Hertford Castle from Castle St
It’s now one hundred years since the grounds of Hertford Castle were opened to the public, the formal ceremony taking place on Saturday 27 July 1912. Before that time the Castle had been used primarily as a grand private residence. It comprised the former 15th century gatehouse, plus an elegant wing added in the 1780s. Though only a fragment of the former royal fortress, the residence was nonetheless referred to by everyone as “The Castle” and was regarded as a symbol of the town’s status as an Ancient Royal Borough. It was thus an event of considerable moment when in the autumn of 1911 the owner of Hertford Castle, Lord Salisbury, offered the property to the Hertford Corporation – the residence to be used as municipal offices, the grounds as a public garden.
Taking up his Lordship’s offer, however, proved to be far from straightforward. This article recounts the events surrounding the opening of Hertford Castle and in the process, provides an insight into how the town was run at that time and the social tensions which lay just below the surface.
The Cecil Dynasty
Hertford Castle was founded in the closing months of 1066. It was originally a simple motte-and-bailey construction, but in 1170, on the orders of Henry II, it was considerably upgraded and enlarged. For the next 400 years it was used principally as a royal residence and was visited by most of the Medieval and Tudor Monarchs. James I, however, had no interest in maintaining the property. The buildings within the inner bailey were demolished in about 1610, the moats filled in, and the gatehouse converted into a dwelling. Then in 1628 Charles I granted the whole property to William Cecil, 2nd Earl of Salisbury.
The fortunes of the Cecil family were founded in the Tudor period by William Cecil, chief minister to Elizabeth I, who was created Lord Burghley in 1571. His second son Robert was brought into the Queen’s service and went on to serve as chief minister to James I. In due course he was created Earl of Salisbury. In 1607, following an exchange of properties with his royal master, Robert came into possession of the old palace at Hatfield, and work started almost immediately on the construction of a magnificent new house.
Robert died in 1612 just before the house was completed. His immediate successors were generally undistinguished, but the family’s stock rose steadily during the 18th century and in 1789 the 7th Earl was elevated to a Marquess. Throughout Victorian times they fulfilled their role as one of the country’s leading political families, and did this so successfully that in due course the 3rd Marquess, Robert Cecil (1830-1903), rose to become Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary, leader of the Conservative Party, and Prime Minister.
Hertford’s connection with the Salisbury family was first established in 1605 when the Borough was granted a new charter by James I. Under this charter the King specified that the Borough was to appoint a “High Steward” and that in the first instance this office was to be granted to Robert Cecil. Thereafter the Corporation bestowed the office on each successive head of the Salisbury family, even when, as happened in 1694, the Earldom was inherited by a three year old boy. This tradition was finally broken in 1853 and the office was then held by members of other titled families in the district, namely the Townshends and Cowpers.1
Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (1830-1903)
The 3rd Marquess had little interest in county matters and was more than happy to leave such things to his wife. Lady Georgina, the 3rd Marchioness of Salisbury, thus became a formidable presence in the locality. She managed the huge mansion and estate at Hatfield, promoted improvements in the adjacent town, and organised a vast amount of entertaining. Whenever the family bestowed their presence on some civic occasion in Hertford, it was Lady Salisbury and some of her children who actually attended.
Hertford’s citizens accorded Lord and Lady Salisbury the respect due to such a noble family, but it was the Earl and Countess Cowper who really earned their affection. The 7th Earl Cowper was appointed High Steward in 1863 and for the next 40 years he served as a major benefactor to the town, being ably supported in this work by the Countess. By 1900, however, the leading members of Hertford Corporation must have been casting an eye to the future, for Earl Cowper, now in his mid-sixties, was in very poor health and had no immediate heir. Lord Salisbury was 70 years old, also in poor health and recently widowed. Waiting in the wings, however, was Lord Salisbury’s eldest son James Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1861-1947).
Educated at Eton and University College, Oxford, James Cecil was launched upon a political career while still in his early twenties. He served as Conservative MP for the Darwen division of Lancashire from 1885-92 and then for Rochester from 1893-1903, at which point he succeeded his father and entered the House of Lords. His son David Cecil later described him as being
intensely religious, dedicated to public activities, moved by passionate moral convictions, and liable to surprise one with an odd unexpected opinion. For the rest, he was a very attractive personality…with his light-limbed soldierly figure, his well-cut, clear-eyed countenance, his beautifully courteous manners and a boyish, candid sweetness of nature…
James Edward Hubert Cecil, 4th Marquess of Salisbury (1861-1947)
As regards his dedication to “public activities”, James Cecil was, unlike his father, ready to play his part on the county stage and the Hertford Corporation no doubt came to view him as a potential High Steward. The perfect opportunity to engage him in the affairs of Hertford arose in 1900. At that time Viscount Cranborne, in addition to being a MP, was also commanding officer of the Herts Militia and, following the outbreak of the Boer War in 1899, he served with the Battalion in South Africa. He was called home in October 1900 to serve in his father’s government and on 7 November the General Committee of Hertford Town Council agreed to present him with the freedom of the Borough. Viscount Cranborne graciously accepted the honour, though he chose to forego it until peace had been proclaimed, and thus it was not until July 1902 that the presentation was finally made at a glittering ceremony held in the Corn Exchange. He succeeded to the Marquisate in 1903 and, following the death of Earl Cowper two years later, he was offered and accepted the office of High Steward. The actual ceremony was carried out on 23 July 1906, the same day as the Prince and Princess of Wales came to Hertford to open the new wards at Christ’s Hospital.
The role of the High Steward in the governance of the borough was not altogether clear. The office of “Steward” was created in the early Middle Ages. His role was to preside over Borough and Manorial Courts, and ensure that the actions of these bodies were within the letter of the law. He was thus usually a trained lawyer. By the 17th century the office of Steward had become split between the “High Steward” and the “Deputy Steward” or “Recorder”. Generally speaking, the latter handled local administration, while the High Steward’s role was more ceremonial in nature. He was usually a man of considerable standing in the locality, and was expected to be a generous benefactor and a supporter of the town’s interests in high social and political circles. His appointment was usually for life. The office of High Steward in Hertford in 1906 was therefore purely honorary, but it nonetheless carried great prestige.
The Hertford Corporation
To modern eyes the services provided by Hertford Corporation or Town Council2 in 1912 seem quite modest. The bulk of its annual expenditure was devoted to the maintenance of roads and pavements, the provision of a mains water supply, and street lighting. Other functions included dealing with public health nuisances, collecting domestic refuse, and providing a fire service, a mortuary, and allotments for working class families. The Council also still performed its ancient role in managing the town’s markets and fairs.
Other community needs were met by a host of public institutions and private bodies. Education provision was largely handled by the church authorities. The Board of Guardians for the Hertford Poor Law Union was responsible for the relief of poverty. Other forms of need were met, to a greater or lesser extent, through various Provident and Friendly Societies, and through a host of charitable trusts established over the previous 300 years. Certain other social needs, such as Old Age Pensions, National Insurance and Labour Exchanges, had recently come into being and were administered by Government Departments.
The Town Council, therefore, was only one of several bodies responsible for meeting community needs. Many Council members, however, had a finger in one or more of these other pies. They might serve as Governors of the Grammar School; as Poor Law Guardians or trustees of the Hertford Provident Benefit Society or the Grass Money Charity; or as Magistrates on the Bench of the Borough Court. They took part in the running of the town’s political associations and their affiliated working men’s clubs. Many were heavily involved in the life of All Saints’ or St Andrew’s. They might take part in the activities of, say, the Hertford Literary and Debating Society or the Hertford School of Art, or they might give their support to one or more of the societies catering for music, drama or sport.
Hertford in 1912, therefore, was a community made up of numerous networks, all catering for the welfare of its inhabitants or helping to bring fulfilment to their lives in a host of different ways. It was not in any sense a democratic system. In fact, the existence of so many wheels-within-wheels meant that particular families were able to exert a considerable influence over the town’s affairs. Within such families, as the sons took over the day-to-day management of the family business, so their father would be free to play a prominent role in public life. By this means, the town came to be run by a relatively small group of affluent middle-aged and elderly men, whose families were often closely related.
The number of officials employed by Hertford Town Council was also, to modern eyes, surprisingly small. Traditionally, public bodies such as Borough Corporations, Parish Vestries and Turnpike Trusts had placed the administration of the authority in the hands of a local attorney. This arrangement was still evident in Hertford in 1912 where the solicitors Sworder & Longmore formed, in effect, the Town Clerk’s Department. For much of the 19th century the post of Town Clerk had been held by the head of the Longmore family. The current head, Charles Elton Longmore, had held the post until 1894 when he was appointed Clerk of the Peace for Hertfordshire. His place was then taken by his partner Thomas Sworder. Such time-honoured tradition was also evident in the case of the Borough Treasurer, Thomas Stalkart Carter. He too was an employee of Sworder & Longmore, and by 1912 had been in the post for some 42 years.
The character of local government was nonetheless changing rapidly during these years, with authorities coming under increasing pressure to take on new responsibilities, particularly in regard to public health. To this end Hertford Town Council was now obliged to engage officers with professional expertise, such as the Medical Officer of Health, Borough Surveyor and Sanitary Inspector.
As a consequence of this trend, the Council had an increasing need for office accommodation. Ever since it was built in the late 1760s, Shire Hall had doubled up as Hertford’s Town Hall. The Council had exclusive use of a room on the first floor, contained within the apse overlooking Fore Street, which they used for committee meetings. Meetings of the full Council took place in one of the courtrooms on the ground floor. It was not a convenient arrangement, especially in regard to keeping records. The offices of Sworder & Longmore housed the Town Clerk’s Department, while the Borough Surveyor worked from an office in the Wash.
The Corporation owned a number of properties on the west side of the Wash, the land having formerly been part of the castle moat. In 1907 the Council declared these properties to be outmoded and unworthy of a county town. The site occupied a central position within the town and would thus be eminently suitable as a location for new municipal buildings. A competition was held and about 100 plans submitted, the winner being the architect Charles Carter of Nottingham. His estimate for the development was £3500, but the Local Government Board refused to sanction the loan for this work.
The project stalled for some three years. Then in February 1911 the Council resolved to demolish the property and this work was soon carried out. The Council’s initial thoughts were to develop half the site for municipal buildings and let the remainder at a rent of £50 per annum. The demolition, however, had left the old curtain wall of the castle exposed to public view for the first time in 300 years. This change was greatly welcomed by at least one member of the public who commented in a letter to the Hertfordshire Mercury that:
With the removal of old houses in the Wash the burgesses are favoured with one of the most pretty views it has been my lot to see for many a day. Nothing could be more beautiful on walking up Maidenhead Street than the view of the old Castle, its ancient boundary wall and mound with the church of St Andrew in the distance and I trust that the representatives of the townspeople will see that this beautiful view is preserved to the town. Surely it would be better to make a nicely laid-out open space than to erect costly municipal buildings which, in the opinion of numbers of townspeople and ratepayers are not required and which would only be a burden.
This idea seems to have become a talking point in the town and it received support in another letter published by the Mercury the following week. The correspondent went on to consider how matters could be arranged. “The most natural solution seems to me to be,” he wrote,
for the town to acquire the Castle and its grounds. Some of the apartments could very suitably be used for a Museum, others for borough offices. The grounds would make an excellent town garden, where the band could play on Thursday evenings in the summer… Should such a scheme be inaugurated this year, it would be an excellent memorial of the Coronation of King George V. It would add immensely to the attraction of the town, both as a residential borough and a place for visitors. It might very well be arranged to open up a front entrance to the grounds from the Wash, so that the view should remain. Even then there would be room for a very valuable building site to compensate in some measure for the improvements.
As with most such letters to the Mercury at this time, the author chose not to reveal his identity. Nonetheless, his suggestion was, in the event, followed remarkably closely. It later transpired that someone described by the Mercury as “a much esteemed townsman, who desires to remain anonymous”, offered to contribute about one-half of the cost of acquiring the Castle, if the remainder could be raised by donations or obtained on loan for a long term of years. Thus in May the Mayor, Alexander Purkiss Ginn, approached Lord Salisbury to see whether he would be willing to sell. His Lordship declined to do so. The Castle, he said, was one of his family’s oldest and most precious possessions, having been granted to his ancestor by the Crown, and he did not feel he could relinquish his ownership of it. Nonetheless, he regarded the idea of it being put to public use as being very laudable, and so he offered to lease it to the Corporation for a period of 75 years at a peppercorn rent of 2/6d a year.
This offer was speedily accepted by the Town Council at a special meeting held on 28 June 1911. They also passed a lavishly worded vote of thanks. Lord Salisbury subsequently wrote to the Mayor, thanking him for the vote of thanks and expressing his wish that “Hertford Castle in its new status as devoted to the service of the public may be a monument of the friendly feelings with which the ancient Borough has always been willing to regard me and mine long after we are passed away and others sit in our place.” The legal preliminaries were soon settled and the deeds signed by Councillor Ginn just before he relinquished his Mayoral office in November 1911.
Financial Issues
Purkiss Ginn was succeeded as Mayor by Dr James Burnett Smith. He had come to live in Hertford in 1908 and had been elected to the Council the following year. A Scotsman of 53, he was married to the renowned novelist Annie Swan, and lived at 50 St Andrew Street opposite the church. He was presumably looking forward to playing a leading role at the formal celebrations for the opening of Hertford Castle.
Before then, however, the Council had a number of issues to address. The income which the Council raised via the rates and other charges just about kept pace with its revenue expenditure. Anyone who suggested increasing the rates to finance some new initiative was certain to bring down a storm of protest. Capital expenditure, therefore, was usually met by raising a loan. Loans, however, had to be sanctioned by the Local Government Board, who would be mindful of the authority’s existing debt burden and, as was the case with the proposed new building in the Wash, the Board’s sanction was not always forthcoming. An alternative approach was to try and finance the project through public donations or, better still, through the munificence of some wealthy benefactor. The latter approach had, of course, proved remarkably successful in the case of Hertford Castle. Nonetheless, in accepting Lord Salisbury’s gift, the Council was committing itself to maintaining the property and laying it out for public use, and this would inevitably add to the rate burden.
A major issue was the creation of a new public access to the Castle grounds. The entrance was to be from the Wash via the land owned by the Corporation (Fig 1). A gap had to be cut through the curtain wall, the site laid down as a public garden, and gates installed on the street frontage.
Fortunately, another local benefactor soon stepped forward to meet the expenditure entailed in this aspect of the scheme – namely, Osmond Henry McMullen, chairman of the town’s leading brewery.
It subsequently came to light that, when Councillor Ginn first approached Lord Salisbury about the Castle, he did so at Osmond’s suggestion. Indeed, Osmond may well have been the anonymous “much esteemed townsman” and possibly the Mercury’s anonymous correspondent whose suggested course of action was to be followed so closely. Now in his mid-seventies, Osmond had never taken an active role in the public life of the town, preferring instead to concentrate on running the family brewery, and leave public affairs to his brother and business partner, Alexander. The latter had died in 1902, but during his long life he had been closely involved in many of the town’s public institutions. He had served on the Council for nearly 30 years, been three times Mayor, and had promoted many undertakings to improve the life and health of the citizens. He had also lived at the Castle. Thus at the opening ceremony in July 1912, Osmond revealed that his gift was motivated in part by the memory of his brother and partner who “was so closely associated with the Castle, in which he lived for many years”, as well as by the opportunity it afforded “of showing in a small degree how much I for one appreciated Lord Salisbury’s splendid gift.”
Looking more to the long term, the Council had to consider how it was going to meet the cost of maintenance. If the grounds were open to the public seven days a week, the cost of maintenance would have to be met entirely out of the rates. That sum could be offset, however, if the grounds were let to local clubs at certain times of the week. That in turn would mean restricting public access at certain times, and it was not clear whether the Council had the power to do this under General Law. If not, then they would have to acquire such powers by means of a Private Parliamentary Act.
Many other boroughs had promoted Private Acts dealing with parks and pleasure grounds, and the Town Clerk, Thomas Sworder, was instructed to seek their advice. He reported back on 30 September 1911 that such Acts generally followed a stock form in regard to such matters as “providing apparatus for games, for which a charge can be made, the provision of seats and chairs which can also be charged for, erecting and providing pavilions and reading rooms, appointing park-keepers who can be sworn in as constables, and maintaining and improving gardens.” There was also sufficient precedent for permanently setting apart a portion of the grounds for games such as lawn tennis and bowls, and for excluding the public from that portion except on payment. There were, however, no clear precedents in regard to closing a pleasure ground, as a whole, to the general public at certain times of the week.
In view of the expense entailed in promoting a Private Bill, it seemed only sensible for the Council to include a number of other pressing concerns. One such concern related to Hartham. Every year the common was used for the holding of horse shows as well as the town fête and athletics meeting, and the legal status of these events was very unclear. The Bill, therefore, was seen as an ideal opportunity to regularise the situation. There were also a number of administrative matters relating to public health. The Town Clerk took these matters on board and on 20 October he presented the Council with a memorandum setting out all the heads of the proposed Bill. Those concerning the Castle are set out here.
For the Bill to be promoted during the next Parliamentary Session, it would need to be deposited by 17 December, so at their meeting on 11 November the General Committee instructed the Town Clerk to issue the requisite notices. In this regard, Sworder had to take account of the provisions of the Borough Funds Act 1903, under which a local authority seeking to promote a Private Parliamentary Bill had to obtain the agreement of the ratepayers. In the case of an ancient borough such as Hertford, the ratepayers were termed “burgesses”. Thus on the evening of Thursday 11 January 1912, a statutory public meeting was held at the Corn Exchange, whereby Hertford’s burgesses were called upon to approve the provisions of the “Hertford Corporation Bill”.
Public opposition to the scheme
In more distant times the burgesses of Hertford had comprised a select body of citizens, who had privileges and authority over the other inhabitants. The situation was regularised by the Municipal Corporations Act 1835, which introduced the elective principle into local government. Under the provisions of the Act, the term “burgess” was applied to the electors in the borough. The electors comprised those adult males who paid rates within the borough and who fulfilled certain residence qualifications. Further amendments to these provisions were made during the Victorian period. In particular, the municipal franchise was widened to include the tenants of rateable property. It also came to encompass unmarried women who fulfilled the property qualification. Thus by September 1911 there were 2461 persons registered on the Burgess Roll for Hertford, which meant that most households in the borough contained at least one person who had the right to vote in municipal elections. That in turn meant that the burgesses, as a body, now included men and women drawn from right across the social spectrum.
The wisdom of widening the franchise at both the parliamentary and municipal level had been a key political issue during the 19th century. A leading opponent of this move had been the 3rd Marquess of Salisbury. He took the view that the working class, once they held the major share of the vote, would naturally put members of their own class into power. Such men would not have the balanced judgment and experience of the traditional ruling class, and the result would be catastrophic for the nation at large. Such concerns had proved groundless. The working class were generally very deferential towards their betters and seemed content to vote them into power in both the parliamentary and municipal arena. During the Edwardian period, however, such deference began to give way to a far more belligerent mood, fuelled by controversies over education and women’s suffrage, the spread of socialism, growing industrial unrest, and deep-seated social problems relating to unemployment, hunger, bad housing, injustice and inequality.
This belligerent mood was much in evidence at the Corn Exchange in Hertford on the evening of 11 January 1912. The meeting was presided over by the Mayor, with most of the Council members present on the platform. Between 5-600 people attended and, in the words of the Mercury, the proceedings were of a “very lively character.” The Mayor proposed a series of resolutions approving the different parts of the Bill, but those relating to the Castle and Hartham were roundly rejected.
The burgesses present at the meeting represented only a quarter of those registered on the Burgess Roll. The Council’s next tactic, therefore, was to call a poll on the issue. The date was set for Wednesday 31 January. Over the following weeks the Council sought to clear up misunderstandings and allay fears over the Bill’s provisions. To this end, a meeting was held at the Bengeo Working Men’s Club, another at Cowbridge Hall under the auspices of the Pleasant Sunday Afternoon Brotherhood. There was also a conference held at Shire Hall between the Council and some 20 of their opponents, but they were unable to reach a satisfactory compromise. On 29 January the opposition distributed a circular, which contained alarmist allegations about the rate burden entailed in the upkeep of the Castle. These allegations were promptly repudiated in a statement issued by the Council the following day.
The poll duly took place on 31 January. There were four polling places open from 10am-8pm. The Mercury reported that:
During the daytime very little interest was taken in the event, and up to 5.00 only a comparatively small number had polled. In the last two hours, however, the working men came up briskly… Throughout the day the ‘Opposition’ had sandwichmen out with bills urging the people to vote against the Corporation, and some of them paraded the streets with Mr Rowley’s four-wheeled carriage on which were large posters bearing the lines:
Are we to be left lose out in the street,
With no shoes to wear and no food to eat,
And the burden of a Castle to bear?
Vote against your burden.
Counting took place at Shire Hall immediately after the close of the poll. The result was made known just before 9.30, whereupon the Mayor, as returning officer, was obliged to announce that the majority of the votes cast were opposed to the provisions of the Bill in respect of both the Castle and Hartham.
The Council deliberated further during the following weeks and at a special meeting held on 27 March they finally resolved to withdraw the Bill in its entirety. Alderman Alfred Baker, in seconding the motion, voiced the surprise felt by many at the depth of opposition to the Bill. On reflection, however, he thought they had been unwise in over-burdening the Bill with other matters.
The inclusion of provisions relating to Hartham had certainly been a mistake. Hartham had traditionally served as common grazing land, but in more recent times it had come to be used primarily for recreation. Nonetheless, the commoners were always violently opposed to any measures that might infringe their ancient rights. It was this which had fuelled the opposition to the Bill and amidst all the clamour, the provisions relating to Hartham had become totally confused in the public mind with those relating to the Castle.
The Bill’s rejection, however, was not due solely to Hartham. The Council also failed to anticipate the adverse reaction to its proposal for closing the Castle grounds four days a week. At the Corn Exchange meeting the Mayor tried to explain that by adopting this proposal, the Council would be able to raise revenue for the upkeep of the grounds; without it, the whole expense would fall on the ratepayers. What concerned his audience, however, was the idea that the Castle grounds, having been dedicated to all the townspeople, would actually become the preserve of the affluent middle class. Mr J. Bennett voiced their concerns when he said that, though he was a poor man, he would “willingly pay an extra threepenny rate rather than see the poor people kept out of the Castle grounds four days every week.” He added that there was a very nice lawn in the grounds and he wondered whether the members of the Corporation had got their eyes upon it for some ulterior purpose. (Laughter and cheers.) What was it for? Was it for Peg’s Lane or lawn tennis parties, croquet, and bowls? (Cheers and uproar.)
The strength of such class antagonism is difficult to gauge. In its report of the Corn Exchange meeting, the Mercury noted that the burgesses readily acknowledged Lord Salisbury’s generous gift and that, whenever his name was mentioned, there was enthusiastic cheering. It also commented that the meeting, “although noisy at times, was characterised by good humour throughout.” The meeting held at Cowbridge Hall was chaired by Councillor John Summers-Gill, who was subjected to a good deal of heckling but, according to the Mercury, he took this “in very good part and kept the meeting in excellent temper throughout.” The paper sometimes included a virtual script of the exchanges between councillors and burgesses, and these amounted to little more than light-hearted banter, accompanied by much audience participation.
The whole process, in fact, highlighted some fundamental problems in the democratic process. The provisions contained in the Borough Funds Act seemed eminently reasonable, but they presumed that a large majority of the ratepayers would attend the statutory public meeting and would give the matter serious and measured consideration before casting their vote. However, in an age before the advent of “home-entertainment systems”, people sought amusement in the most unlikely places, and public meetings were often looked upon primarily as a source of entertainment. The Council noted that, although some 5-600 burgesses attended the Corn Exchange meeting, at least half of them declined to vote and took no part in the debate. They attended simply as spectators. This was a feature of the other meetings too. Furthermore, the entertainment value of the occasion was enlivened by the unaccustomed spectacle of middle class councillors being forced to accept the wishes of their working class constituents. At the Corn Exchange meeting one of the burgesses reminded the Mayor that, under the Borough Funds Act, the control of the meeting was in the hands of the audience, not those on the platform, and there was much mirth when the Mayor replied: “We are not trying to take it out of your hands, but simply trying to lead you gently.”
It was also a fact that, then as now, most of the people attending a public meeting had no wish to spend time weighing up the issues; they were simply waiting to be told what to think. And, as with any such meeting, the mood of the audience could be easily swayed by the skill, charisma and comic flair of the activists in their midst. The men who came to the fore during the controversy over the Bill included two of the town’s publicans – Fred Roser of the Saracen’s Head in Ware Road and Owen Dean of the Ship Inn at Old Cross. But the person who really emerged as leader of the opposition was Walter Ramsey, 36 years old and owner of a fishmonger’s business at 8 St Andrew Street.
Ramsey was very active in town life, being a prominent member of the Hertford Working Men’s Liberal & Radical Club, and an enthusiastic member of the Hertford Town Fête Committee. He was also an enthusiastic angler and in his younger days served as a trooper in the Herts Yeomanry Cavalry. Perhaps because of his Liberal politics, Ramsey was vociferous in supporting the common rights of the people, and he now took a stand against the Corporation’s plans for Hartham.3 At the Corn Exchange meeting he violently objected to the Council calling a poll and climbed up on the stage to make his point. He attended the conference at the Town Hall where, with Dean, he claimed to represent the rights of Hartham. (Roser said he represented “the man in the street”.) Ramsey also attended the meeting at Cowbridge Hall where he asked a number of questions, and raised a loud cheer when he criticised “the extravagance of the Corporation in sending out circulars to the electors last week with penny stamps on them when a halfpenny stamp would have sufficed.”
Ramsey’s moment of triumph came on the night of the poll. As leader of the opposition, he had been allowed to attend the count at the Town Hall. When the Mayor appeared at the window to announce the result, Ramsey appeared at his side and waved his pocket handkerchief, at once indicating to the crowd below that the opposition had triumphed. Having upstaged the First Citizen, he was then carried through the streets shoulder high by his jubilant supporters.
Clearly, Ramsey and his friends found baiting the establishment a highly enjoyable experience, though, like many would-be revolutionaries, they were no doubt less than pleased when the lower orders started following their example. For, according to the Mercury, once the poll was declared, the “more rowdy element” went into Hartham and wantonly smashed the Corporation notice boards bearing the regulations relating to the Common. “Such lawless conduct,” the paper declared, “is much to be deprecated and it is to be hoped the offenders may be discovered and severely punished.”
The Mercury’s editor left no-one in any doubt that he regretted the result of the poll. He was especially scathing about the “unaccountable apathy” shown by a large section of the electorate.
Between eleven and twelve hundred of them – nearly half the number on the register – did not take the trouble to record their votes. If only a moiety of them had shown the interest which they might reasonably be expected to take in the place in which they live, the situation would have been saved, and the town would have been spared the indignity and ingratitude of spurning Lord Salisbury’s magnanimous offer.
By coincidence, the annual Mayor’s Banquet took place at Shire Hall on the evening following the poll. The occasion was attended not only by the members of the Corporation but by leading public figures in the town and county. The local MP was there and so too were several members of the clergy, but Lord Salisbury was unfortunately indisposed and had to send his apologies. An excellent dinner, served by Mr Gaunt of the Old White Hart Hotel, was followed by various toasts and speeches. The attitude of those present towards the poll result, was expressed by a local physician and former alderman, Dr Charles Shelly, who, in proposing the “The Health of the Mayor”, said that:
Having regard to the events of the previous day they ought not to be very cheerful, for he understood that the people of Hertford were thinking rather sadly of their misdeeds on Wednesday, which demonstrated not merely their lack of common sense, but their lack of historic sense. (Laughter and applause.) However, if the Mayor was the man he took him to be he was not going to be beaten by one encounter. (Cheers.) When this matter was thought over he thought that calmer counsels would prevail.
In responding to the toast, the Mayor said that the disappointment of the previous day had not dampened their spirits to any appreciable extent and, amidst much cheering, he resolved to find a way out of the impasse.
Bringing the scheme to fruition
The way out of the impasse proved surprisingly straightforward. Following their defeat at the poll, the Corporation withdrew the Bill and took advice from counsel on how they should proceed. It was discovered that they could, after all, take and hold the lease of Hertford Castle under the provisions of General Law; namely, the Municipal Corporations Act 1882. Furthermore, under the Borough Charters the Corporation had the power “to take and hold lands, tenements, and hereditaments, goods and chattels, and to make regulations for the government and disposition thereof.” This meant they were free to frame whatever regulations they chose with regard to Hertford Castle. In short, the Bill had been a complete waste of time and effort, and they could actually do all they wanted without having to bother with the burgesses. The Council formally agreed on 27 March to go ahead on this basis. The Mercury made no mention of any citizen being outraged at this news, so presumably by then the “opposition” had tired of the whole affair.
The Corporation soon settled matters with the current occupant of the Castle, Mr E.A. Hopkins, and once he had vacated the premises, the Council officials started moving in. Thus, by the time the grounds were formally opened in July, the Town Clerk, Borough Treasurer, Borough Surveyor, Sanitary Inspector, and Rate Collectors had taken up their quarters.
As regards the Town Clerk, the occasion coincided with the end of an era in the affairs of Hertford Corporation. For on Sunday 26 May, just after midday, Thomas Sworder accidentally slipped while coming down the stairs at his home, a large property called Balsams at the top of Queen’s Hill. He subsequently lapsed into a coma and died the following Wednesday. The suddenness of his death left the Council in something of a turmoil, especially as there was currently no-one of his stature in the employ of Sworder & Longmore who could step into his place. There was, however, another Hertford solicitor who was considered highly suitable and that was Alfred Baker. The fact that he was currently serving as an alderman on the Council was not seen as an impediment. He therefore hurriedly resigned from the Aldermanic Bench and, eschewing even the formality of advertising the post, the Council members unanimously appointed him as their new Town Clerk. It was thus Alfred Baker who was to have the honour of moving into the new municipal offices at the Castle.
In the meantime work went ahead on fashioning the new entrance from the Wash. A gap was made through the curtain wall at the rear of the site and the ragged edges encased within a pair of rather twee flint towers, each topped off with white stone crenulations. The tour-de-force of the work was the gateway constructed on the frontage to the Wash. It consisted of four octagonal piers with circular wing walls extending for some distance on either side. The two central piers were 12ft 6in high, each one surmounted by a lion rampant supporting a shield representing the arms of the borough. The gates were designed by the Hertford architect James Farley. The terra-cotta piers and walls were supplied and fixed by Doulton & Co. of the Lambeth Potteries, and the wrought-iron gates by Hill & Smith of Wolverhampton. The foundations and sub-structure were executed by local builders Ekins & Co.
The work was finished and the gardens laid out in time for the grand opening ceremony, which took place on Saturday 27 July. Lord and Lady Salisbury drove over from Hatfield in an open carriage. They were met at the borough boundary by a detachment of the Herts Yeomanry, under the command of Lieutenant Reginald Abel Smith. From there, they were escorted through the crowded streets to Shire Hall where they were received in state by the Mayor and Corporation, and by a Guard of Honour formed from a detachment of the 1st Battalion the Hertfordshire Regiment. A grand luncheon was then served in the Assembly Room, attended by the great and good of both town and county.
With luncheon concluded, a procession formed up outside Shire Hall: two trumpeters from the 4th Battalion the Bedfordshire Regiment, who blew a fanfare as they marched along; a detachment of the Herts Yeomanry dismounted; the Permanent Staff of the 4th Bedfords; the Hertford Grammar School Officers’ Training Corps with their bugle band; the Boy Scouts; the Hertford Fire Brigade; the Mayor and Corporation in State; and all the guests at the luncheon. The procession marched along Fore Street and then along the Wash to the new entrance to the Castle. There another Guard of Honour formed up, this time comprising the Band of the 1st Battalion the Hertfordshire Regiment who played a selection of music while people got into position.
A platform had been erected to the left of the gates and three men took their place upon it, these being the Mayor, Lord Salisbury and Osmond McMullen. The Mayor formally introduced Osmond to his Lordship as being an “old and highly respected citizen” whose public-spirited action had provided the town with this fine new entrance to the Castle. Osmond then addressed the crowd and spoke of his reasons for making his gift to the town. He then asked his Lordship to open the gates and for this purpose he handed him a gold key contained within a handsome leather case lined with silk and bearing an inscription on a gold plate. Lord Salisbury thereupon symbolically opened the gates.
With that task concluded, the procession reformed and wound its way round the Castle grounds and through the former residence. They eventually emerged onto the terrace overlooking the main lawn, where a platform had been erected for the final function of the day – the formal handing over of the Castle and grounds to the Corporation. The Mayor then presented Lord Salisbury with a gift from the Corporation of a replica of Hertford Castle made of silver. This was followed by a round of cheers for Lord and Lady Salisbury and Lord Cranbourne and then, led by the Reverend Killin Roberts, Rector of St Andrew’s, the crowd sang heartily “For they are jolly good fellows.” After that the crowd dispersed about the grounds and inspected the Castle, while the Band played a selection of music.
The ceremony, of course, was accompanied by much high flown speechifying and mutual self-congratulation, especially in the speeches made after the luncheon at Shire Hall. The concerns of the moment were not wholly absent from the occasion. The country had recently passed through a major constitutional crisis, whereby the Liberal Government had succeeded in curtailing the power of the House of Lords. Lord Salisbury had played a leading role in opposing the Government’s plans. In the speech he made after the luncheon he made no direct reference to the general political climate, but he clearly sought to use the occasion to emphasise the importance of tradition in the modern world. “Let us consider for one moment,” he said,
why you thought, and why I thought, that the Castle ought to be under the control of the Borough… Since the late Mayor (Mr A.P. Ginn) came to me about this matter I have learnt more about the Castle of Hertford than I ever knew before. (Laughter and applause.) I have realised what a vista of English history is associated with those ancient walls. Kings and Princes, Synods and Parliaments, and long successions of great historical associations are attached to the memories of Hertford Castle… It is evident that there, and there alone, ought to be gathered the strength and the love of the citizens for their ancient borough. (Applause.)… Those ancient people, Edward the Elder and Richard Fitzwalter, and so on, I dare say were corrupt and given to violence and a good deal of bloodshed, a deal of passion, a good deal of perfidy, and rebellion, but that was only one side of their history. There was also in them the beginnings and the makings of that great and strenuous race to which we belong. (Cheers.) There was the fight for the right, there was loyalty to the crown, devotion to the Church, and all those qualities which go to make a great nation. (Applause.)… Hertford has had its full share of that history, and it is in the hope that this centre of civic life which is to be devoted to the Corporation and citizens of Hertford from this day forth will remind each of us, and each of our successors in the generations which are to come, of the obligations and duties of British citizenship… (Applause.)
With the military pomp and high-flown speeches behind them, the Council set about the mundane task of administering the Castle grounds and drawing up regulations for their use. They were to be open daily to the public, but the Council reserved the right to close “all or any part thereof” when thought necessary. Children were not to be admitted inside the grounds except under the control of their parents or some adult person responsible for their behaviour. Dogs were not admitted except on a leash, bicycles and perambulators were not allowed on the grass, and so forth.
The Castle grounds thus passed into the everyday life of the town and have served ever since as a very pleasant setting for a range of leisure activities. Open days and special events are still held at the Castle during the summer, and these include guided tours of the gatehouse and the grounds. And, of course, throughout the year the gardens are still open during the day for people to enjoy a moment’s calm and to savour a little of the Castle’s history.
Notes:
1 The gentlemen appointed as High Stewards during this time were the 6th Earl Cowper (1853-6); the 4th Marquess Townshend (1856-63) and the 7th Earl Cowper (1863-1905).
2 Hertford as an Ancient Borough, was administered by the “Hertford Corporation”. In Victorian times this body also became known as “Hertford Town Council”. In its reports on Council affairs the Hertfordshire Mercury treated the terms “Corporation” and “Town Council” as interchangeable and this approach has been adopted in this article. Also the administration of both county and county town was carried on from the same building. Nonetheless, in its reports of County Council meetings, the Mercury would refer to the building as “Shire Hall”, whereas in its reports of Town Council meetings it would refer to it as the “Town Hall”. To avoid confusion the building is referred to throughout this article as “Shire Hall”.
3 When Walter Ramsey died in December 1928, his obituary in the Mercury stated that: “Although himself a keen bowls payer he even went so far as to oppose the making of a bowling green on Hartham, but afterwards lived to enjoy his favourite pastime on the green there.”
Sources of Reference
Cecil, D. 1973 The Cecils of Hatfield House London
Ginn, A.P. 1912 “The Acquisition of Hertford Castle”, published in the
Transactions of the East Herts Archaeological Society Vol. V, Part I
Read, D. 1979 England 1868-1914: The age of urban democracy London
Roberts, A. 1999 Salisbury: Victorian Titan London
Hertfordshire Mercury – various issues between 25 May 1911 and 3 August 1912
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance given to him by Jean Riddell in compiling this article.
Add your comment about this page