terrain blocks the view of the Village until the road crests a hill just a few hundred feet to the east of the display, at which point the entire Village is suddenly visible, reflected in the lake. As of late 2010 the Christmas Village website features a virtual recreation of this experience as a part of its home page.
Christmas Village has been named Best Outdoor Christmas Display in the World by Display World magazine. It has also been given the "Award of Excellence" by the Pennsylvania Travel Council as a top travel attraction in the state. A twilight image of Christmas Village was used as jacket art for the book Christmas in America: A Photographic Celebration of the Holiday Season by Peter Guttman, published in 2007 by Skyhorse Publishing and now in its second edition. Christmas Village has been featured frequently by local media, as well as by national and international outlets.
Information from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koziar%27s_Christmas_Village
I created a series of flower characters for a book titled Blossom Buddies, published by teNeues in 2009. The book includes 100 blossom buddies.
Published by Hamlyn in 1972, 2nd impression (1st publishd 1969). Story by Marie d'Aulnoy, adapted by Jan Vladislav... Illustrated by Mirko Hanak.
Picked up in a local charity shop last week, sadly no dust wrapper, but some very nice vintage illustrations.
©2006 Phillip Nesmith
A Border Patrol agent (member of BORSTAR) watches as Omaha 18 finds a place to land in the borderlands of Arizona.
**This image was published as part of a Yahoo! News interactive feature on immigration**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Omaha 18 danced in the hot sky around me my mind and eyes were occupied to full capacity. My eyes darted from the ground and the tracks that we were following to the surrounding terrain looking for people in the scrub, over to Agent S.K., up to the helicopter, then back to the ground. The harsh high desert sun beat down on the back of my neck like a hot steaming towel after a barber shave. We had been walking North for a couple of miles and we had lost and found the trail left by the small group of border crossers about six times. I was beginning to think that the tracks, although fresh were older than we all thought. With the helicopter so far ahead I thought that the crew would see something…or the crossers would be running, and their tracks showed no sign of hast.
Up ahead I saw a large billowing cloud of fine tan/orange dust rise into the air. Omaha 18 had landed ahead of us just short of clump of vegetation. In this area of the country a clump of dense vegetation means the presents of water sometime during the year. Omaha 18 was dropping off the second member of the two-person crew to search the area prior to our arrival. Not having access to the radio I thought that we were getting close. As I walked along I looked at the four to five sets of dusty athletic shoe and boot tracks leading us across the land. My mind wondered about the people that left the tracks and about that face that I might soon be able to put a face to the footprints.
Reaching the vegetation I caught movement out of the corner of my eye to the right. It was the agent that Omaha 18 had dropped off. He waved in our direction and said he had found the tracks over there. We caught up with this agent and we exchanged greetings and we talked about this situation. He said his name was Dave and that he had doubts about how fresh the tracks were. As we walked along I discovered that Dave was with BORSTAR (Border Patrol Search Trauma and Rescue: www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/border_security/border_patrol/bor... ). We walked and chatted, talking about the state of the tracks, the way in which the people seemed to be walking etc. It was decided that Dave would call the helicopter to land and Agent S.K. would be taken back to our truck so that he could move it to a road near by to pick me up.
After Omaha 18 landed, coming in low over the brush, blowing a thing fog of Arizona into the air all of which would seem to find its way into my ears, hair, cloths, camera, and eyes. The smell of the burning aviation fuel, the heat, and the gritty feeling of dirt on my face took me back to Iraq. Agent S.K. climbed into the small cockpit and with an increased whine of the engine and a furious whipping of the air by the rotors Omaha 18 broke free of the chains of gravity, banking to the south.
Dave and I stood talking as we looked at the tracks on the ground. We walked a bit more to the North, as there would be a good amount of time before the truck would be closer. The desert ghost laid their tracks in snaking lines across the Mars like dirt as if walking drunk. Through thick vegetation, then across open ground, up over rocky sections to end up disappearing into a patch of grass. We walked in circles until we found them again. This was the same pattern that we had been following for a few miles. Picking up the trail again as it led across a plane of flat dry dirt I looked to the direction they were going…toward more thick vegetation. My mind had been thinking about how these people had been trying to keep anyone from following them long by trying to leave (or not leave) tracks across all types of terrain. Then suddenly as the tracks went into a tangle of dead and downed mesquite trees, which looked like some military obstacle, it hit me. These people had walked through in the dark! This would put us about 4 hours behind them.
Someone had posted a comment to one of my other border images and asked if the Border Patrol “always gets their man”. I am here to tell you that many get past the efforts of the Border Patrol, which is a testament to the skill of the coyotes and drug runners and the vastness of the Arizona desert.
*** Names and callsigns changed ***
*** See the beginning of the story here: www.flickr.com/photos/visualadventure/241138484/ ***
Production Date: 1942
Source Type: Postcard
Publisher, Printer, Photographer: C. P. Johnston Company, Curt Teich (#28, #2B-H309)
Postmark: None
Collection: Steven R. Shook
Tenney and Hilbert Published Market Price in 2009: $25-$50
Source: Tenney, Fred, and Kevin Hilbert. 2009. Large Letter Postcards: The Definitive Guide 1930s to 1950s. Atglen, Pennsylvania: Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 176 p.
Copyright 2010. Some rights reserved. The associated text may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of Steven R. Shook.
Self-published hand-made book Did we ever meet? Winner of Rock your dummy Award 2013. Full info, edition, price - www.offonroad.com/books/did-we-ever-meet/
Published to accompany the debut UK Steak Mtn. / Christopher Norris solo show – “Get Ready, Jungle Heat” at BEACH Gallery
Available from www.landfilleditions.com
I created a series of flower characters for a book titled Blossom Buddies, published by teNeues in 2009. The book includes 100 blossom buddies.
It's a terrible photo but I had to post it.
Backstory:
I was contacted by a Pediatrician in Italy who was writing a book on Motherhood and the bond between Mother and Child. She asked if she could use a photo I took of my best friend and her baby that she found on Flickr and honored, I gave her permission.
The book was published a few months ago and while on Holiday in Florence we went to a bookstore and found the book with my photo on the cover. It's in Italian so unfortunately I can't read it but it's pretty exciting to say the least!
Info on the Book and the Author:
Original Photo here:
Lord Peter Views the Body
first published in 1928, was the first collection of short stories about Lord Peter Wimsey by Dorothy L. Sayers. All of them were included in later complete collections, although some of these early works are generally considered to be below par.
Contents[edit]
"The Abominable History of the Man with Copper Fingers": An artist's jealous nature leads to an investigation of his mistress' disappearance.
"The Entertaining Episode of the Article in Question": A grammatical mistake in French unmasks a clever criminal.
"The Fascinating Problem of Uncle Meleager's Will": The disposal of a dead man's fortune depends on his penchant for cross-word puzzles.
"The Fantastic Horror of the Cat in the Bag": A high-speed chase and a lost bag converge with a gruesome discovery.
"The Unprincipled Affair of the Practical Joker": A lady pleads for Lord Peter's help in retrieving a valuable necklace, and more importantly, a portrait with an indiscreet inscription.
"The Undignified Melodrama of the Bone of Contention": Lord Peter, visiting friends in the country, sees a ghostly carriage, hears rumors of an odd will, and deduces that foul play is afoot.
"The Vindictive Story of the Footsteps That Ran": Lord Peter deduces the whereabouts of a cleverly hidden murder weapon.
"The Bibulous Business of a Matter of Taste": Lord Peter's famous palate is the deciding factor in acquiring wartime intelligence.
"The Learned Adventure of the Dragon's Head": Viscount St. George appears as a boy as Lord Peter uses clues from a rare book to find a treasure.
"The Piscatorial Farce of the Stolen Stomach": Involving several Scotsmen, a digestive organ, and a handful of diamonds.
"The Unsolved Puzzle of the Man with No Face": Which ends with Wimsey letting a murderer go free, at least partially because he is a good painter.
"The Adventurous Exploit of the Cave of Ali Baba": Lord Peter infiltrates a den of ruthless thieves; notable for unusual technology.
Lord Peter Wimsey stories by Dorothy L. Sayers
The Postcard
A postally unused postcard that was published by The South African Garrison Institutes. The card was printed by Whitehead, Morris & Co. Ltd. of Cape Town. The card has a divided back.
Windhoek
Windhoek is the capital and largest city of Namibia. It is located in the Khomas Highland plateau area, at around 1,700 metres (5,600 ft) above sea level, almost exactly at the country's geographical centre.
The population of Windhoek in 2020 was 431,000 which is growing continuously due to an influx from all over Namibia.
Windhoek is the social, economic, political, and cultural centre of the country. Nearly every Namibian national enterprise, governmental body, educational and cultural institution is headquartered there.
The city developed at the site of a permanent hot spring known to the indigenous pastoral communities. It developed rapidly after Jonker Afrikaner, Captain of the Orlam, settled here in 1840 and built a stone church for his community.
In the decades following, multiple wars and armed hostilities resulted in the neglect and destruction of the new settlement. Windhoek was founded a second time in 1890 by Imperial German Army Major Curt von François, when the territory was colonised by the German Empire.
Herero and Nama Genocide
The Herero and Nama genocide was a campaign of ethnic extermination and collective punishment waged by the German Empire against the Herero and the Nama in German South West Africa.
It was the first genocide of the 20th. century, occurring between 1904 and 1908.
In January 1904, the Herero and Nama people rebelled against German colonial rule. On the 12th. January they killed more than 100 German settlers in the area of Okahandja, although women, children, missionaries and non-German Europeans were spared.
In August, German General Lothar von Trotha defeated the Hereros in the Battle of Waterberg and drove them into the desert of Omaheke, where most of them died of dehydration. In October, the Nama people also rebelled against the Germans, only to suffer a similar fate.
Between 24,000 and 100,000 Hereros and 10,000 Nama died in the genocide. The first phase of the genocide was characterised by widespread death from starvation and dehydration, due to the prevention of the Herero from leaving the Namib desert by German forces.
Once defeated, thousands of Hereros and Namas were imprisoned in concentration camps, where the majority died of diseases, abuse, and exhaustion.
In 1985, the United Nations' Whitaker Report classified the aftermath as an attempt to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of South West Africa.
In 2004, the German government recognised and apologised for the events, but ruled out financial compensation for the victims' descendants.
In July 2015, the German government and the speaker of the Bundestag officially called the events a "genocide". However, it still refused to consider reparations. Despite this, the last batch of skulls and other remains of slaughtered tribesmen which were taken to Germany to promote racial superiority were taken back to Namibia in 2018.
In May 2021, the German government agreed to pay €1.1 billion over 30 years to fund projects in communities that were impacted by the genocide.
Background to the Genocide
The Herero, who speak a Bantu language, were originally a group of cattle herders who migrated into what is now Namibia during the mid-18th. century. The Herero seized vast swaths of the arable upper plateaus which were ideal for cattle grazing.
Agricultural duties, which were minimal, were assigned to enslaved Khoisan and Bushmen. Over the rest of the 18th. century, the Herero slowly drove the Khoisan into the dry, rugged hills to the south and east.
The Hereros were a pastoral people whose entire way of life centred on their cattle. The Herero language, while limited in its vocabulary for most areas, contains more than a thousand words for the colours and markings of cattle. The Hereros were content to live in peace as long as their cattle were safe and well-pastured, but became formidable warriors when their cattle were threatened.
According to Robert Gaudi:
"The newcomers, much taller and more fiercely warlike
than the indigenous Khoisan people, were possessed
of the fierceness that comes from basing one's way of
life on a single source: everything they valued, all wealth
and personal happiness, had to do with cattle.
Regarding the care and protection of their herds, the
Herero showed themselves utterly merciless, and far
more 'savage' than the Khoisan had ever been.
Because of their dominant ways and elegant bearing,
the few Europeans who encountered Herero tribesmen
in the early days regarded them as the region's 'natural
aristocrats.'"
By the time of the Scramble for Africa, the area which was occupied by the Herero was known as Damaraland.
The Nama were pastorals and traders, and lived to the south of the Herero.
In 1883, Adolf Lüderitz, a German merchant, purchased a stretch of coast near Lüderitz Bay (Angra Pequena) from the reigning chief. The terms of the purchase were fraudulent, but the German government nonetheless established a protectorate over it. At that time, it was the only overseas German territory deemed suitable for European settlement.
Chief of the neighbouring Herero, Maherero rose to power by uniting all the Herero. Faced with repeated attacks by the Khowesin, a clan of the Khoekhoe under Hendrik Witbooi, he signed a protection treaty on the 21st. October 1885 with Imperial Germany's colonial governor Heinrich Ernst Göring (father of World War I flying ace and World War II convicted war criminal Hermann Göring), but did not cede the land of the Herero.
This treaty was renounced in 1888 due to lack of German support against Witbooi, but it was reinstated in 1890.
The Herero leaders repeatedly complained about violation of this treaty, as Herero women and girls were raped by Germans, a crime that the German judges and prosecutors were reluctant to punish.
In 1890 Maherero's son, Samuel, signed a great deal of land over to the Germans in return for helping him to ascend to the Herero throne, and to subsequently be established as paramount chief.
German involvement in ethnic fighting ended in tenuous peace in 1894. In that year, Theodor Leutwein became governor of the territory, which underwent a period of rapid development, while the German government sent the Schutztruppe (imperial colonial troops) to pacify the region.
German Colonial Policy
Both German colonial authorities and European settlers envisioned a predominately white "new African Germany," wherein the native populations would be put onto reservations and their land distributed among settlers and companies.
Under German colonial rule, colonists were encouraged to seize land and cattle from the native Herero and Nama peoples and to subjugate them as slave laborers.
Resentment understandably brewed among the native populations over their loss of status and property to German ranchers arriving in South West Africa, and the dismantling of traditional political hierarchies. Previously ruling tribes were reduced to the same status as the other tribes they had previously ruled over and enslaved. This resentment contributed to the Herero Wars that began in 1904.
Major Theodor Leutwein, the Governor of German South West Africa, was well aware of the effect of the German colonial rule on the Hereros. He later wrote :
"The Hereros from early years were a freedom-loving
people, courageous and proud beyond measure. On
the one hand, there was the progressive extension of
German rule over them, and on the other their own
sufferings increasing from year to year."
The Dietrich Case
In January 1903, a German trader named Dietrich was walking from his homestead to the nearby town of Omaruru to buy a new horse. Halfway to Dietrich's destination, a wagon carrying the son of a Herero chief, his wife, and their son stopped by. As a common courtesy in Hereroland, the chief's son offered Dietrich a ride.
That night, however, Dietrich got very drunk and after everyone was asleep, he attempted to rape the wife of the chief's son. When she resisted, Dietrich shot her dead.
When he was tried for murder in Windhoek, Dietrich denied attempting to rape his victim. He alleged that he awoke thinking the camp was under attack, and had fired blindly into the darkness. The killing of the Herero woman, he claimed, was an unfortunate accident. The court acquitted him, alleging that Dietrich was suffering from "tropical fever" and temporary insanity.
The murder aroused extraordinary interest in Hereroland, especially since the murdered woman had been the wife of the son of a Chief and the daughter of another. Everywhere the question was asked:
"Have white people the right
to shoot native women?"
Governor Leutwein intervened. He made the Public Prosecutor appeal Dietrich's acquittal. A second trial took place (before the colony's supreme court), and this time Dietrich was found guilty of manslaughter and imprisoned.
The move prompted violent objections of German settlers who considered Leutwein a "race traitor".
Rising Tension
In 1903, some of the Nama clans rose in revolt under the leadership of Hendrik Witbooi. A number of factors led the Herero to join them in January 1904.
(a) Land Rights
One of the major issues was land rights. In 1903 the Herero learned of a plan to divide their territory with a railway line and to set up reservations where they would be concentrated.
The Herero had already ceded more than a quarter of their 130,000 km2 (50,000 sq mi) territory to German colonists by 1903, before the Otavi railway line running from the African coast to inland German settlements was completed.
Completion of this line would have made the German colonies much more accessible, and would have ushered in a new wave of Europeans into the area.
Historian Horst Drechsler states that there was discussion of establishing and placing the Herero in native reserves, and that this was further proof of the German colonists' sense of ownership over the land.
Drechsler illustrates the gap between the rights of a European and an African; the Reichskolonialbund (German Colonial League) held that, in regards to legal matters, the testimony of seven Africans was equivalent to that of one colonist.
(b) Racial Tensions
There were also racial tensions underlying these developments; the average German colonist viewed native Africans as a lowly source of cheap labour, and others welcomed their extermination. The German settlers often referred to black Africans as "baboons" and treated them with contempt.
One missionary reported:
"The real cause of the bitterness among the Hereros
toward the Germans is without question the fact that
the average German looks down upon the natives as
being about on the same level as the higher primates
('baboon' being their favourite term for the natives),
and treat them like animals.
The settler holds that the native has a right to exist only
in so far as he is useful to the white man. This sense of
contempt led the settlers to commit violence against
the Hereros."
The contempt manifested itself particularly in the concubinage of native women. In a practice referred to in Südwesterdeutsch as Verkafferung, native women were taken by male European traders and ranchers both willingly and by force.
(c) Debt Collection
A new policy on debt collection, enforced in November 1903, also played a role in the uprising. For many years, the Herero population had fallen in the habit of borrowing money from colonist moneylenders at extremely high interest rates.
For a long time, much of this debt went uncollected, and it accumulated, as most Herero had no means to pay. In order to correct this growing problem, Governor Leutwein decreed with good intentions that all debts not paid within the following year would be voided.
In the absence of hard cash, traders often seized cattle, or whatever objects of value they could get their hands on, as collateral. This fostered a feeling of resentment towards the Germans on the part of the Herero people. Resentment escalated to hopelessness when they saw that German officials were sympathetic to the moneylenders who were about to lose what they were owed.
Revolts
In 1903, the Hereros saw an opportunity to revolt. At that time, there was a distant Khoisan tribe in the south called the Bondelzwarts, who resisted German demands to register their guns. The Bondelzwarts engaged in a firefight with the German authorities which led to three Germans being killed and a fourth wounded.
The situation deteriorated further, and the governor of the Herero colony, Major Theodor Leutwein, went south to take personal command, leaving almost no troops in the north.
The Herero revolted in early 1904, killing between 123 and 150 German settlers, as well as seven Boers and three women, in what Nils Ole Oermann calls a "desperate surprise attack".
The timing of their attack was carefully planned. After successfully asking a large Herero clan to surrender their weapons, Governor Leutwein was convinced that they and the rest of the native population were essentially pacified, and so withdrew half of the German troops stationed in the colony.
Led by Chief Samuel Maherero, the Herero surrounded Okahandja and cut railroad and telegraph links to Windhoek, the colonial capital.
Maharero then issued a manifesto in which he forbade his troops to kill any Englishmen, Boers, uninvolved peoples, women and children in general, or German missionaries.
The Herero revolts catalysed a separate revolt and attack on Fort Namutoni in the north of the country a few weeks later by the Ondonga.
A Herero warrior interviewed by German authorities in 1895 had described his people's traditional way of dealing with suspected cattle rustlers, a treatment which, during the uprising, was regularly extended to German soldiers and civilians:
"We came across a few Khoisan whom of course
we killed. I myself helped to kill one of them.
-- First we cut off his ears, saying, 'You will never
hear Herero cattle lowing.'
-- Then we cut off his nose, saying, 'Never again
shall you smell Herero cattle.'
-- And then we cut off his lips, saying, 'You shall
never again taste Herero cattle.'
And finally we cut his throat."
According to Robert Gaudi:
"Leutwein knew that the wrath of the German Empire
was about to fall on them and hoped to soften the
blow. He sent desperate messages to Chief Samuel
Maherero in hopes of negotiating an end to the war.
In this, Leutwein acted on his own, heedless of the
prevailing mood in Germany, which called for bloody
revenge."
The Hereros, however, were emboldened by their success and had come to believe that the Germans were too cowardly to fight in the open. They rejected Leutwein's offers of peace.
One missionary wrote:
"The Germans are filled with fearful hate. I must really
call it a blood thirst against the Hereros. One hears
nothing but talk of 'cleaning up,' 'executing,' 'shooting
down to the last man,' 'no pardon,' etc."
According to Robert Gaudi:
"The Germans suffered more than defeat in the early
months of 1904; they suffered humiliation, their brilliant
modern army unable to defeat a rabble of 'half-naked
savages.'
Cries in the Reichstag, and from the Kaiser himself, for
total eradication of the Hereros grew strident. When a
leading member of the Social Democratic Party pointed
out that the Hereros were as human as any German and
possessed immortal souls, he was howled down by the
entire conservative side of the legislature."
Leutwein was forced to request reinforcements and an experienced officer from the German government in Berlin. Lieutenant-General Lothar von Trotha was appointed commander-in-chief (German: Oberbefehlshaber) of South West Africa, arriving with an expeditionary force of 10,000 troops on the 11th. June 1904.
Leutwein was subordinate to the civilian Colonial Department of the Prussian Foreign Office, which was supported by Chancellor Bernhard von Bülow, while General Trotha reported to the military German General Staff, which was supported by Emperor Wilhelm II.
Leutwein wanted to defeat the most determined Herero rebels and negotiate a surrender with the remainder in order to achieve a political settlement. Trotha, however, planned to crush the native resistance through military force. He stated that:
"My intimate knowledge of many central African
nations (Bantu and others) has everywhere
convinced me of the necessity that the Negro
does not respect treaties, but only brute force."
By late spring of 1904, German troops were pouring into the colony. In August 1904, the main Herero forces were surrounded and crushed at the Battle of Waterberg.
Genocide
In 1900, Kaiser Wilhelm II had been enraged by the killing of Baron Clemens von Ketteler, the Imperial German minister plenipotentiary in Beijing, during the Boxer Rebellion. The Kaiser took it as a personal insult from a people he viewed as racially inferior, all the more because of his obsession with the "Yellow Peril".
On the 27th. July 1900, the Kaiser gave the infamous Hunnenrede (Hun speech) in Bremerhaven to German soldiers being sent to Imperial China, ordering them to show the Boxers no mercy, and to behave like Attila's Huns.
General von Trotha had served in China, and was chosen in 1904 to command the expedition to German South West Africa precisely because of his record in China.
In 1904, the Kaiser was made furious by the latest revolt in his colonial empire by a people whom he also viewed as inferior, and took the Herero rebellion as a personal insult, just as he had viewed the Boxers' assassination of Baron von Ketteler.
The tactless and bloodthirsty language that Wilhelm II used about the Herero people in 1904 is strikingly similar to the language he had used about the Chinese Boxers in 1900. Nevertheless, the Kaiser denied, together with Chancellor von Bülow, von Trotha's request to quickly quell the rebellion.
No written order by Wilhelm II ordering or authorising genocide has survived. In February 1945 an Allied bombing raid destroyed the building housing all of the documents of the Prussian Army from the Imperial period.
Despite this fact, surviving documents indicate that Trotha used the same tactics in Namibia that he had used in China, only on a much vaster scale. It is also known that throughout the genocide, Trotha sent regular reports to both the General Staff and to the Kaiser.
Historian Jeremy-Sarkin Hughes believes that regardless of whether or not a written order was given, the Kaiser must have given General von Trotha verbal orders. According to Hughes, the fact that Trotha was decorated and not court-martialed after the genocide had become public knowledge lends support to the thesis that he was acting under orders.
General von Trotha stated his proposed solution to end the resistance of the Herero people in a letter, before the Battle of Waterberg:
"I believe that the nation as such should be annihilated,
or, if this is not possible by tactical measures, have to be
expelled from the country. This will be possible if the water-
holes from Grootfontein to Gobabis are occupied.
The constant movement of our troops will enable us to
find the small groups of this nation who have moved
backwards, and destroy them gradually."
Trotha's troops defeated 3,000–5,000 Herero combatants at the Battle of Waterberg on 11th. and 12th. August 1904, but were unable to encircle and annihilate the retreating survivors.
The pursuing German forces prevented groups of Herero from breaking from the main body of the fleeing force, and pushed them further into the desert. As exhausted Herero fell to the ground, unable to go on, German soldiers killed men, women, and children. Jan Cloete, acting as a guide for the Germans, witnessed the atrocities committed by the German troops, and deposed the following statement:
"I was present when the Herero were defeated in a
battle in the vicinity of Waterberg. After the battle all
men, women, and children who fell into German hands,
wounded or otherwise, were mercilessly put to death.
Then the Germans set off in pursuit of the rest, and all
those found by the wayside and in the sandveld were
shot down and bayoneted to death.
The mass of the Herero men were unarmed and thus
unable to offer resistance. They were just trying to get
away with their cattle."
A portion of the Herero escaped the Germans and went to the Omaheke Desert, hoping to reach British Bechuanaland; fewer than 1,000 Herero managed to get there, where they were granted asylum by the British authorities.
To prevent them from returning, Trotha ordered the desert to be sealed off. German patrols later found skeletons around holes 13 m (43 ft) deep that had been dug in a vain attempt to find water. Some sources also state that the German colonial army systematically poisoned desert water wells.
Maherero and 500–1,500 men crossed the Kalahari into Bechuanaland where he was accepted as a vassal of the Batswana chief Sekgoma.
On the 2nd. October 1904, Trotha issued a warning to the Herero:
"I, the great general of the German soldiers, send this
letter to the Herero. The Herero are German subjects
no longer. They have killed, stolen, cut off the ears
and other parts of the body of wounded soldiers, and
now are too cowardly to want to fight any longer.
I announce to the people that whoever hands me one
of the chiefs shall receive 1,000 marks, and 5,000
marks for Samuel Maherero.
The Herero nation must now leave the country. If it
refuses, I shall compel it to do so with the 'long tube'
[cannon].
Any Herero found inside the German frontier, with or
without a gun or cattle, will be executed. I shall spare
neither women nor children. I shall give the order to
drive them away and fire on them. Such are my words
to the Herero people."
Trotha further gave orders that:
"This proclamation is to be read to the troops at roll-call,
with the addition that the unit that catches a captain will
also receive the appropriate reward, and that the shooting
at women and children is to be understood as shooting
above their heads, so as to force them to run away.
I assume absolutely that this proclamation will result in
taking no more male prisoners, but will not degenerate
into atrocities against women and children. The latter will
run away if one shoots at them a couple of times. The
troops will remain conscious of the good reputation of
the German soldier."
Trotha gave orders that captured Herero males were to be executed, while women and children were to be driven into the desert where their death from starvation and thirst was to be certain.
Trotha argued that there was no need to make exceptions for Herero women and children, since these would "infect German troops with their diseases."
Trotha explained that:
"The insurrection is and remains
the beginning of a racial struggle."
After the war, Trotha argued that his orders were necessary, writing in 1909 that:
"If I had made the small water holes accessible
to the womenfolk, I would run the risk of an African
catastrophe comparable to the Battle of Beresonia."
The German general staff were aware of the atrocities that were taking place; its official publication, named Der Kampf, noted that:
"This bold enterprise shows up in the most brilliant
light the ruthless energy of the German command
in pursuing their beaten enemy.
No pains, no sacrifices were spared in eliminating
the last remnants of enemy resistance. Like a
wounded beast the enemy was tracked down from
one water-hole to the next, until finally he became
the victim of his own environment.
The arid Omaheke Desert was to complete what
the German army had begun: the extermination of
the Herero nation."
Alfred von Schlieffen (Chief of the Imperial German General Staff and architect of the Great War Schlieffen Plan) approved of Trotha's intentions in terms of a "racial struggle" and the need to wipe out the entire nation or to drive them out of the country, but had doubts about his strategy, preferring their surrender.
Governor Leutwein, later relieved of his duties, complained to Chancellor von Bülow about Trotha's actions, seeing the general's orders as intruding upon the civilian colonial jurisdiction, and ruining any chance of a political settlement.
According to Professor Mahmood Mamdani of Columbia University, opposition to the policy of annihilation was largely due to the fact that colonial officials looked at the Herero people as a potential source of labour, and thus economically important. For instance, Governor Leutwein wrote that:
"I do not concur with those fanatics who want to
see the Herero destroyed altogether. I would
consider such a move a grave mistake from an
economic point of view. We need the Herero as
cattle breeders, and especially as labourers.
Having no authority over the military, Chancellor Bülow could only advise Emperor Wilhelm II that:
"Trotha's actions are contrary to Christian and
humanitarian principle, economically devastating
and damaging to Germany's international
reputation".
Upon the arrival of new orders at the end of 1904, prisoners were herded into labor camps, where they were given to private companies as slave labourers, or exploited as human guinea pigs in medical experiments.
Concentration Camps
Survivors of the massacre, the majority of whom were women and children, were eventually put in places like Shark Island concentration camp, where the German authorities forced them to work as slave labour for the German military and settlers.
All prisoners were categorised into groups fit and unfit for work, and pre-printed death certificates indicating "death by exhaustion following privation" were issued. The British government published their well-known account of the German genocide of the Nama and Herero peoples in 1918.
Many Herero and Nama died of disease, exhaustion, starvation and malnutrition. Estimates of the mortality rate at the camps are between 45% and 74%.
Food in the camps was extremely scarce, consisting of rice with no additions. As the prisoners lacked pots and the rice they received was uncooked, it was indigestible. Horses and oxen that died in the camp were later distributed to the inmates as food.
Dysentery and lung diseases were common. Despite the living conditions, the prisoners were taken outside the camp every day for labour under harsh treatment by the German guards, while the sick were left without any medical assistance or nursing care. Many Herero and Nama were worked to death.
Shootings, hangings, beatings, and other harsh treatment of the forced labourers (including use of sjamboks) were common. A sjambok is a long, stiff whip, originally made from rhinoceros hide.
A 28th. September 1905 article in the South African newspaper Cape Argus detailed some of the abuse with the heading:
"In German S. W. Africa: Further Startling
Allegations: Horrible Cruelty".
In an interview with Percival Griffith, "an accountant of profession, who owing to hard times, took up on transport work at Angra Pequena, Lüderitz", related his experiences:
"There are hundreds of them, mostly women and
children and a few old men. When they fall they are
sjamboked by the soldiers in charge of the gang,
with full force, until they get up.
On one occasion I saw a woman carrying a child
of under a year old slung at her back, and with a
heavy sack of grain on her head - she fell.
The corporal sjamboked her for certainly more
than four minutes and sjamboked the baby as well.
The woman struggled slowly to her feet, and went
on with her load.
She did not utter a sound the whole time, but the
baby cried very hard."
During the war, a number of people from the Cape (in modern-day South Africa) sought employment as transport riders for German troops in Namibia. Upon their return to the Cape, some of these people recounted their stories, including those of the imprisonment and genocide of the Herero and Nama people. Fred Cornell, an aspiring British diamond prospector, was in Lüderitz when the Shark Island concentration camp was being used. Cornell wrote of the camp:
"Cold – for the nights are often bitterly cold there –
hunger, thirst, exposure, disease and madness
claimed scores of victims every day, and cartloads
of their bodies were every day carted over to the
back beach, buried in a few inches of sand at low
tide, and as the tide came in the bodies went out,
food for the sharks."
Shark Island was the worst of the German South West African camps. Lüderitz lies in southern Namibia, flanked by desert and ocean. In the harbour lies Shark Island, which then was connected to the mainland by only a small causeway.
The island is now, as it was then, barren and characterised by solid rock carved into surreal formations by the ocean winds. The camp was placed on the far end of the relatively small island, where the prisoners would have suffered complete exposure to the strong winds that sweep Lüderitz for most of the year.
German Commander Ludwig von Estorff wrote in a report that approximately 1,700 prisoners (including 1,203 Nama) had died by April 1907.
In December 1906, four months after their arrival, 291 Nama died (a rate of more than nine people per day). Missionary reports put the death rate at 12–18 per day; as many as 80% of the prisoners sent to Shark Island eventually died there.
There are accusations of Herero women being coerced into sex slavery as a means of survival.
Trotha was opposed to contact between natives and settlers, believing that the insurrection was "the beginning of a racial struggle," and fearing that the colonists would be infected by native diseases.
Benjamin Madley has concluded that although Shark Island is referred to as a concentration camp, it in fact functioned as an extermination camp or death camp.
Medical Experiments and Scientific Racism
Prisoners were used for medical experiments, and their illnesses or their recoveries from them were used for research.
Experiments on live prisoners were performed by Dr. Bofinger, who injected Herero who were suffering from scurvy with various substances including arsenic and opium; afterwards he researched the effects of these substances via autopsy.
Experimentation with the dead body parts of the prisoners was rife. Zoologist Leonhard Schultze (1872–1955) noted taking "body parts from fresh native corpses" which according to him, was "a welcome addition." He also noted that he could use prisoners for that purpose.
An estimated 300 skulls were sent to Germany for experimentation, in part from concentration camp prisoners. In October 2011, after three years of talks, the first 20 of an estimated 300 skulls stored in the museum of the Charité were returned to Namibia for burial. In 2014, 14 additional skulls were repatriated by the University of Freiburg.
The Number of Victims
A census conducted in 1905 revealed that 25,000 Herero remained in German South West Africa.
According to the Whitaker Report, the population of 80,000 Herero had been reduced to 15,000 "starving refugees" by 1907. In 'Colonial Genocide and Reparations Claims in the 21st. Century: The Socio-Legal Context of Claims under International Law by the Herero against Germany for Genocide in Namibia' by Jeremy Sarkin-Hughes, the number of 100,000 victims is given. Up to 80% of the indigenous population were killed.
A political cartoon on German South West Africa was run in 1906 with the following caption:
"Even if it hasn't brought in much profit and
there are no better quality goods on offer,
at least we can use it to set up a bone-
grinding plant."
Newspapers in 2004 reported 65,000 victims when announcing that Germany officially recognized the genocide.
Aftermath of the Genocide
With the closure of the concentration camps, all surviving Herero were distributed as labourers for settlers in the German colony. From that time on, all Herero over the age of seven were forced to wear a metal disc with their labour registration number. They were also banned from owning land or cattle, a necessity for pastoral society.
About 19,000 German troops were engaged in the conflict, of which 3,000 saw combat. The rest were used for upkeep and administration.
The German losses were 676 soldiers killed in combat, 76 missing, and 689 dead from disease. The Reiterdenkmal (English: Equestrian Monument) in Windhoek was erected in 1912 to celebrate the victory and to remember the fallen German soldiers and civilians. Until after Independence, no monument was built to the killed indigenous population. It remains a bone of contention in independent Namibia.
The campaign cost Germany 600 million marks. The normal annual subsidy to the colony was 14.5 million marks. In 1908, diamonds were discovered in the territory, and this did much to boost its prosperity, though it was short-lived.
In 1915, during the Great War, the German colony was taken over and occupied by the Union of South Africa, which was victorious in the South West Africa campaign. South Africa received a League of Nations mandate over South West Africa on the 17th. December 1920.
Link Between the Herero Genocide and the Holocaust
The Herero genocide has commanded the attention of historians who study issues of continuity between the Herero genocide and The Holocaust of WWII. It is argued that the Herero genocide set a precedent in Imperial Germany that would later be followed by Nazi Germany's establishment of death camps.
According to Benjamin Madley, the German experience in South West Africa was a crucial precursor to Nazi colonialism and genocide. He argues that personal connections, literature, and public debates served as conduits for communicating colonialist and genocidal ideas and methods from the colony to Germany.
Tony Barta, a research associate at La Trobe University, argues that the Herero genocide was an inspiration for Hitler in his war against the Jews, Slavs, Romani, and others whom he described as "non-Aryans".
According to Clarence Lusane, Eugen Fischer's medical experiments can be seen as a testing ground for medical procedures which were later followed during the Nazi Holocaust.
Fischer later became chancellor of the University of Berlin, where he taught medicine to Nazi physicians. Otmar von Verschuer was a student of Fischer; Verschuer himself had a prominent pupil, Josef Mengele.
Franz Ritter von Epp, who was later responsible for the liquidation of virtually all Bavarian Jews and Roma as governor of Bavaria, took part in the Herero and Nama genocide.
Mahmood Mamdani argues that the links between the Herero genocide and the Holocaust are beyond the execution of an annihilation policy and the establishment of concentration camps as there are also ideological similarities in the conduct of both genocides. He focuses on a written statement by General Trotha:
"I destroy the African tribes with streams
of blood. Only following this cleansing can
something new emerge, which will remain."
Mamdani takes note of the similarity between the aims of the General and of the Nazis. According to Mamdani, in both cases there was a Social Darwinist notion of "cleansing", after which "something new" would "emerge".
Reconciliation
In 1985, the United Nations' Whitaker Report classified the massacres as an attempt to exterminate the Herero and Nama peoples of South West Africa, and therefore one of the earliest cases of genocide in the 20th. century.
In 1998, German President Roman Herzog visited Namibia and met Herero leaders. Chief Munjuku Nguvauva demanded a public apology and compensation. Herzog expressed regret but stopped short of an apology. He pointed out that international law requiring reparation did not exist in 1907, but he undertook to take the Herero petition back to the German government.
On the 16th. August 2004, on the 100th, anniversary of the start of the genocide, a member of the German government, Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany's Federal Minister for Economic Development and Cooperation, officially apologised and expressed grief about the genocide, declaring in a speech that:
"We Germans accept our historical and
moral responsibility and the guilt incurred
by Germans at that time.
She ruled out paying special compensation, but promised continued economic aid for Namibia which in 2004 amounted to $14M a year. This amount has been significantly increased since then, with the budget for the years 2016–17 allocating a sum total of €138M in monetary support payments.
The Trotha family travelled to Omaruru in October 2007 by invitation of the royal Herero chiefs and publicly apologised for the actions of their relative. Wolf-Thilo von Trotha said,
"We, the von Trotha family, are deeply ashamed
of the terrible events that took place 100 years
ago. Human rights were grossly abused that time."
Negotiations and Agreement
The Herero filed a lawsuit in the United States in 2001 demanding reparations from the German government and Deutsche Bank, which financed the German government and companies in Southern Africa.
With a complaint filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in January 2017, descendants of the Herero and Nama people sued Germany for damages in the United States. The plaintiffs sued under the Alien Tort Statute, a 1789 U.S. law often invoked in human rights cases. Their proposed class-action lawsuit sought unspecified sums for thousands of descendants of the victims, for the "incalculable damages" that were caused.
Germany seeks to rely on its state immunity as implemented in US law as the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, arguing that, as a sovereign nation, it cannot be sued in US courts in relation to its acts outside the United States. In March 2019, the judge dismissed the claims due to the exceptions to sovereign immunity being too narrow for the case.
In September 2020, the Second Circuit stated that the claimants did not prove that money used to buy property in New York could be traced back to wealth resulting from the seized property, and therefore the lawsuit could not overcome Germany's immunity. In June 2021, the Supreme Court declined to hear a petition to revive the case.
Germany, while admitting brutality in Namibia, at first refused to call it a "genocide", claiming that the term only became international law in 1945.
However, in July 2015, then foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier issued a political guideline stating that the massacre should be referred to as a "war crime and a genocide". Bundestag president Norbert Lammert wrote an article in Die Zeit that same month referring to the events as a genocide. These events paved the way for negotiations with Namibia.
In 2015, the German government began negotiations with Namibia over a possible apology, and by 2016, Germany committed itself to apologizing for the genocide, as well as to refer to the event as a genocide; but the actual declaration was postponed while negotiations stalled over questions of compensation.
On the 11th. August 2020, following negotiations over a potential compensation agreement between Germany and Namibia, President Hage Geingob of Namibia stated that the German government's offer was "not acceptable", while German envoy Ruprecht Polenz said:
"I am still optimistic that a
solution can be found."
On the 28th. May 2021, the German government announced that it was formally recognizing the atrocities committed as a genocide, following five years of negotiations. The declaration was made by foreign minister Heiko Maas, who also stated that Germany was asking Namibia and the descendants of the genocide victims for forgiveness.
In addition to recognizing the events as a genocide, Germany agreed to give as a "gesture of recognition of the immeasurable suffering" €1.1 billion in aid to the communities impacted by the genocide.
Following the announcement, the agreement needs to be ratified by both countries' parliaments, after which Germany will send its president, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, to officially apologize for the genocide. The nations agreed not to use the term "reparation" to describe the financial aid package.
The agreement was criticized by the chairman of the Namibian Genocide Association, Laidlaw Peringanda, who insisted that Germany should purchase their ancestral lands back from the descendants of the German settlers and return it to the Herero and Nama people.
The agreement was also criticized because negotiations were held solely between the German and Namibian governments, and did not include representatives of the Herero and Nama people.
Repatriation of the Skulls
Peter Katjavivi, a former Namibian ambassador to Germany, demanded in August 2008 that the skulls of Herero and Nama prisoners of the 1904–1908 uprising, which were taken to Germany for scientific research to claim the superiority of white Europeans over Africans, be returned to Namibia.
Katjavivi was reacting to a German television documentary which reported that its investigators had found more than 40 of these skulls at two German universities, among them probably the skull of a Nama chief who had died on Shark Island.
In September 2011 the skulls were returned to Namibia. In August 2018, Germany returned all of the remaining skulls and other human remains which were examined in Germany to scientifically promote white supremacy. This was the third such transfer, and shortly before it occurred, German Protestant bishop Petra Bosse-Huber stated:
"Today, we want to do what should have been
done many years ago – to give back to their
descendants the remains of people who
became victims of the first genocide of the
20th. century."
As part of the repatriation process, the German government announced on the 17th. May 2019 that it would return a stone symbol it took from Namibia in the 1900's.
The Genocide in the Media
-- A BBC documentary, 'Namibia – Genocide and the Second Reich' (2005), explores the Herero and Nama genocide and the circumstances surrounding it.
-- In the documentary '100 Years of Silence', filmmakers Halfdan Muurholm and Casper Erichsen portray a 23-year-old Herero woman, whose great-grandmother was raped by a German soldier. The documentary explores the past and the way Namibia deals with it now.
-- Mama Namibia, a historical novel by Mari Serebrov, provides two perspectives of the 1904 genocide in German South West Africa. The first is that of Jahohora, a 12-year-old Herero girl who survives on her own in the veld for two years after her family is killed by German soldiers. The second story is that of Kov, a Jewish doctor who volunteered to serve in the German military to prove his patriotism. As he witnesses the atrocities of the genocide, he rethinks his loyalty to the Fatherland.
-- Thomas Pynchon's novel 'V'. (1963) has a chapter that included recollections of the genocide; there are memories of events that took place in 1904 in various locations, including the Shark Island concentration camp.
-- Jackie Sibblies Drury's play, 'We Are Proud To Present a Presentation About the Herero of Namibia Between the Years 1884–1915', is about a group of actors developing a play about the Herero and Nama genocide.
This photo is published under Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike Licence, means you are free to use this photo with attribution under same licence. For credits, please use following;
Owner: Thai National Parks
Oor Wullie (English: Our Willie) is a Scottish comic strip published in the D.C. Thomson newspaper The Sunday Post.
It features a character called Wullie Russell .
Wullie is the familiar Scots nickname for boys named William.
His trademarks are spiky hair, dungarees and an upturned bucket, which he uses as a seat - most strips since early 1937 begin and end with a single panel of Wullie sitting on his bucket.
The earliest strips, with little dialogue, ended with Wullie complaining ("I nivver get ony fun roond here!").
The artistic style settled down by 1940 and has changed little since. A frequent tagline reads, "Oor Wullie! Your Wullie! A'body's Wullie!" (Our Willie! Your Willie! Everybody's Willie!).
Created by Thomson editor R. D. Low and drawn by cartoonist Dudley D. Watkins, the strip first appeared on 8 March 1936.
Watkins continued to draw Oor Wullie until his death in 1969, after which the Post recycled his work into the 1970s.
New strips were eventually commissioned from Tom Lavery, followed by Peter Davidson and Robert Nixon. Ken H. Harrison drew the strip from 1989 until 1997, when Davidson resumed duties.
Between January 2005 and 2006 storylines were written by broadcaster Tom Morton from his home in Shetland,[1] and subsequently they were written by Dave Donaldson, managing director of Thomson's comics division.
The current writer is former Dandy editor Morris Heggie.
The Oor Wullie bucket Trail begins on the 17th June 2019 and is even bigger than the last one 3 years ago.
In 2016 Dundee held a bucket trail with over 50 sculptures all painted with different designs to celebrate 80 years of Oor Wullie.
This was a huge success with the sculptures raising over £800,000 at auction for the local childrens charity.
They have decided to bring it back this year but on a far bigger scale with 150 sculptures and this time you will be able to find them not only in Dundee, but Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and a few dotted in other towns and cities across the country.
At the end of the summer these will once again be auctioned off and the money will be split between 3 childrens charities.
Oor Wullie’s BIG Bucket Trail runs for 11 weeks from 17th June 2019 – 30th August 2019, culminating in a series of Farewell Events and nationwide auctions in each of the five host cities, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee, Aberdeen and Inverness.
Scotland’s first ever national public art trail aims to unite the country as it raises awareness and vital funds for Scotland’s children’s hospital charities.
Funds raised through the trail will support Glasgow Children’s Hospital Charity,Edinburgh Children’s Hospital Charity,and the ARCHIE Foundation, helping children in hospital across the country.
Oor Wullie’s BIG Bucket Trail is a Wild in Art event, and would not be possible without the support of DC Thomson Media.
Mammút
Icelandic Showcase
CMJ Music Fest
New York City
November 2015
© 2015 LEROE24FOTOS.COM
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED,
BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED.
Published: ettg.eu/corona-virus-covid19/profiteers-of-the-pandemic-c...
www.politicalresearch.org/2020/06/02/globalist-within
Frankfurt Kaufland.
The Spiegel and all other politically correct German media are fighting against fake-news and conspiracy theories. But the Spiegel implies, without proof, that the corona virus in China was intentionally constructed. A conspiracy theory.
The program that was published when this building was dedicated in 1912 included the following:
History of the NSGW Building
by Lewis F. Byington, Past Grand President
The new Native Sons’ Building, just completed and situated on the east side of Mason Street, between Geary and Post Streets, is unquestionably the best appointed and arranged fraternal building in California, and for the lodge and social purposes the most centrally located of any in San Francisco. It stands on the same block as the St. Francis Hotel and within a radius of two blocks are Union Square at the heart of the city, the Hotel Bellevue, the Stewart Hotel, the Olympic Club, the Bohemian Club, the Union League Club, and the Elks’ Club, the Columbia, Alcazar and Orpheum Theatres, and most of the leading hotels, clubs, restaurants, and places of amusement in San Francisco.
It is a “Class A,” steel frame structure, eight stories in height, with a beautiful and ornamented façade of granite, terra cotta and brick. Around the two main entrances to the building are placed medallions of distinguished men, who are thus honored and commemorated for their services in connection with the discovery and civilization of California. They are: Cabrillo, discoverer of California; Father Junipero Serra, civilizer and founder of missions; General John A. Sutter, typical pioneer; General John C. Fremont, U.S.A., the Pathfinder; Admiral John Drake Sloat, U.S.N., who raised the American flag at Monterey; James W. Marshall, the discoverer of gold; Peter Burnett, the first American governor of California; General M. G. Vallejo, typical Hispano-Californian; General A. M. Winn, Founder of the Order of the Native Sons of the Golden West.
Set in the front of the building at the height of the second story are six terra cotta panels, the work of Domingo Mora and his son, Joseph J. Mora, artistically designed and depicting important historical events, namely: “The Discovery of California”; “Civilization”; “The Raising of the Bear Flag”; “The Raising of the American Flag”; “The Pioneers”; “The Discovery of Gold.” The sculptured heads of grizzly bears, which mark the line of the third floor, have been designed as emblematic of California, while the sculptured phoenix, placed over the doorways, typifies San Francisco.
The phoenix was a wonderful bird, fabled to exist for 500 years, the only of its kind. It built a funeral pile of spices and aromatic gums, lighted the pile with the fanning of its wings, and was burned upon it, but from its ashes revived in the freshness of youth. It is the emblematic bird of San Francisco, adopted and placed upon its seal in early days after the city had been four times destroyed by fire. During a recent visit to Europe, Mr. James D. Phelan, the president of the Hall association, found in the Vatican at Rome the most ancient sculptured representation of the phoenix and which is attributed to the famous Greek sculptor Praxiteles. Mr. Phelan secured a splendid reproduction in marble of this work of art and presented it to the Hall Association, and it is now in the new building.
The building contains one of the largest and best-appointed assembly halls for dances, concerts and entertainments in California; also fourteen well-lighted, handsomely furnished, and artistically arranged lodge rooms; the offices of the Grand Secretary; Library and Reading Rooms. Over the main assembly hall is the largest steel truss ever built in California, and which supports the floors above. The eighth floor is arranged for club room purposes and is admirably designed for this object. The rooms are spacious, high and well lighted, both from above and from the front and sides. In the front an artistic loggia has been placed from which the city to the west may be viewed, while at the rear a pergola, over which vines will be twined, furnishes an artistic, sheltered, open-air places for the members to sit. The Grand Parlor has taken steps to secure all books, data and records bearing upon the history and development of California and these doubtless will be stored here. In time, an Historical Museum will also be maintained within the building.
In the main hall are twenty circular windows, which it has been decided to use for art glass portraits of twenty Native Sons and Native Daughters who have won distinction in the arts and sciences, literature and drama. The names of the following have so far been selected: Gertrude Atherton, literature; Sybil Sanderson, music; Mary Anderson, drama. Upon the walls of the upper floors will be hung portraits of the distinguished men and women, not natives of California, who have in this State won distinction in literature, science and the arts. The grandeur of the Yosemite and our mountains and lakes may also be depicted upon other windows and these features will add materially to the beauty of our building and will make it unique among the structures of the country. The building will stand as the home of the Order in the State, and as the noblest and most enduring monument to the perpetuity of the organization and for the advancement of its principles of Friendship, Loyalty and Charity.
The architects of the building are Righetti and Headman (E.H. Hildebrand, associate). The superintendant of construction was Mr. P.J. Walker and his foreman Mr. J.S. Fifield.
Since the destruction of the Native Sons’ Building by the fire of April 18, 1906, it has been the desire of the members to see erected in this city, and upon the lot where that building stood, a home for the fraternity, within which the local lodges may meet and where members from all over California may find an hospitable welcome amidst pleasant and comfortable surroundings. That desire has now been realized.
The Hall Association of the Native Sons of the Golden West was incorporated April 5, 1893, for the purpose of securing a site upon which to erect a home for the Order. The first Board of Directors selected was composed of the following members of the fraternity: John H. Grady, Henry Lundstedt, Dr. C.W. Decker, W.W. Shannon, T.E. Keough, George D. Clark, John T. Greany, John A. Steinbach, W.H. Miller, J.R. Kropp, Adolph Eberhart, Lewis F. Byington, T. C. Conmy, John H. Nelson, T.P. Leonard, Joseph B. Keenan, H..J. Seitz, G.H.S. Dryden, W. J. Wynn, W. E. Foley, Daniel Suter, C.H. Hobson, J.P. Donovan, R. Horber, C.H. Mass, J.W. Reinfeld, H.G.W. Dinkelspiel, Sol. Bloom, J.R. Howell, Louis Nonnenmann, H.E. Coffey, Jas. P. Sweeney, L.L. Dennery, L.M. Bannan, W.P. Johnson, and A.E. Holmes.
The Association purchased from the Congregation Ohabai Shalome, for $42,500, the lot located on the east side of Mason Street, sixty-eight feet and nine inches north of Geary Street, and having a frontage of sixty-eight feet and nine inches and a depth of one hundred and thirty-seven feet and six inches. One of the first synagogues erected in this city stood upon the lot.
Competitive plans for a lodge building were invited and those submitted by Mr. A.C. Lutgens were selected and the handsome five-story “Class C” building erected which stood until destroyed in the early morning of April 19, 1906, by the disastrous fire which then swept the city. It was erected at a cost of about $82,000, and contained a large assembly hall, the offices of the Grand Secretary, the Library and Reading Room and seven lodge rooms. The corner stone was laid on Washington’s birthday, 1895, and the building was dedicated February 9, 1896. Shortly after its completion, Irving M. Scott presented to the Hall Association a magnificent painting by William Keith, California’s greatest landscape artist. It depicted one of California’s fruitful valleys and was entitled “The Heritage of the Native Sons.” It was burned with the building.
When the Association concluded to rebuild upon the old site, it was determined to erect a “Class A” building in line with the spirit of progress which animated the citizens of the new San Francisco. The capital stock of the Association was, therefore, increased to $400,000 (50,000 shares of a par value of $8.00 each).
The corner stone of the new building was laid February 22, 1911. It is the old corner stone saved from the fire with a new stone covering it. Upon the old stone appears the inscription:
HALL OF
NATIVE SONS OF THE GOLDEN WEST
WASHINGTON’S BIRTHDAY
A.D. 1895”
And upon the stone above is carved:
BUILDING DESTROYED BY FIRE, APRIL 19, 1906
CORNER STONE RELAID FEBRURARY 22, 1911
“Program: Dedication of NSGW Building 1912”. Published by NSGW, San Francisco, Cal.
Carolina Home and Garden Magazine recently ran a full feature on me in their magazine, so I thought I'd post the article for everyone to check out. The rest of the article is in another post linked in the first post below...
Public Enemy (PE)
September 16th, 2014
Brooklyn Bowl
Williamsburg, Brooklyn (NY)
© 2014 LEROE24FOTOS.COM
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED,
BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED.
BRINGING IN THE FEED
The crew at EC Farms loads bales in the Rural Municipality of Lorne in southern Manitoba.
A hard selection of some photos published at Y SIN EMBARGO magazine in a unique event. Curated by fernandoprats for the benefit of ****contrasted gallery.
10th-17th June, 2011.
*
Suggested music : leyendecker, by Battles + salvaging, by Steven Wilson
*
Exhibition thread at the gallery . Cuéntale al mundo qué te ha parecido.
*
*
[ blank space for available sponsors ]
*
[Featuring]
Rosa Delia Guerrero, Leonie Polah, Ezook, Alain Vaisierre, Oriol Espinal, dou_ble_you, Jurek Durczak, fernandoprats, Azurebumble, Kozology, Françoise Lucas, Wilma Eras, Manuel Diumenjó, jef safi, Alicia Pallas, Brancolina, Augusto Rosa, Bill Horne, Thomas Hagström, Jacob Schere, Lawrence Roberts, Natalia Osiatynska, Susan Wolff, htakat, Sabine Portela, Mensaka, Julian Gomez, Jose Javier Gonzalez, Lucky Clov, Doris Stricher , Gabriel Magri, Olivier Gilet, Yves Moreaux, Teng Tan, Ron Herrema, Mara Carrión, R Galan, Yanomano, Nacho Piédrola, Inga Melnikova, barbara stumm, dba lehane, Patricia Gil, Lisa Kehoe, Alba Escayo, Zep Wernbacher, Simon Fröehlich, Zep Wernbacher, Francisco Neto, Thomas Zicola, Victor Obrist, JPCandelier, Nigel Christian, Ionah, Mark Valentine, Enric Leor, Sam Javanrouh and Boris.
published in Scorpio Jin Magazine.
Makeup: Michael Fels
Model: Lucy Jeanne @ Lizbell Agency
Accesories: The Bitch Can Stitch and Olivia the Wolf.
Producers are advised to select cattle based on the environment in which they are kept in terms of forage availability and grazing situations.
ELLIPHANT (Steve Madden Summer Music Series)
Rough Trade (Record Shop)
Williamsburg, Brooklyn (NY)
Thursday, August 4th, 2016
© 2016 LEROE24FOTOS.COM
For; LOVE ELLIPHANT
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED,
BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED.
A picture I took quite a while ago been published in Januarys issue of 'What Digital Camera' Magazine. The image quality is quite bad because of the magazine but the original image can be found Here
This picture was completely unedited also.
Published by W O Saul, Southbourne-on-Sea; printed in Germany.
Postally unused. I have two more: one postally unused and the other postmarked Westbourne, 1906.
The Library of Congress Theodore Roosevelt
I claim no rights other than colorizing this image if you wish to use let me know
Title
[Theodore Roosevelt, head-and-shoulders portrait, facing front] / Pach Bros.
Contributor Names
Pach Brothers (Firm), photographer
Created / Published
c1913 Aug. 15.
Subject Headings
- Roosevelt, Theodore,--1858-1919
Format Headings
Photographic prints--1910-1920.
Portrait photographs--1910-1920.
Notes
- J184704 U.S. Copyright Office.
- Title devised by Library staff.
- Blind stamp: Pach, New York, Broadway.
Medium
1 photographic print.
Call Number/Physical Location
PRES FILE - Roosevelt, Theodore--Portraits--Photographs--Bust [item] [P&P]
Repository
Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/pp.print
Digital Id
ppmsca 35696 //hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.35696
cph 3f06253 //hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/cph.3f06253
Library of Congress Control Number
2001697088
Reproduction Number
LC-DIG-ppmsca-35696 (digital file from original item) LC-USZC2-6253 (color film copy slide)
Rights Advisory
No known restrictions on publication.
Online Format
image
Description
1 photographic print.