text:
Victoria County History - Cambridgeshire
A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 6
Parishes: Hildersham
A History of the County of Cambridge and the Isle of Ely: Volume 6. Originally published by Victoria County History, London, 1978.
HILDERSHAM
Manors and Other Estates.
Economic History.
Local Government.
Church.
Nonconformity.
Charities for the Poor.
The parish of Hildersham, (fn. 1) covering 1,511 a., (fn. 2) lies 9 miles south-east of Cambridge, and extends from the line of the ancient Wool Street in the north to the Essex county boundary. The river Granta, flowing from south-east to north-west across the centre of the parish, divides it into two unequal parts. That to the south narrows towards its southern extremity. The river follows a winding course, except that where it passes through the village it was straightened c. 1889 after inclosure. (fn. 3) East of the village a tongue of Linton parish penetrates between two channels of the river to include the former Hildersham mill. To the west minor branches of the river meander through meadows, one formerly called Sluice meadow. (fn. 4) Except for the strip of alluvium and gravel along the river, Hildersham lies mostly upon chalk, overlaid on parts of the higher ground to north and south by boulder clay and glacial gravels. To the south the ground rises from a level area below 200 ft. to over 325 ft. at the county boundary. North of the river a shallow valley runs north-east between slopes rising to over 250 ft. The open fields of the parish, which has been devoted mainly to arable farming, were not formally divided until 1889, under the last inclosure award for the county. Even thereafter, since the bulk of the land was allotted to a single owner, few hedges were planted.
In 1086 Hildersham contained woodland for 20 pigs. (fn. 5) Hildersham wood by the Essex boundary was probably much reduced by assarting, as the curved shapes of ancient closes lying north of it suggest. (fn. 6) In 1279 it was said to cover 20 a., (fn. 7) in 1308 30 a. (fn. 8) In 1777 its estimated area was 21 a., (fn. 9) in 1849 and 1922 18½ a. (fn. 10) The extensive plantations in the park around Hildersham Hall, amounting by 1849 to 18 a., were laid out only in the 1810s on former old inclosures. (fn. 11) A wooded area just north of the river, called the Alder Carr, which covered only 3 a. in 1799, (fn. 12) had by c. 1850 been extended over former water-meadows to cover c. 15 a. (fn. 13)
Hildersham was among the least populous parishes in the Granta valley. In 1086 20 people were enumerated, (fn. 14) in 1327 there were 32 tax-payers, (fn. 15) and in 1377 47 adults. (fn. 16) In 1429 there were said to be only 6 resident householders. (fn. 17) In 1524 23 people were assessed to the subsidy, (fn. 18) and in 1563 there were only 17 households. (fn. 19) The population probably declined even further in the early 17th century, but had recovered by the 1660s. (fn. 20) In 1676 there were 72 adults, (fn. 21) and in 1728 32 families included 152 people. (fn. 22) The population began to grow again in the 1770s, (fn. 23) and rose slowly from 170 in 1801 to 248 by 1851; despite a temporary reduction in 1861, ascribed to emigration, it still stood at 245 in 1881. A gradual decline thereafter accelerated, numbers falling from 201 to 146 between 1911 and 1916, and after recovering to 181 by 1931 the population grew only slowly from 148 in 1951 to 177 in 1971. (fn. 24)
The village lies along a street which joins the two roads between Linton and the Abingtons that run along the valley on opposite sides of the river. Hildersham church and one manor-house stand north of the river, the other manor-house, later Hildersham Hall, south of the river. Before the 1880s the river was crossed by a ford, and when the water was high the two halves of the village were virtually cut off from one another. (fn. 25) The first bridge was built of iron in 1886 at the expense of the rector's sister, Elizabeth Hemington. (fn. 26) North of the river the street widened between the church and manor-house into the town green, of c. 4 a. in 1777. (fn. 27) Another smaller green lay close to the southern manor-house. On it there stood by 1682 the village forge, (fn. 28) in use until the 1930s and demolished in 1946. (fn. 29)
Apart from the manor-houses and rectory the village contained in the 1660s two or three farmhouses with 7 hearths. The other 20 or so dwellings were mostly cottages, only 4 having even 3 hearths. (fn. 30) The 26 houses recorded in 1801 were mostly divided, for they accommodated 45 families. (fn. 31) In 1807 there were said to be 4 farm-houses and c. 30 cottages. (fn. 32) The latter lay along the street in two groups, close to each manor-house, and separated by the area most liable to flooding. The farmsteads, which stood back from the street, (fn. 33) included Burford's Farm, named after an 18th-century village family, (fn. 34) which is an L-shaped, timber-framed, brick-fronted house of the late 17th or early 18th century. (fn. 35) The most ancient house surviving in Hildersham is Withleigh, a long, two-storeyed, timber-framed building of the 16th century, perhaps originally a guildhall; it has an overhang, and an early fireplace. (fn. 36) A few other timber-framed, thatched cottages survive, but most of the older buildings are Victorian cottages, of brick and flint or plastered, with slate roofs. The number of houses grew slowly from 29 in 1821 to 56 in 1871 and then fell. (fn. 37) In 1883 the rector thought most of the cottages damp and unwholesome because they lay too close to the river. (fn. 38) New building, mainly council houses opposite Hildersham Hall, enlarged the village from 42 to 55 houses between 1921 and 1931, but there were still only 59 in 1961 (fn. 39) and no expansion was planned; (fn. 40) there was some in-filling, mainly with bungalows, in the 1960s.
Of the two roads along the valley that south of the river was turnpiked in 1765 and disturnpiked in 1876. (fn. 41) About 1969 it was widened, and diverted at its western end, when the Abington by-pass was built. (fn. 42) Two fieldways, called in the 19th century Pen road and Wood road, led south from the village, and were crossed by Pampisford and Sawston ways. The road leading north from Hildersham forked into Newmarket way and Balsham way. (fn. 43) South of the river the Cambridge-Haverhill line was opened in 1865 and closed in 1967. (fn. 44)
The village feast expired in the 1890s, but the horkeys or harvest-suppers and the May-day celebrations survived until c. 1914, and men were still going round on Plough Monday, cracking whips and collecting money, in the 1930s. (fn. 45) Until inclosure the villagers had used Night common, where the street crossed the river, for cricket and other sports after the hay was cut. The inclosure award allotted 8 a. of the adjacent Midsummer meadow for a recreation ground. (fn. 46) The rector had set up a parish library by 1897 (fn. 47) and a cottage was hired in 1906 as a reading-room. (fn. 48) A village hut was built in 1920. (fn. 49)
A conical Roman burial-mound, 190 ft. round, and resembling those opposite Bartlow, survived in Dovehouse close west of the church until 1852. It had once been used as the site for the maypole. (fn. 50)
The manor of HILDERSHAM, held before the Conquest by King Edward's thegn Wulfwin, had been granted by 1086 to Aubrey de Vere, (fn. 51) whose descendants probably held it in demesne until the mid 12th century. (fn. 52) Their overlordship was formally recorded until the early 17th century. (fn. 53) By 1166 Hildersham was held under Aubrey de Vere, earl of Oxford, by Richard de Camville, (fn. 54) who divided the manor, settling half upon his daughter Maud's marriage to William de Ros. (fn. 55) The result was a distinction, which lasted until the early 14th century, between the two moieties or manors, later called Overhall (or Upperhall) and Netherhall manors, (fn. 56) which apparently remained c. 1300 a single unit of jurisdiction. (fn. 57)
The NETHERHALL estate, which c. 1800 lay south of the river, (fn. 58) was evidently that which passed to Richard de Camville's son, whose successor c. 1279 had 20 a. of wood, presumably Hildersham wood. (fn. 59) Richard de Camville died in 1176. (fn. 60) His son and heir Gerard (fn. 61) was disputing the advowson of Hildersham with Maud de Ros in 1210, (fn. 62) and died c. 1214. Gerard's son and heir Richard (fn. 63) died probably in 1217, leaving as heir his daughter Idony. Idony's wardship was granted to William Longspee, earl of Salisbury, who by 1226 had married her to his son William (fn. 64) (d. 1250). (fn. 65) The moiety or manor, over which the mesne lordship of the Longspees' heirs was recorded up to 1285, (fn. 66) was subinfeudated, probably by 1228, to a follower of the Longspees, John le Daneys, (fn. 67) whose wife Philippa was said to hold it c. 1236. (fn. 68) John died in 1241, leaving as heirs two daughters under age, Joan (d. s.p. 1245) and Ela, whose guardian Nicholas de Boleville had married her to his son William by 1254 when she and William were granted free warren at Hildersham. (fn. 69) Ela apparently died without surviving issue for by 1269 the moiety or manor had come to Isabel, (fn. 70) daughter of Robert Grimbald and John le Daneys's sister Maud, (fn. 71) and formerly wife of Richard Pauncefoot (d. after 1262). (fn. 72) Isabel held the manor in 1274 and died after 1277. (fn. 73) By 1279 her son Grimbald Pauncefoot held that moiety. (fn. 74) He was granted free warren there in 1281 (fn. 75) and died in 1287. His son and heir Grimbald (fn. 76) had by 1288 granted his part for life to the judge Ralph Hengham (d. 1311). (fn. 77) In 1308 Grimbald's title was challenged by Brice le Daneys of Tickencote (Rut.), as male heir of the Daneys family. (fn. 78) Before his death in 1314 Grimbald had apparently sold his Hildersham estate to William le Busteler, who by 1316 had bought out the claims of Grimbald's brother and heir Emery, named as lord in that year. (fn. 79) William's ancestors, William le Busteler (d. c. 1250) and Robert (killed c. 1266), had held a small estate at Hildersham. (fn. 80) Busteler was succeeded c. 1334 by his son Robert, (fn. 81) who had held the other moiety of the manor since 1316 (fn. 82) and thus reunited the two.
What was evidently the OVERHALL or UPPERHALL estate, north of the river, (fn. 83) was held from before 1185 to after 1210 by Maud de Ros, who survived her husband, William de Ros (d. by 1185) (fn. 84) of Horton (Kent), and her son William (d. probably c. 1190). (fn. 85) She was eventually succeeded by her grandson William de Ros, who was of age by 1210 and died in 1223. (fn. 86) His eldest son William held that moiety c. 1236 (fn. 87) and had died without issue by 1243, leaving a widow Godehold, who had brought her dower land there to her second husband Hugh of Windsor by 1250. William's heir, his brother Richard, (fn. 88) was dead by January 1246, whereupon his lands were divided between his sisters and heirs, Maud, whom in that year Henry III married to Geoffrey de Percy, a member of his household, and Lora, who the same year married Gilbert Kirkby (d. by 1258). (fn. 89) In 1249 Geoffrey and Maud granted 1 carucate at Hildersham, with the reversion of Godehold's dower, to Roger de Ros, (fn. 90) Henry III's tailor, who was granted free warren there in 1251 (fn. 91) and died in 1257. (fn. 92) By 1262 his sisters and heirs Thomasine and Emmeline had granted that estate to Henry le Fleming, (fn. 93) who complained in 1268 that Percy had disseised him of land at Hildersham during the recent civil war. (fn. 94) Maud died, apparently without issue, in 1273, (fn. 95) whereupon her interest passed to the Kirkbys. In 1248 Gilbert Kirkby and Lora had granted ¼ knight's fee at Hildersham to Alan Kirkby, (fn. 96) to whom Geoffrey de Percy released his share of the manor in 1270, (fn. 97) and who died soon after. Possession of Alan's manor was thereupon disputed between Isabel Pauncefoot and the earl of Oxford, its overlord. (fn. 98) By 1274 the Kirkby manor was held of Lora de Ros under the earl by Gilbert Kirkby, (fn. 99) perhaps the justice of that name who died in 1294. (fn. 100) By 1297 the manor had come to Walter Kirkby, (fn. 101) whose daughter and heir Margaret was said to hold half the vill in 1299. (fn. 102) She was probably dead by 1310, when Roger Kirkby (d. 1313), son by John Kirkby of Margaret, daughter and eventual heir of Lora de Ros, had succeeded to her Kentish lands. (fn. 103) By 1316 the Ros moiety of Hildersham had passed to Robert le Busteler, (fn. 104) who c. 1334 succeeded his father William in the other moiety, as mentioned above, and died in 1366. (fn. 105)
Four of Robert's five coheirs sold four-fifths of his lands to Robert Parys (fn. 106) (d. c. 1377), (fn. 107) who was succeeded in them by his younger son Robert. The younger Robert died holding those four-fifths in 1408, leaving as heir Catherine, the infant daughter of his eldest son Robert. (fn. 108) She was said to hold Overhall manor in 1412, (fn. 109) but probably died soon after (fn. 110) and was succeeded by her uncle Henry (d. 1427), who also acquired the other fifth from his uncle Nicholas's executors c. 1425. (fn. 111) From Henry Parys Hildersham manor descended with the Bustelers manors in Linton and Duxford in the male line of the Paryses until the 1670s. (fn. 112) From 1523 to 1542 it was occupied as part of her jointure by Margaret, widow of John Parys (d. 1517), (fn. 113) and in 1544 by Elizabeth, daughter-in-law of Sir Philip Parys (d. 1558), and her second husband Sir William Cavendish. (fn. 114) When Philip Parys died in 1672, Hildersham was not sold with his other lands, but under his will passed for life to his mother Anne, widow of John Parys (d. 1667), who had married secondly Sir Joseph Colston (d. 1675). (fn. 115) She held Hildersham until her death in 1706. (fn. 116) The heirs-at-law were then the grandchildren of John Parys's five sisters. One of them, Sir Francis Andrews, Bt. (d. 1759), descended from two of the sisters, (fn. 117) bought out the other coheirs in 1706. (fn. 118)
In 1747, his son William being insane, Sir Francis settled Hildersham upon his daughter Bridget's marriage to Philip Southcote (fn. 119) (d. 1758). (fn. 120) Bridget died in 1783, having settled the manor upon her kinsman Robert Edward Petre, Lord Petre (fn. 121) (d. 1801). (fn. 122) In 1798 or 1799 Lord Petre sold Hildersham to the Cambridge banker John Mortlock, (fn. 123) who resold it c. 1811 to Thomas Fassett, (fn. 124) upon whose death it was again sold in 1820 (fn. 125) to Col. J. P. Hamilton. He owned it until c. 1828, when it was acquired by James Barker, vicar of Great Abington 1829–35. (fn. 126) In 1839 Barker sold it to Lt. Alexander Cotton, R.N., who sold it in 1849. (fn. 127) It was bought by 1850 by Edward Huddleston (d. 1852), whose son and heir Ferdinand (fn. 128) by acquiring the Stutfield estate (fn. 129) came to own virtually the whole parish, which descended with his Sawston estate (fn. 130) until 1922 when it was sold (fn. 131) to James Binney. Hildersham descended with Binney's Pampisford estate, (fn. 132) and in 1973 belonged to Mr. H. B. Binney. (fn. 133)
Hildersham Hall stands approximately on the site of the former Netherhall farm-house, (fn. 134) which probably survives as a two-storeyed range behind the main block of the Hall. The Hall, built c. 1807 to designs by Edward Lapidge, is a stuccoed villa, five bays by three, of two storeys with an attic. It has a porch at the south-east corner, a portico facing west towards a lake, and a central staircase-hall lit by a glass lantern. (fn. 135) Thomas Fassett probably laid out, on ground still divided c. 1810 into closes, (fn. 136) the park of 72 a., which includes an artificial lake and several plantations. Under the Huddlestons the Hall was usually let, (fn. 137) and in 1879 the Hall and park were sold to J. K. Thornton (d. c. 1904), whose widow occupied them until 1922. (fn. 138) They were then sold to Lady E. F. Miller, who lived there until c. 1930, (fn. 139) and in 1931 to F. W. Rhodes (d. 1938), a nephew of Cecil Rhodes. (fn. 140) About 1939 the Hall passed to the Rhodes Trust, which still owned it in 1973, when it was occupied by Miss G. M. Rhodes. (fn. 141)
The farm-house belonging to the Upperhall estate, north of the river, which was sometimes called Hildersham Hall in the 18th century (fn. 142) but later Manor Farm, includes a timber-framed, L-shaped, two-storey range, probably of c. 1600. Its north wing has a gabled overhang. An eastwards extension in brick probably dates from the early 18th century, and a brick wing north of the last was added in the early 19th. It was disused by 1973 and was sold soon after. (fn. 143) The name of Dovehouse close across the road (fn. 144) suggests the former manorial status of the house.
By 1546 King's College owned an estate at Hildersham, held of the Paryses' manor, (fn. 145) which it had probably acquired with its lands at Abington c. 1450. In 1583 the college had c. 50 a. at Hildersham, c. 1840 53 a., (fn. 146) which were sold in 1859 to Robert Goodwin, rector of Hildersham. (fn. 147) After his death in 1899 his sisters and heirs Sarah (d. 1909) and Frances (d. 1910) (fn. 148) vested the property in 1901 in trustees for the benefit of the church, who sold it in 1918. (fn. 149)
By 1800 virtually all the copyhold land in the parish had come into a single ownership. Its largest component derived originally from the Hildersham land acquired by Thomas Dalton (fn. 150) (d. 1602), who left his estate to his third son George (fn. 151) (d. 1638). (fn. 152) In 1649 George's sons Thomas and John sold it to Thomas Puckering, (fn. 153) whose land was sold in 1672 after his death to William Eedes, rector of Horseheath (d. 1709). (fn. 154) Eedes's son Francis sold c. 85 a. in 1709 to Thomas Rickard (fn. 155) (d. 1733), whose brother and heir John (fn. 156) sold them in 1739 to the unorthodox divine Conyers Middleton. When Dr. Middleton died at Hildersham in 1750 he left over 230 a. to his widow Anne; Anne sold them in 1751 to Thomas Hanway and Hanway in 1753 to Thomas Rumbold Hall. (fn. 157) Hall, who owned c. 313 a. by 1795, besides leasing the King's College estate, (fn. 158) died in 1799. His son Thomas sold his estate, probably in 1800, to John Burgoyne, (fn. 159) who had inherited from his father John (d. 1786) c. 90 a., bought in 1776 from William and Mary Fairchild, (fn. 160) and had himself acquired in 1795 c. 95 a., formerly owned by the Offord family, (fn. 161) and in 1798 the land of John, son of William Burgoyne (d. 1793). (fn. 162) At his death in 1827 John Burgoyne owned c. 550 a., which he left to his daughter Mary, who in 1829 married William Stutfield, (fn. 163) a London wine-merchant. In 1865 Stutfield and his wife sold their property to Ferdinand Huddleston. (fn. 164)
The substantial house attached to the Burgoyne estate in a close just north of the river was probably on the site of the seven-hearth house occupied in 1664 by Thomas Puckering. (fn. 165) It was rebuilt or enlarged by Conyers Middleton c. 1750, (fn. 166) and in the mid 19th century, when it was called the Rookery, comprised two blocks, with a five-bay Georgian front to the garden. It was demolished in 1868. (fn. 167) The site was later occupied by a large red-brick house, built after 1900 by Sarah and Frances Goodwin. (fn. 168)
In 1086 Hildersham contained 11 plough-lands, of which the demesne, assessed at 2½ out of 5 hides in the vill, probably comprised half, and had 4 servi and 4 plough-teams of its own to work them. Sixteen villani with 7 teams between them occupied the other 2½ hides. The yearly value had been raised from £8 to £10 since Aubrey de Vere received the manor. (fn. 169) In 1279 Grimbald Pauncefoot's demesne included 240 a. of arable and 10 a. of meadow and pasture. The tenants included some substantial freeholders, with undertenants of their own, such as Richard le Breton who had 30 a., and Roger Doget (fn. 170) who left 76 a. held of both moieties of the manor to his son Roger in 1295. (fn. 171) Most of the parish was probably held in villeinage by tenants, some of whom, probably half-yardlanders, owed week-work and had each to plough for the lord 24 days a year and carry 15 a. of his corn. (fn. 172) In the 16th century the standard copyhold tenement, presumably derived from the half-yardland, amounted to c. 18 a. (fn. 173) In later times, of c. 590 a. in the parish not included in the demesne farms, the glebe, and the King's College estate, only c. 65 a. were freehold, the rest copyhold. (fn. 174) In the 16th century the custom was that copyholds descended to the youngest son, (fn. 175) but by the mid 17th they were regularly inherited by the eldest. (fn. 176)
By the 16th century there was considerable concentration of ownership among the villagers. Thus the Snarston family, prominent in Hildersham from the 1460s, (fn. 177) held over 60 a. c. 1540. (fn. 178) One copyholder had 110 a. in 1545, another 155 a. in 1590. (fn. 179) Of 23 people taxed in 1524 only three were charged on goods worth over £2, including Simon Beteyn, (fn. 180) who with two relatives was thought to be worth £85 in 1522. (fn. 181) The prosperous Hamond family flourished at Hildersham from the 1520s to the 1690s. (fn. 182) Henry Hamond (d. 1660) left 98 a. there besides legacies amounting to £200. He was also, as his ancestors had been since the 1580s, lessee to King's College, (fn. 183) which until after 1800 regularly let its Hildersham estate to yeoman families there on beneficial leases at rents in kind fixed since the 16th century. (fn. 184) About 1700 there were 14 copyhold tenants, not all living in the parish, (fn. 185) and in 1786 ten. (fn. 186) In 1777 six of them, occupying respectively 323 a., 89 a., 89 a., 47 a., 40½ a., and 32 a., occupied virtually the whole parish excluding the demesnes and glebe, the others having only 17 a. between them. The manorial estate in 1777 included c. 740 a. out of 1,500 a. (fn. 187) By the late 19th century, having absorbed the Burgoyne estate, it covered almost the whole parish. (fn. 188)
By the 16th century the demesne had been divided into two large farms, probably corresponding to the land of the former moieties and lying respectively north and south of the river. One of them covered c. 300 a. about 1580. (fn. 189) From the 1660s Francis Westhorp (fn. 190) (d. 1689) occupied one of them at a rent below the full value because he also served Lady Colston as bailiff and agent, and was succeeded in turn by his son Francis and son-in-law. (fn. 191) About 1800 Overhall farm, north of the river, covered c. 320 a., and Netherhall farm, to the south, c. 400 a., later reduced to c. 320 a. when the park was made. (fn. 192) Much demesne land lay in ancient inclosures, which on Netherhall farm included c. 1800 some 100 a. north of the road from Linton to Great Abington and c. 75 a. near Hildersham wood, perhaps derived from medieval assarting. In the open fields the bulk of the demesne arable was concentrated in large blocks of 10 a. or more. Thus c. 270 a. of Overhall farm covered a virtually continuous area along both sides of the road from Linton to Little Abington. (fn. 193) The copyholders' land remained until inclosure in the narrow strips typical of open-field cultivation. (fn. 194)
About 1800 Hildersham, apart from over 250 a. of old inclosures around the village, (fn. 195) was considered as being divided by the river into a north field of c. 660 a. and a south field of c. 340 a. (fn. 196) In earlier periods the arable had been divided into smaller blocks, still called fields in the 18th century, (fn. 197) and themselves composed of furlongs or shots varying in size from almost 40 a. to 2 or 3 a. (fn. 198) The only permanent common pasture was the 12 a. of St. Margaret's Green, so named by 1590, north-east of the village, where a stream ran down a narrow valley. It was grazed from May to St. Thomas's day by certain cottagers, as well as by the lord and his farmers. (fn. 199) The village meadows, such as Broadmeadow, which was intercommonable with Little Abington c. 1730, and Midsummer meadow, lay along the river. (fn. 200)
How the arable was divided for the customary rotation of crops is unclear. In 1801 864 a., twothirds of the arable area including closes, were under cultivation, suggesting a triennial rotation. (fn. 201) In 1798, however, only half of the 400 a. on Netherhall farm had been cropped. (fn. 202) Moreover, the manorial farms each had land on only one side of the river, while the glebe and the King's College estate lay entirely on the north side. (fn. 203) In the 16th century a copyholder might devise his lands north and south of the river to different sons, (fn. 204) suggesting that even then a separate rotation may have been observed on each side. In the late 19th century it was said that according to tradition only one-sixth of the parish lay fallow each year, after five crops had been taken from it. (fn. 205)
The principal crop, as elsewhere in the neighbourhood, was barley. One man in 1527 left his wife 40 a. of barley and only 1 a. each of wheat and rye. Saffron was also grown at Hildersham from the early 16th century. (fn. 206) In 1801 319 a. of barley were sown, and 150 a. of wheat, but other grains had become more prominent, including oats at 138 a., and rye at 82½ a., and a variety of roots and grasses had been introduced. (fn. 207) Such innovations were probably less difficult on the demesne farms, where large closes and arable blocks could more easily be severed from the customary rotation. About 1690 a lessee of one such farm laid down several parcels of arable with sainfoin to convert them into pasture. (fn. 208) In 1796 the tenant of Netherhall farm was required to lay down land after every two crops with clover or grass for two years. (fn. 209) His planting of coleseed and turnips (fn. 210) probably accounted for most of the 100 a. of those crops recorded in 1801. (fn. 211)
The turnips were intended partly to feed a flock of c. 280 sheep and lambs. (fn. 212) In 1086 there had been 90 sheep at Hildersham, (fn. 213) which in 1347 provided almost 26 stone for a levy of wool, including 10 stone from Robert le Busteler's demesne. (fn. 214) In the 16th century copyholders were keeping flocks of 20–40 sheep. (fn. 215) In the early 18th century the flocks of Upperhall and Netherhall farms were allowed sheepwalk over the common fields only after the villagers' cattle had fed over the stubble for 24 days on the north side of the river and 9 days on the south. The demesne flocks also fed over the meadows and St. Margaret's Green, following the village herd, in the winter. Tenants were still in 1724 forbidden to hire their rights of common for cattle to outsiders or to exercise them unless resident. (fn. 216) About 1795 there were c. 540 Norfolk sheep in the parish, probably mostly in the demesne farm flocks, one of which included c. 260 grown sheep in 1816. (fn. 217) It was asserted in 1812 that no right of sheepgate was attached to copyholds, (fn. 218) although at inclosure some allotments were made for copyhold rights of common. (fn. 219) The lord still claimed in the 19th century to exercise right of sheep-walk over the one-sixth of the fields lying fallow, so preventing other occupiers from introducing more modern farming methods. (fn. 220)
About 1800 John Mortlock proposed the inclosure of Hildersham under the same Act as Great Abington but was obstructed by the aged rector, Thomas Salt, (fn. 221) who preferred to take his tithes in kind and did not wish the poorer villagers to lose common of pasture for their cows and pigs. (fn. 222) In 1812–13 the lord and other landowners exchanged rights of pasture over Broadmeadow, (fn. 223) and the disadvantages of open-field cultivation were partly mitigated because soon after 1800 almost the whole parish was concentrated into a few large farms. On the manorial estate Overhall farm was occupied from c. 1750 to 1817 by the Mabbutt family; at Netherhall farm William Burgoyne, tenant from 1759, was succeeded in 1793 by his son John (d. 1814), (fn. 224) whose bankruptcy compelled him in 1798 to surrender his lease to his kinsman and creditor John Burgoyne (d. 1827), (fn. 225) who also farmed in person most of his accumulated copyholds. From c. 1820 the manorial land was again for a time divided in two. (fn. 226) Old or Manor farm covered c. 350 a. north of the river. The glebe and tithes were let with it from 1830. To the south lay New farm of c. 343 a.: when Hildersham Hall replaced the former Netherhall farm-house, a new farmstead was built first at Cook's Pen, an old sheep-pen south-east of the village, and then at Pen Farm, established by 1849 in the centre of the south field. Thomas Webb (d. 1876) leased the northern farm from 1830 and Pen farm also from c. 1848. His son and partner Thomas eventually succeeded him as tenant after 1865 of virtually the whole parish. (fn. 227) The use of labour was intensive. The elder Webb was in 1851 employing 56 men, while William Stutfield, then farming c. 420 a., had 24. Only c. 35 labourers actually lived in the parish, (fn. 228) but men walked over daily to work from more populous villages such as Linton and Balsham. Both landlord and tenant found importing labour more convenient than building new cottages. (fn. 229) Webb was evidently disliked by some villagers. Attempts were made to burn down two of his farmsteads. He induced a diviner to 'identify' the suspected culprit, whom he forced to leave the village. (fn. 230)
The farm-labourers who then comprised most of Hildersham's inhabitants (fn. 231) were poor. Average wages barely rose from 9s. a week c. 1830 to 10s. or 11s. in the 1860s, (fn. 232) and few cottages had gardens. The cottagers gained little from the survival of the open fields, for by the early 1880s there were only two cows outside the farmer's herd. In 1849 the rector, Robert Goodwin, bought c. 6 a. near the church as allotments, (fn. 233) replaced at inclosure in the 1880s by 12 a. near the river. (fn. 234) In 1970 the land had for some time been let in one lot to the tenant of Manor farm. (fn. 235)
The death in 1881 of Thomas Webb the younger and the expected division of his farm into two or three holdings threatened to revive the disadvantages of open-field cultivation, (fn. 236) and a provisional inclosure order was obtained in 1883 (fn. 237) and confirmed by an Act the same year. (fn. 238) The land was divided in 1885, and the award executed in 1889. It allotted c. 55 a. for the rectorial glebe, 45 a. for the rector's private estate, c. 25 a. for the town land and other public purposes, and c. 9 a. to 5 people for rights of common. All the rest of the land involved, 945 a. including 93 a. for the right of sheep-walk, went to the Huddleston estate. (fn. 239) By 1895 that estate had been divided into four farms. One, Manor farm of c. 890 a. north of the village, was for some time kept in hand. After 1922 part of it was sometimes let separately as Green farm, for which a new farmstead was built north-east of the village. Another Huddleston farm north of the river was often held with the rectory farm, for which a homestead had been built out in the fields by 1912. South of the river were Cook's Pen, of 133 a., and beyond the railway line Pen farm of 373 a., sometimes, as from 1922, let together. (fn. 240)
In the 19th century there was little work available in Hildersham except on the farms. In 1831 32 families were engaged in agriculture, only 7 in crafts or trade. (fn. 241) The population in 1851 included a shoemaker and a coal-dealer. (fn. 242) The village retained its own blacksmith's shop until c. 1940, and a carpenter's business, employing 3 men in 1871, developed into a small building firm, which constructed the village bridge in 1886 and survived until c. 1925. (fn. 243) By 1960 the village shops had all closed, and except for those few employed on the farms the inhabitants worked in Linton, Cambridge, or Haverhill. (fn. 244)
In 1254 the Crown granted William de Boleville and his wife Ela a weekly market on Fridays with an annual fair on 19–21 July, (fn. 245) but no evidence survives that either was actually established.
Aubrey de Vere owned a mill at Hildersham yielding 10s. a year in 1086, (fn. 246) presumably that attached c. 1190 and later to the Ros moiety of the manor. (fn. 247) When the Parys estates were broken up c. 1675 Hildersham mill was sold with the Linton estate to Sir Thomas Sclater, (fn. 248) who had it rebuilt c. 1680. (fn. 249) It remained with his successors until after the 1770s, (fn. 250) but had been sold by 1800. (fn. 251) In the early 19th century the mill belonged to the Reeve family who occupied it until c. 1850; (fn. 252) it remained in business under various owners until c. 1915. The water-mill, which also used steam from the 1890s, (fn. 253) stands on a cut some way east of Hildersham village, and straddles the parish boundary with Linton. Its buildings, converted by 1925 into a private house, (fn. 254) comprised in 1973 a central mill-block, partly timber-built, spanning the former mill-race, with a brick house to the east, in Linton, and a tall greybrick block to the west. A windmill, in the same ownership, built by 1837 in a field south of the water-mill, (fn. 255) was rebuilt in brick in 1863 (fn. 256) and survived in 1973 without its sails. Its outbuildings, after use for an agricultural engineer's business, were sold in 1958 (fn. 257) and were used in 1973 for selling antiques.
In 1275 Isabel Pauncefoot and Gilbert Kirkby were said to have view of frankpledge and the assize of bread and of ale at Hildersham. (fn. 258) In 1299 Isabel's grandson Grimbald claimed to hold the view jointly with the Kirkby heir, presumably in a single court leet for the whole vill. (fn. 259) The manor court was still occasionally styled a court leet and baron in the 1650s, (fn. 260) when it was presenting encroachments on the waste and electing haywards. (fn. 261) It was still making regulations about common rights 'for the peace and quiet of the tenants' in the 1720s, (fn. 262) when purely formal leet sittings were still held and constables and pinders appointed. (fn. 263) In the 1790s and in 1836 it formally appointed pinders, (fn. 264) and in 1812, under a new lord, began again to declare rules on commoning and to present copyholders for letting cottages decay. (fn. 265) A draft court book survives for 1651–9, and there are court rolls for 1672–1732 and court books for 1706– 1897. They are principally concerned with copyhold transfers. (fn. 266)
In 1564 the churchwardens were said not to be making proper collections for the poor. (fn. 267) From the 1680s to c. 1835, probably because substantial inhabitants were few, only one churchwarden was usually elected, normally the principal farmer in the parish, who held office continuously for many years. (fn. 268) Poor relief was not expensive until the 1780s. In 1776 £14 was spent, a quarter of it on house-rent, c. 1785 £55, and in 1803 £87. Fourteen people, besides children, were then permanently supported. (fn. 269) In 1814 18 were permanently relieved at a cost totalling £232. (fn. 270) In 1829 two men were occasionally employed on roadwork; coal and clothing were distributed to the poor, and the roundsman system may have been in force. (fn. 271) In 1832 £93 of £133 expended went to the aged, sick, and widows. (fn. 272) Hildersham became part of the Linton poor-law union in 1835, (fn. 273) was incorporated with the Linton R.D. into the South Cambridgeshire R.D. in 1934, (fn. 274) and was included in South Cambridgeshire in 1974.
Hildersham church had probably been established by c. 1150 and belonged originally to the Veres, since Hatfield Broadoak priory (Essex), founded by the Veres c. 1135, received a portion of tithes at Hildersham, worth 5 marks in 1291. (fn. 275) In 1210 the advowson of the rectory was in dispute between Gerard de Camville and his sister Maud, (fn. 276) each holding half the manor, and by 1279 was held by Gerard's successors, from whom it passed to the Bustelers. (fn. 277) In 1347 Grimbald Pauncefoot's widow Clemence recovered her third turn to present in right of dower against Robert le Busteler. (fn. 278) Busteler's successors, the Paryses, retained the advowson, (fn. 279) and after the Elizabethan settlement, as papists, were importuned by bishops and such staunch protestants as Sir Francis Walsingham to accept recommendations for the living. (fn. 280) In 1638 Charles Parys sold the advowson to Isaac Appleton, who in 1649 sold it to Henry Smith (d. 1702), rector since 1642. (fn. 281)
Smith resigned the living in 1684 and presented his son Henry, upon whose marriage in 1685 the advowson was entailed. The younger Smith sold it in 1714 to James Salt, and died in 1736, (fn. 282) whereupon Salt had himself presented. He died in 1758 having settled the advowson successively on his sons James (d.s.p. 1797) and Thomas (d. 1806), who each in turn presented himself to the living. (fn. 283) In 1801 Thomas Salt sold the advowson to James Goodwin, who presented his son Charles in 1806 and died the same year. (fn. 284) Charles, who died in 1847, left the advowson to his second son Robert, (fn. 285) who held the rectory upon his own presentation (fn. 286) until his death in 1899. In 1901 his sisters and heirs Sarah and Frances vested the advowson in trustees, including the new rector, P. R. Phillips, for the benefit of the church. When Phillips resigned in 1947 presentation was suspended and the cure was thereafter served by neighbouring incumbents or retired clergymen. (fn. 287)
The rectorial glebe consisted of c. 50 a. of arable in 1279, (fn. 288) 62 a. in the 17th century, (fn. 289) and 67½ a., including closes, in 1777. (fn. 290) The 55 a. allotted for glebe at inclosure in 1889 (fn. 291) was sold in 1919. (fn. 292) In 1951 the church retained 9 a. of glebe. (fn. 293) The tithes, still being taken in kind in 1800, (fn. 294) were commuted in 1840 for a tithe-rent-charge of £423 15s. (fn. 295) The rectory house stood c. 1560 in a copyhold close opposite the church, held by successive rectors until its enfranchisement in 1848. (fn. 296) The house had seven hearths in 1664 (fn. 297) and was said to be large and in good repair in 1783. (fn. 298) A large brick house built in Tudor style c. 1851 (fn. 299) had been sold by 1961. (fn. 300)
The benefice was taxed at £12 in 1217, and at 20 marks in 1291, (fn. 301) but only at £15 in 1535. (fn. 302) By 1650 it was worth £80 a year and in 1728 £100. (fn. 303) The rector's gross income was £320 c. 1830, (fn. 304) and £450 in 1877. (fn. 305)
About 1300 a rector gave the church 3 a. in free alms. (fn. 306) By the mid 18th century the rent of 3 a. called the town land, yielding 10s. a year in the 18th century and £3 5s. in the 19th, was by custom devoted to church repairs and expenses. (fn. 307) From 1524 3s. 4d. a year for church repairs was also received from John Bolton's charity. (fn. 308) The endowment of the church by Sarah and Frances Goodwin in 1901 is mentioned above. (fn. 309)
In the early 14th century the patrons sometimes chose their kinsmen or dependents as rectors. Ralph Hengham presented his clerk John Hengham, rector 1311–21, and William le Busteler in 1321 presented his younger son William, still rector in 1332. (fn. 310) William's successor, William Gryselegh, c. 1338 until 1342, was frequently absent in the service of the countess of Norfolk or the earl of Suffolk. (fn. 311) In 1379 the rector had two chaplains to assist him. (fn. 312) In the late 15th and early 16th centuries Hildersham had a guild of the Assumption. (fn. 313) Margaret, wife of John Parys (d. 1517), whose dower included the advowson, presented in 1518 William Burgoyne, master of Peterhouse (d. 1523), and then his brother Thomas, rector 1523–50, who held Hildersham in plurality with Sandy (Beds.) from 1526. (fn. 314) Both were probably non-resident, employing curates. (fn. 315)
John Reston, rector 1550–1, was master of Jesus College, Cambridge. (fn. 316) His successor Dr. Thomas Heskyns, also usually non-resident, had abandoned the cure by 1561 to go overseas, where he became a Catholic controversialist. (fn. 317) George Fuller, rector 1561–91, usually resided at Hildersham, and built up an estate in the neighbourhood, (fn. 318) but regularly employed curates, (fn. 319) the first recorded being apparently a convinced protestant. (fn. 320) Fuller's successor John Smith held Hildersham with Fen Ditton until his death in 1614. In 1593 his curate was said to be failing to catechize the children. (fn. 321) Thomas Murriell, rector 1614–29, held two livings and was archdeacon of Norfolk. (fn. 322) Henry Smith, master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, was succeeded at Hildersham when he died in 1642 by his son Henry, (fn. 323) who held the living throughout the Interregnum, being described in 1650 as an orthodox and godly divine. (fn. 324) Through his purchase of the advowson in 1649 the rectory became a family living, held by three successive clerical dynasties until 1900. (fn. 325)
The third Henry Smith was resident in 1728, when he was holding communion seven times a year and two services every Sunday. He claimed up to 18 communicants. (fn. 326) James Salt was likewise resident in 1775 and conducted services in person, (fn. 327) but his brother Thomas, already vicar of Nazeing (Essex), employed the Revd. Andrew Perne of Little Abington as curate. (fn. 328) In 1807 the newly presented Charles Goodwin had few communicants (fn. 329) and only c. 20 in 1825, although he held services twice each Sunday and communion four times a year. (fn. 330) He was normally resident, as was his son Robert, who also held Great Abington from 1845, but both usually employed curates, including in 1877 the master of Saffron Walden grammar school. Robert then claimed that almost all the parishioners came to church and up to 47 people attended the monthly communion. (fn. 331) By 1897 he was also holding services on weekdays in Lent and on many saints' days, and by 1894 had instituted a surpliced choir. (fn. 332) There were 49 communicants in 1905, (fn. 333) 43 in 1939, when most of the congregation of 90 went to church every other Sunday. (fn. 334)
The church of the HOLY TRINITY, so called by 1521, (fn. 335) stands west of the street and north of the river. It is built of field stones with ashlar dressings, and consists of a chancel with a south chapel and north sacristy, aisled nave of two bays with a south porch, and west tower. The oldest portions, the vaulted sacristy and the west tower, are of the early 13th century. The tower, unbuttressed and surmounted by a small spike, has simple lancets to the two lower stages and double lancets under restored plate tracery to the third, and inside is divided from the nave by two low arches. The tall nave, rebuilt in the late 13th century, but probably retaining its earlier proportions, has one quatrefoil pier on each side; the clerestory has cusped windows in square frames, possibly restored. The aisle windows have simple Decorated tracery, and may be contemporary with the south chapel built by William le Busteler, rector 1321–32, (fn. 336) perhaps as a chantry for his parents. The chancel arch was rebuilt probably c. 1400. (fn. 337) In the 15th century the chancel was given new windows which still survived c. 1850, (fn. 338) and a new door to the sacristy.
The octagonal 13th-century font rests on five columns and has trefoiled canopies on each face. Screens between the chancel and the south chapel and nave survived in 1742 (fn. 339) but were swept away at the Victorian restoration, when the roof also was entirely renewed. (fn. 340) Despite William Dowsing's efforts in 1644 (fn. 341) much medieval glass survived in 1742, and a few fragments that remained c. 1880 were then reset. (fn. 342) Among notable monuments in the church are the effigies, carved in oak, of a crosslegged knight and a lady, perhaps commemorating William le Busteler (d. c. 1334) and his wife. (fn. 343) The chancel contains brasses with effigies ascribed to Robert Parys (d. c. 1377) and his wife Eleanor, to Henry Parys (d. 1427) and his wife Margery, and to Henry Parys (d. 1466). (fn. 344) A tomb-slab carved with a cross lies under an ogee-headed recess in the north wall of the chancel, where Robert Parys's brass once lay.
In 1601 the church windows were found to be much broken and the chancel not whitewashed, (fn. 345) and in 1638 the aisles were blocked by two large pews. (fn. 346) Both chapel and aisles were out of repair in 1665, (fn. 347) and in 1742 the chapel was unfloored. (fn. 348) In 1803 the churchwardens sold the lead off the roof and pulled down the south chapel. (fn. 349) Between 1853 and 1890 the church was heavily restored by the rector Robert Goodwin, latterly with C. A. Buckler as architect. (fn. 350) The chancel and north aisle were remodelled by 1855 and the south chapel rebuilt soon after. The chancel arch was refashioned, the walls were thoroughly scraped, and at Goodwin's insistence the Perpendicular tracery in the chancel windows was then replaced with reticulated tracery. The tower was raised 13 ft. and the roof replaced and slated in 1878. The chancel was entirely covered c. 1890 with paintings (fn. 351) which were restored in 1973. (fn. 352) Stained glass, including an east window by Clayton and Bell, (fn. 353) greatly darkened the church, and an alabaster reredos was installed in memory of James Raymond, tenant at the Hall in 1851 and 1871. (fn. 354) When work was completed in 1890 (fn. 355) the interior appeared, as in 1973, almost entirely Victorian.
In 1542 Margaret Parys bequeathed to the church an organ standing in it. (fn. 356) In the early 19th century music was supplied from a singing gallery at the west end erected since 1742. After its demolition c. 1870 several players never set foot in the church again. A new organ, given by Robert Goodwin, was installed in 1900. (fn. 357) In 1552 the church had three bells. (fn. 358) Three new bells were cast in 1581, two of which were sold in 1803. The third and lightest was used in 1880 by John Taylor & Co. of Loughborough in making three new bells, (fn. 359) which survived in 1973. A silver cup and paten by Thomas Buttell were acquired in 1569. (fn. 360) The parish registers are complete from 1559. (fn. 361)
In 1582 Thomas Dalton and his wife were said to have failed to come to church for a year. (fn. 362) Although the manor was owned until 1800 by papists there is no evidence of Catholic recusancy in Hildersham, nor of protestant dissent before 1783, when two families were said to attend a meeting at Linton. (fn. 363) In 1825 the number of dissenters was said to be increasing. (fn. 364) A house was registered for dissenting worship in 1828, and a building in 1837, the latter by Thomas Hopkins, (fn. 365) Independent minister at Linton. (fn. 366) Perhaps the same building was the out-station of the Linton chapel, lately adapted for worship, where the Linton minister, G. J. Hall, held Saturday evening services in 1851 with an average attendance of 100. (fn. 367) It had closed by 1877, and in 1897 all the inhabitants were said to be nominally church people. (fn. 368)
In 1524 money was left for four boys to go to school, (fn. 369) and Hildersham had unlicensed school masters in 1579 and 1601. (fn. 370) In 1818 the parish clerk kept a school for 30 boys and his wife taught girls to read and sew, while an evening school was held for young men. (fn. 371) In 1833 there was only one day-school with 10 pupils, for whom their parents paid. (fn. 372) By 1851 a day-school and Sunday school had been set up in a building south-east of the church. (fn. 373) The parochial school was supported in 1864 by contributions from parishioners and in 1879 by the rector and school-pence. It was rebuilt in 1879–80 (fn. 374) for up to 111 children. Attendance between 1893 and 1914 fluctuated around 40. (fn. 375) The school had separate mixed and infants departments in 1914. (fn. 376) By 1919 attendance had declined to c. 20. (fn. 377) Many children went to Abington school, and in 1928, when it had only 7 pupils, Hildersham school was closed. (fn. 378)
From 1524 Hildersham received 6s. 8d. a year under the will, proved 1509, of John Bolton of Little Abington, half for its church, half for its poor. The money was still being paid in 1965. Since 1929 it had been a rent-charge on Abington Hall whose owner redeemed it for £10 in 1966. (fn. 379) In 1573 the parish bought with its town stock the 4-a. Bodney's close north of the church, the income to be distributed twice a year to the poor. In 1590 one of the feoffees, Thomas Dalton (d. 1602), acquired the close subject to a rent-charge of £1, (fn. 380) which was still received in 1965. By the 18th century the churchwardens were distributing the two charities together, usually at Christmas, in doles of 6d. to 1s. 6d. In 1766 there were 22 recipients including 8 widows, in 1834 14. (fn. 381) In the early 20th century the income was saved for several years and then distributed in coal. (fn. 382) The cottagers' right to common over St. Margaret's Green, reputed a charity in 1837, (fn. 383) was replaced at inclosure in 1889 by allotments. (fn. 384)
1. This account was written in 1973.
2. Census, 1961.
3. O.S. Map 6", Cambs. LV. SW. (1891, 1950 edns.).
4. C.R.O., R 56/16/23.
5. V.C.H. Cambs. i. 390.
6. e.g. C.R.O., 124/P 55.
7. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 416.
8. C.P. 40/173 rot. 75.
9. C.U.L., Doc. 3965.
10. C.R.O., L 4/41; R 49/8/36.
11. C.U.L., Maps 53/84/13; C.R.O., L 42/3.
12. C.R.O., R 51/25/46.
13. Ibid. 124/P 57.
14. V.C.H., Cambs. i. 390.
15. Cambs. Lay Subsidy, 1327, 23–4.
16. East Anglian, n.s. xii. 240.
17. Feud. Aids, i. 192.
18. E 179/81/134 m. 3.
19. B.L. Harl. MS. 594, f. 200.
20. Cf. C.R.O., par. reg. TS.
21. Compton Census.
22. C.U.L., E.D.R., B 8/1.
23. C.R.O., par. reg. TS.
24. Census, 1801–1971; C.R.O., 331/Z 4, 1914, Oct.; 331/Z 5, 1916, Feb.
25. Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons, H.C. 186, pp. 4, 6, 8 (1883), xiii.
26. Inscr. on bridge; E.D.R. (1890), 454.
27. C.U.L., Doc. 3965.
28. C.R.O., L 1/10, p. 23.
29. Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1937); Camb. Ind. Press, 1 Aug. 1969.
30. E 179/84/437 rot. 58; E 179/244/23 rot. 55.
31. Census, 1801.
32. C.U.L., E.D.R., C 1/4.
33. C.R.O., R 56/8/23.
34. Cf. ibid. R 57/25/39.
35. M.H.L.G. list.
37. Census, 1821–1901.
38. Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons (1883), 6.
39. Census, 1921–61.
40. Cf. Camb. News, 24 Sept. 1964.
41. Haverhill and Red Cross Road Act, 6 Geo. III, c. 84; Annual Turnpike Acts Continuance Act, 1876, 39–40 Vic. c. 39.
42. Ex inf. the County Surveyor.
43. C.R.O., R 56/16/3; R 51/28/37N, no. 9.
44. V.C.H. Cambs. ii. 132–3; ex inf. Brit. Rail Hist. Research Dept.
45. C.R.O., 331/Z 6, 1930, Feb., p. 10; 331/Z 8, 1939, Feb., pp. 12–13; cf. Porter, Cambs. Customs, 112.
46. Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons (1883), 2–3; Land Com. Special Rep. on Incl. of . . . Hildersham, H.C. 52, p. 3 (1883), xxi; cf. Camb. Ind. Press, 5 May 1961.
47. C.U.L., E.D.R., C 3/37.
48. C.R.O., 331/Z 1, 1906, Oct., p. lxxx; Nov., p. xci.
49. Cf. Camb. Evening News, 28 July 1972.
50. W. M. Palmer, Neighbourhood of Hildersham, 12; Fox, Arch. Camb. Region, 95–6.
51. V.C.H. Cambs. i. 390.
52. When they apparently granted tithe from the demesne to Hatfield priory: see p. 67.
53. e.g. C 142/116 no. 7; Wards 7/53 no. 276.
54. Red Bk. Exch. (Rolls Ser.), i. 353.
55. Rot. de Dom. (Pipe R. Soc. xxxv), 84.
56. e.g. Lysons, Cambs. 211.
57. Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.), 105; cf. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), i. 52.
59. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 416.
60. Pipe R. 1175 (P.R.S. xxii), 39; Dugdale, Mon. v. 584.
61. Pipe R. 1176 (P.R.S. xxv), 48, 200.
62. Cur. Reg. R. vi. 87, 105.
63. Rot. Litt. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i. 159, 200; Rot. Litt. Pat. (Rec. Com.), i. 127.
64. Rot. Litt. Pat. i. 178; Rot. Litt. Claus. i. 295–6, 299; ii. 110.
65. Complete Peerage, xi. 382–3.
67. Cf. Close R. 1227–31, 65; Rot. Litt. Claus. i. 356; Hatton's Bk. of Seals, pp. 43–4.
68. Liber de Bernewelle, 254: 'Philippus' is presumably an error of transcription; cf. Close R. 1237–42, 321; Bk. of Fees, ii. 923.
69. Ex. e Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), i. 346, 365; Close R. 1242–7, 260, 308; Cal. Pat. 1232–47, 243; 1247–58, 379.
70. J.I. 1/83 rott. 32, 33d.
71. Brydges, Northants. ii. 368; cf. V.C.H. Hunts. ii. 323 (not entirely accurate).
72. Hunts. Fines, 1194–1603, ed. G. J. Turner (C.A.S. 8vo ser. xxxvii), 32–3.
73. S.C. 5/Cambs., Chap. ho. ser. no. 1 rot. 1d.; Cal. Close, 1272–9, 401.
74. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 416; cf. Feud. Aids, i. 140.
75. Cal. Chart. R. 1257–1300, 248.
76. Cal. Close, 1279–88, 260, 418, 443; 1296–1302, 467–8.
77. Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.), 105; Cal. Close, 1279–88, 534; D.N.B.
78. C.P. 40/173 rot. 75; cf. V.C.H. Rut. ii. 276.
79. Cal. Inq. p.m. v, p. 270; Feud. Aids, i. 155; Cal. Close, 1313–18, 339.
80. Ex. e Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), ii. 224–5; Cal. Pat. 1266– 72, 110; J.I. 1/83 rot. 32d.
81. Cf. Cal. Close, 1330–4, 448.
83. It was held immediately of the earls of Oxford c. 1409: C.R.O., 619/M 3, ct. roll 10 Hen. IV.
84. Rot. de Dom. (Pipe R. Soc. xxxv), 84; Cur. Reg. R. vi. 105.
85. Clerkenwell Cart. (Camd. 3rd ser. lxxi), 20–2; cf. Pipe R. 1190 (P.R.S. n.s. i), 142, 151. The family was distinct from those of Ros of Helmsley (Yorks. N.R.) and Ros of Lullingstone (Kent); cf. Cur. Reg. R. i. 187; vi. 134–5; xiii, pp. 450–1.
86. Rot. Lib. (Rec. Com.), 219; Ex. e Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), i. 106.
87. Liber de Bernewelle, 254; Cur. Reg. R. xiii, pp. 405, 494; xiv, pp. 181–2, 336–7.
88. C.P. 25(1)/24/21 no. 8; Cat. Anct. D. i, C 438.
89. Cal. Pat. 1232–47, 473; Ex. e Rot. Fin. (Rec. Com.), i. 447; Kent Fines (Kent Arch. Soc., Rec. Branch xv), 407–8, 413–14.
90. C.P. 25(1)/24/25 no. 7.
91. Cal. Chart. R. 1226–57, 255, 366.
92. Cal. Close, 1256–8, 84, 89–90.
93. Cal. Chart. R. 1257–1300, 44.
94. Abbrev. Plac. (Rec. Com.), 176.
95. F. R. H. Du Boulay, Lordship of Canterbury (1966), 107.
97. Close R. 1268–72, 267.
98. S.C. 5/Cambs. Chap. ho. ser. no. 1 rot. id.
99. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), i. 52; ii. 416. Lora was still living in 1286: Cat. Anct. D. vi. C 6361.
100. Cal. Pat. 1292–1301, 112, 115; cf. Foss, Judges of Eng. iii. 110.
101. Coram Rege Roll, 1297 (Index Libr. xix), 148.
102. Plac. de Quo Warr. (Rec. Com.), 105.
103. Ibid. 310; Reg. Pecham (Rolls Ser.), iii. 999; Cal. Fine R. 1307–19, 167; cf. Copinger, Suff. Manors, iii. 164.
104. Feud. Aids, i. 155.
105. Ibid. 163; Cal. Inq. p.m. xiii, p. 8.
106. Cal. Inq. p.m. xiii, p. 100; Collect. Topog. & Gen. i. 262.
107. Cal. Close, 1377–81, 93.
108. C 137/72 no. 32.
109. Feud. Aids, vi. 407.
110. Not mentioned in C.R.O., 619/M 4, after ct. roll 13 Hen. IV.
111. C 139/29 no. 48; Prob. 11/3 (P.C.C. 2 Luffenam).
112. See p. 85; cf. C 142/116 no. 7; C 142/60 no. 17; C 142/265 no. 35; Wards 7/53 no. 276.
113. B.L. Add. MS. 5860, ff. 103–105v.
114. C.R.O., R 51/25/37Q 1, no. 1; cf. Misc. Gen. & Herald. 5th ser. ii. 123–6.
115. Prob. 11/342 (P.C.C. 53 Pye).
116. C 6/378/76; Prob. 11/492 (P.C.C. 5–6 Poley).
117. Blomefield, Norf. vii. 116–17; G.E.C. Baronetage, ii. 146–7; cf. C.R.O., R 55/10/3, nos. 2–4.
118. C.P. 25(2)/987/5 Anne Trin. no. 12.
119. Blomefield, Norf. vii. 117; C.P. 40/655 rot. 8.
120. Prob. 11/841 (P.C.C. 310 Hutton).
121. Prob. 11/1110 (P.C.C. 586 Cornwallis).
122. G.E.C. Baronetage, ii. 146–7; Complete Peerage, x. 509–11.
123. C.R.O., R 51/25/46; R 51/25/35, pp. 216–49.
124. Ibid. R 51/25/35, pp. 250–83; cf. ibid. R 51/25/47.
125. Ibid. L 42/3.
126. Hildersham ct. bk. 1784–1828, p. 163, penes Mr. H. B. Binney of Pampisford Hall; cf. Army List, 1820; Alum. Cantab. 1752–1900, i. 152.
127. C.R.O., L 92/20–1; 334/010; L 4/41.
128. C.U.L., Maps 53/84/13; Hildersham ct. bk. 1834–75, p. 73, penes Mr. Binney; cf. Burke, Land. Gent. (1952), 1307.
129. See below.
130. See p. 250.
131. C.R.O., R 49/8/36.
132. Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1925, 1937).
133. Ex inf. Mr. Binney.
134. C.R.O., R 51/25/46; cf. ibid. R 51/25/42, no. 1.
135. C.R.O., L 42/3; Colvin, Biog. Dict. Eng. Architects, 1660–1840, 356.
136. B.L. Maps, O.S.D. 235.
137. e.g. Gardner's Dir. Cambs. (1851); R.G. 10/1592.
138. C.R.O., 515/SP 587; 334/010.
140. Ibid. (1933, 1937); C.R.O., 331/Z 8, 1938, Aug., p. 66.
141. Ex inf. the Warden, Rhodes House, Oxford.
142. e.g. Petre Estate Act, 37 Geo. III, c. 130 (Priv. Act); cf. C.U.L., Maps 53/84/13.
143. Camb. Ind. Press, 14 June 1973.
144. e.g. C.U.L., Doc. 3965; C.R.O., R 56/16/23.
145. Camb. Univ. Doc. (1852), i. 260.
146. King's Coll. Mun., G 83, 89.
147. Ex inf. Mr. J. Saltmarsh of King's Coll.
148. C.R.O., par. reg. TS.
149. C.U.L., Maps 53(1)/91/156.
150. e.g. C.P. 25(2)/94/854/32 Eliz. I East. no. 13; 31st Rep. Com. Char. 104.
151. Prob. 11/100 (P.C.C. 64 Montague); Wards 7/26 no. 242.
152. Gibbons, Ely Episc. Rec. 316.
153. C.R.O., R 51/25/41, no. 3.
154. Ibid. no. 6; Alum. Cantab. to 1751, ii. 84.
156. Ibid. R 51/25/37Q 2, nos. 3–7; Mon. Inscr. Cambs. 80.
157. C.R.O., R 51/25/43, nos. 1–8; R 51/25/39A-C; R 51/25/35, pp. 12–19. For Middleton see D.N.B.
158. C.U.L., MS. Plan 662.
159. Camb. Chron. 20 July 1799; C.R.O., R 51/25/35, pp. 195–201, 230–8; R 51/25/46.
160. C.R.O., R 51/25/35, pp. 116–27, 164–71.
161. Ibid. pp. 105–115, 128–31, 172–7, 191–4; R 51/25/37P, nos. 2–3, 8, 12; ibid. Q 2, nos. 8, 73.
162. Ibid. R 51/25/35, pp. 178–81, 203–8.
163. Ibid. R 51/25/40A, b; par. reg. TS.
164. Hildersham ct. bk. 1834–75, pp. 188–96.
165. E 179/84/437 rot. 58.
167. Palmer, Neighbourhood of Hildersham, 9–10. See below, plate facing p. 81.
168. Cf. C.R.O., 515/SP 453.
169. V.C.H. Cambs. i. 390.
170. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 416–17.
171. Cal. Inq. p.m. iii, pp. 212–13.
172. Rot. Hund. ii. 416–17.
173. e.g. C 2/Eliz. I/P 2/22; Req. 2/73/6.
174. C.R.O., R 51/25/40; C.U.L., Doc. 3965.
175. B.L. Add. MS. 5861, f. 22v.
176. C.R.O., L 1/102, p. 38; cf. ibid. R 51/25/35 passim.
177. e.g. Cal. Fine R. 1461–71, 252; Cal. Close, 1485–1500, pp. 102–3.
178. C.P. 25(2)/41/19 no. 44.
179. C.R.O., R 51/25/37n, no. 10; 37 Q 1, no. 1.
180. E 179/81/134 m. 3.
181. L. & P. Hen. VIII, iii, p. 1118.
182. C.R.O., R 51/25/37N, nos. 1–9; 37 Q 1, nos. 7, 17, 19–20; E 179/81/134 m. 3.
183. C.R.O., R 51/25/45; King's Coll. Mun., G 83–8.
184. C.R.O., R 51/25/44.
185. Ibid. 619/M 68.
186. Ibid. R 51/25/36.
187. C.U.L., Doc. 3965.
188. See above.
189. C 2/Jas. I/W 10/43.
191. C 6/328/76.
192. C.R.O., R 51/25/46; ibid. L 42/3.
193. Ibid. L 4/41; ibid. 124/P 57.
194. Ibid. 124/P 55.
196. C.R.O., L 4/41; C.U.L., MS. Plan 662; C.U.L., Maps 53/84/13.
197. e.g. C.U.L., E.D.R., H 1/4, terriers 1625, 1665; C.R.O., R 51/25/37n, no. 9; R 51/25/35, pp. 14–17.
199. C.R.O., R 51/25/37N, no. 10; 31st Rep. Com. Char. 104; Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons (1883), 4.
200. C.R.O., R 51/25/38; Hildersham ct. bk. 1706–44, f. 46v., penes Mr. Binney.
201. H.O. 67/9.
202. C.R.O., R 51/25/42, no. 10.
203. C.U.L., Doc. 3965; cf. C.U.L., E.D.R., H 1/4, terrier 1625; C.R.O., L 4/41; King's Coll. Mun., G 83, 89.
204. B.L. Add. MS. 5861, f. 32.
205. Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons (1883), 6.
206. B.L. Add. MS. 5861, f. 32; 5860, f. 104.
210. Ibid. no. 10.
212. Vancouver, Agric. in Cambs. 59; C.R.O., R 51/25/42, no. 10.
214. E 179/242/8 m. 7d.
215. B.L. Add. MS. 5861, ff. 73v., 102.
216. Hildersham ct. bk. 1706–44, ff. 29v.–30, 33v.–34, 46 and v.
217. Vancouver, Agric. in Cambs. 59; Camb. Chron. 29 Mar. 1816.
218. C.R.O., R 51/25/35, p. 257.
219. Ibid. Q/RDc 82.
220. Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons (1883), 6–7.
221. C.R.O., R 51/25/41, no. 15; R 51/25/49; C.J. Ivi. 19–20.
224. Ibid. 334/010; ibid. R 51/25/46; ibid. par. reg. TS.
225. Ibid. R 51/25/42, nos. 8, 10.
226. Ibid. 334/010; ibid. L 42/3.
227. Ibid. L 92/20; ibid. 334/010; ibid. par. reg. TS.; C.U.L., Maps 53/84/13.
228. H.O. 107/1761.
229. 1st Rep. Com. Employment in Agric. 355; Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons (1883), 6–9.
230. Camb. Ind. Press, 5 May 1961.
231. Cf. C.U.L., E.D.R., C 3/26, 37.
232. Rep. H.L. Cttee. on Poor Laws, H.C. 227, pp. 326–7 (1831), viii; 1st Rep. Com. Employment in Agric. 355.
233. Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons (1883), 4–6, 8; C.U.L., Doc. 3964.
234. C.R.O., Q/RDc 82.
235. Camb. Ind. Press, 17 Dec. 1970.
236. Cf. C.R.O., par. reg. TS.; Rep. Sel. Cttee. on Commons (1883), 1–2, 7.
237. Land Com. Rep. on Hildersham Incl. H.C. 52, pp. 1–3 (1883), xxi.
238. Inclosure (Hildersham) Prov. Order Conf. Act, 1883, 46 & 47 Vic. c. 84 (Local and Personal).
239. C.R.O., Q/RDc 82; cf. ibid. 334/010.
240. Ibid. R 56/12/24; R 49/8/36; ibid. 334/010; Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1892–1937).
241. Census, 1831.
243. Gardner's Dir. Cambs. (1851); Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1858–1937); C.R.O., 331/Z 8, 1939, Sept. p. 79.
245. Cal. Pat. 1247–58, 379. No market at Hildersham was recorded in 1279.
247. Clerkenwell Cart. (Camd. 3rd ser. lxxi), 20–1; cf. C.P. 25(1)/24/21 no. 8.
248. Cf. C.P. 25(2)/633/26 Chas. II Mich. no. 16.
249. C.R.O., R 59/5/3/1, pp. 76, 79–80.
250. Ibid. R 59/5/3/2, f. 41v.; R 59/5/4/3.
251. Not recorded in surveys of Linton estate after 1800.
252. e.g. C.R.O., Q/RDc 53, p. 154; cf. H.O. 107/66.
253. Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1858–1916).
254. Ibid. (1925).
255. C.U.L., Doc. 3966; cf. Proc. C.A.S. xxxi. 27.
256. Inscr. on bldg.
257. C.R.O., 296/SP 1212.
258. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), i. 52.
260. C.R.O., L 1/102, pp. 11, 68.
261. Ibid. pp. 14, 23, 40.
263. Ibid. ff. 21, 27, 33, 37, 49, 57v.
265. Ibid. pp. 257–8, 282–3.
266. Ibid. L 1/102; N.R.A., manorial index; ct. bks. A-E, penes Mr. H. B. Binney, of Pampisford Hall; C.R.O., R 51/25/35 (duplicate ct. bk. 1748–1817).
267. C.U.L., E.D.R., B 2/4, p. 119.
268. Ibid. Add. MS. 7208, pt. i, f. 31; C.R.O., R 55/38/1.
269. Poor Law Abstract, 1804, 34–5.
270. Ibid. 1818, 28–9.
271. Rep. H.L. Cttee. on Poor Laws, H.C. 227, pp. 326–7 (1831), viii.
272. Rep. Com. Poor Laws [44], p. 257, H.C. (1834), xxviii.
273. Poor Law Com. 1st Rep. 249.
274. Census, 1931 (pt. ii).
275. Tax, Eccl. (Rec. Com.), 267; cf. V.C.H. Essex, ii. 107.
276. Cur. Reg. R. vi. 87, 105.
277. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 416. A papal provision to Hildersham made in 1321 (Cal. Papal Reg. ii. 215) was apparently ineffective.
278. C.P. 40/352 rot. 344; E.D.R. (1892), 827.
279. e.g. E.D.R. (1895), 91.
280. Hist. MSS. Com. 4, 5th Rep. pp. 485–6.
281. C.R.O., R 56/16/1–4; Alum. Cantab. to 1751, iv. 99. Incumbents after 1338 are listed in E.D.R. (1897), 77.
283. Ibid. 9–10; Prob. 11/838 (P.C.C. 167 Hutton).
284. C.R.O., R 56/16/12–13, 18; Alum. Cantab. 1752–1900, i. 317, s.v. Bones, Chas.
285. Prob. 11/2054 (P.C.C. 319, 1847); C.R.O., par. reg. TS.
286. C.R.O., R 56/16/20–1.
287. Ibid. par. reg. TS.; ibid. 331/Z 5, 1920, Nov. p. lxxxiii; Crockford (1951–2, 1961–2, 1971–2); ex inf. the Church Com. and the Revd. E. C. Pearson.
288. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 416.
289. C.U.L., E.D.R., H 1/4, terriers 1625, 1665.
290. Ibid. Doc. 3965.
292. Ex inf. the Church Com.; C.U.L., Maps 53(1)/91/157.
293. Crockford (1951–2).
296. C.R.O., R 56/16/27–9; C.U.L., Doc. 3964; cf. ibid. E.D.R., H 1/4, terriers 1625, 1665.
299. C.R.O., R 55/38/1.
300. Crockford (1951–2, 1961–2); Camb. Ind. Press, 5 Apr. 1961.
301. Val. of Norwich, ed. Lunt, 227, 536; Tax. Eccl. (Rec. Com.), 267.
302. Valor Eccl. (Rec. Com.), iii. 504.
303. Lamb. Pal. MS. 904, f. 272; C.U.L., E.D.R., B 8/1.
304. Rep. Com. Eccl. Revenues, pp. 348–9.
305. C.U.L., E.D.R., C 3/26, 37.
306. Vetus Liber Arch. Elien. (C.A.S. 8vo ser. xlviii), 63.
307. C.U.L., E.D.R., B 8/1; Char. Don. i. 88–9; 31st Rep. Com. Char. 104; C.R.O., R 55/38/1; Char. Digest Cambs. 1863–4, 21.
308. See p. 19.
310. C.P. 40/352 rot. 344; Cal. Papal Reg. ii. 89; Cal. Fine R. 1327–37, 324.
311. E.D.R. (1889), 357; (1890), 426, 449.
312. East Anglian, N.S. xiii. 191.
313. Trans. C.H.A.S. i. 397; cf. Prob. 11/20 (P.C.C. 27 Maynwaring, will of Rob. Bygrave).
314. E.D.R. (1911), 20, 70; Emden, Biog. Reg. Univ. Camb. 108–9.
315. e.g. B.L. Add. MS. 5861, ff. 73v., 91v., 102; E.D.R. (1913), 41.
316. Alum. Cantab. to 1751, ii. 412.
317. Ibid. ii. 360; Cooper, Athen. Cantab. i. 419; B.L. Add. MS. 5813, f. 66.
318. See p. 7.
319. Prob. 11/78 (P.C.C. 62 Sainberbe); cf. C.U.L., E.D.R., B 2/11.
320. See his books listed in B.L. Add. MS. 5861, f. 48.
321. Alum. Cantab. to 1751, iv. 100; C.U.L., E.D.R., B 2/13, f. 3v.; B 2/30A, f. 6v.
322. Alum. Cantab. to 1751, iii. 228.
323. Ibid. iv. 99.
324. Lamb. Pal. MS. 904, f. 271.
326. C.U.L., E.D.R., B 8/1.
327. Ibid. C 1/1.
328. Ibid. B 8/4; cf. ibid. Add. MS. 7208, vol. i, insert: licence, 1797.
329. Ibid. E.D.R., C 1/4.
331. Ibid. C 3/17, 26; B 1/16, 39.
332. Ibid. C 3/37; C.R.O., 331/Z 6, 1932, June, p. 50.
333. C.R.O., 331/Z 1, 1905, May, p. xi.
334. Ibid. 331/Z 8, 1939, Jan., p. 4.
336. Mon. Inscr. Cambs. 79.
337. B.L. Add. MS. 36443, no. 881.
338. Cf. Eccl. Top. Eng. vi, no. 155; Trans. C.H.A.S. iv. 64.
339. Palmer, Wm. Cole, 96.
340. A. G. Hill, Churches of Cambs. (1880), 195; cf. Trans. C.H.A.S. iv. 63–4; Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1888).
341. Trans. C.H.A.S. iii. 89.
342. Palmer, Wm. Cole, 96; Churches of Cambs. 196.
343. Mon. Inscr. Cambs. 79, 253; cf. B.L. Add. MS. 6730, ff. 27–9; C.R.O., 331/Z 5, 1919, Sept., p. lviii.
344. Mon. Inscr. Cambs. 79. Only the third was identified by an inscription.
345. C.U.L., E.D.R., B 2/18, f. 77v.
346. Cambs. Village Doc. 65.
347. C.U.L., E.D.R., B 2/59, p. 38.
349. Trans. C.H.A.S. iv. 62–3, 65.
350. Cf. B.L. Add. MS. 36426, f. 38; Add. MS. 36433, no. 881; Churches of Cambs. 194.
351. C.R.O., R 58/38/1; Trans. C.H.A.S. iv. 62, 64–5; cf. Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1879, 1888); Camb. National Trust Centre Mag. Jan. 1974, 13–17.
352. Camb. Evening News, 6 Dec. 1972; 3 Aug. 1973.
353. C.R.O., 331/Z 3, 1912, Jan., pp. vi, xii–xiii; Churches of Cambs. 194.
354. Cf. H.O. 107/1761; R.G. 10/1592.
355. E.D.R. (1890), 454.
356. B.L. Add. MS. 5860, f. 104v.
357. C.R.O., 331/Z 4, 1914, Apr.
358. Cambs. Ch. Goods, temp. Edw. VI, 63.
359. Trans. C.H.A.S. iv. 62–3; Cambs. Bells (C.A.S. 8vo ser. xviii), 150.
360. List of ch. plate penes V.C.H.; cf. Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1879, 1888).
361. C.R.O., P 91/1/1–7.
362. Cath. Rec. Soc. liii. 2.
365. G.R.O. Worship Returns, Ely dioc. nos. 523, 619.
367. H.O. 129/188/2/3/12.
370. C.U.L., E.D.R., D 2/10, f. 160; B 2/18, f. 77v.
371. Educ. of Poor Digest, 60.
372. Educ. Enquiry Abstract, 57.
373. Gardner's Dir. Cambs. (1851); O.S. Map 6", Cambs. LV. SW. (1891 edn.).
374. Kelly's Dir. Cambs. (1864, 1879, 1888).
375. Rep. Educ. Cttee. of Council, 1892–3 [C. 7089–I], p. 688, H.C. (1893–4), xxvi; Bd. of Educ., List 21, 1914 (H.M.S.O.), 27.
376. Bd. of Educ., List 21, 1914 (H.M.S.O.), 27.
377. Ibid. 1919, 16.
378. Ibid. 1932, 17; C.R.O., 331/Z 6, 1928, May, p. 40; June, p. 48.
379. 31st Rep. Com. Char. 104; Char. Com. files; and see above, p. 19.
380. C.R.O., P 91/1/1, f. 1 and v., and insert; R 51/25/41, no. 5.
381. Ibid. R 55/38/1.
382. e.g. C.R.O., 331/Z 1, 1905, Dec., p. xcii; 331/Z 3, 1911, Jan., p. iii.
383. 31st Rep. Com. Char. 104.


text:
Why transcripts of Trump's calls with heads of state are so hard to get
September 30, 2019 · 4:45 PM EDT
By The World staff
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy speaks with journalists during a joint drill of departments of Interior Ministry at the International Training Center near the village of Stare in Kyiv region, Ukraine, Sept. 30, 2019.
Gleb Garanich/Reuters
US President Donald Trump on Monday intensified his attacks on a lawmaker leading the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry, suggesting that Rep. Adam Schiff should be arrested for "treason."
Witnesses are due to testify in the House this week in hearings related to Trump's request that a foreign power investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of the leading Democratic candidates seeking to challenge him in 2020.
Related: Who is responsible for enforcing the US whistleblower law? The president.
A US intelligence official filed a whistleblower complaint citing a July 25 telephone call in which Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Biden, along with his son, Hunter Biden, who sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company. The whistleblower has not been publicly identified.
In a series of Twitter posts on Monday morning, Trump appeared to reference comments made by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff during a committee hearing last week. In those comments, Schiff says the call to Zelenskiy "reads like a classic organized crime shakedown" and parodies the president's remarks.
Trump tweeted the following:
Related: Spies and the White House have a history of running wild without congressional oversight
Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?
A spokesman for Schiff did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Monday's post followed a string of tweets from Trump on Sunday evening in which he said he wanted to meet the whistleblower, whom he called "my accuser," as well as "the person who illegally gave this information" to him or her.
Trump accused the whistleblower and White House officials who gave the whistleblower information of being spies and suggested they may be guilty of treason.
Democrats accuse Trump of pressuring a vulnerable US ally to get dirt on a rival for personal political gain. The phone call with Zelenskiy came after Trump froze nearly $400 million in aid intended to help Ukraine deal with an insurgency by Russian-backed separatists in the eastern part of the country. The aid was later provided.
Related: Call summary: Trump asked Ukraine president to look into Biden activities
The Intelligence Committee is leading the inquiry in the Democratic-led House, which could lead to approval of articles of impeachment against the Republican president and a subsequent trial in the Republican-led Senate on whether to remove Trump from office.
The whistleblower, whom Schiff said on Sunday will appear before the panel very soon, says that according to multiple White House officials, "this was 'not the first time' under this administration that the record of a telephone conversation was then placed into a codeword-level system to protect politically sensitive — rather than national security-sensitive — information."
Tom Blanton directs the National Security Archive at George Washington University. He spoke to The World's host, Marco Werman, about the "codeword-level" system.
"Every other telecon I've seen had an individual person — someone like Rose Gottemoeller, who was on the White House staff, or Nicholas Burns, who went on to be high-level State Department — they would be listed as note-taker because they were responsible for making sure the transcript was accurate as possible. The second really unusual item is the caveat down at the bottom of the page; it says 'caution,' it's not a verbatim transcript. It just is our notes and recollections of these duty officers and policy staff, and there are a lot of factors that can make it inaccurate.' That's a really unusual caveat," Blanton said.
Marco Werman: And in terms of tone, how does Trump come across compared to previous US presidents?
Tom Blanton: Especially at the beginning of the conversation, it seems either he was badly briefed, or — President Trump is pretty notorious for resisting all briefing. He seems to be congratulating Zelenskiy of Ukraine on the earlier presidential election. He says, "Oh, you came out of nowhere, came from behind, you ended up winning easily." Actually, this phone call was about the parliamentary elections because Zelenskiy won the presidency, but he had a parliament that was opposed to him. So, he called elections, and it became the first time ever in Ukraine's independent history that one party got a majority of the parliament. So, we had an overwhelming mandate for reform, and President Trump doesn't seem to realize that's what's going on here.
Well, reportedly Trump doesn't pay attention to a lot of his briefings. Is there any way to tell how well former presidents are briefed prior to these consequential phone calls with other heads of state?
Yes, compared to say, the George H.W. Bush, conversations with President Leonid Kravchuk of Ukraine at the time, or President Bill Clinton's conversations with President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine, those conversations are about nuclear warheads in Ukraine. They're about Ukraine's relationship with Russia. They're about the dangers of nationalism and disintegration. They're about the need for economic reform. They're very substantive. This conversation with Zelenskiy and President Trump is a whole different tone and whole different substance.
How did the five-page record of the call between Trump and Zelenskiy compare to what we know about, say, this call Trump had with Mexico's leader in 2017, Enrique Peña Nieto.
That's a great question because we really only have three of these telephone transcripts from President Trump's time in office, and two of them — one with the Mexican president and one with the Australian prime minister — were leaked to The Washington Post in August of 2017. And they are equally fascinating because with the Mexican president, you have President Trump saying to him, "Yeah I understand that; yeah, you're not going to pony up any money for that wall. But don't say that in public. Stop saying that in public. That's really bad for me politically that you're saying Mexico won't pay won't pay." There's a similar dynamic with Australia, and the Australian prime minister is trying to tell President Trump, "Look you've got to take these 1,250 immigrants that are otherwise in this prison camp on the Nauru island because it's a deal we made. And so, you've got to do that. You get to vet them." And Trump gets so exasperated. He says, "This is the worst call. This is ridiculous. I've had it," and pretty much hangs up on the Australian, and it kind of goes to the similarities between these three calls: one with the Mexican, one with the Australian, and now this one with the Ukrainian. It's all about President Trump himself and his political concerns — it doesn't seem to be about the national security interests of the United States.
So, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, his spokesman says transcripts of telephone conversations between the Russian president and Donald Trump — those can only be released with the Kremlin's permission. So, does the uproar over the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call mean that the public is any more likely to hear about sensitive discussions that President Trump might have had with Vladimir Putin or other world leaders like Mohammad bin Salman of Saudi Arabia?
That's a great question, because one of the outstanding issues is whether President Trump even kept records of many of those conversations. There are at least, I think The New York Times reported at least five, six different head of state meetings, including a couple with Putin, a couple with North Korea's Kim and one with Prince Salman, where the president either took away the interpreter's notes or specifically excluded any note taker from the meeting. So, there was no record.
This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity. Reuters contributed to this report.
GAO report says Trump administration violated the law in withholding aid to Ukraine
US-China trade war truce is 'broad and vague,' economist says
Trial in the Senate: Where does impeachment go from here?
Conflict & JusticeJusticeConflictLifestyle & BeliefLeadersPoliticsGlobal PoliticsTrump administrationUS politicsGlobal Security
WASHINGTONDCNorth AmericaEuropeUnited StatesUkraine
Subscribe to the Critical State Newsletter...
...and get your global security jones on. Developments that matter, a skeptical eye, a ton of context.
By subscribing, I agree to receive emails from The World and Inkstick Media.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The nursery and pre-nursery admission process in Chandigarh private schools will begin from November 30.
Chandigarh: The nursery admission season is here. The nursery and pre-nursery admission process in Chandigarh private schools will begin from November 30. According to The Tribune newspaper, a consensus in this regard emerged among the schools in a meeting took place yesterday between school principals and officials of the Chandigarh Union Territory's Education Department here.
The schools will upload information about admission process on websites: November 30.
The schools to complete the process of draw of lots and put up the lists on notice board or websites by: January 15.
The last day to submit fee: February 10.


text:
Scott Hattori: A star is born
by Don Paulson - SGN Contributing Writer
Teenage Scott Hattori was one of the 110,000 Japanese Americans interned in relocation camps during WWII. The fear was espionage and sabotage against America. Crowded into tar paper barracks with no running water, communal mess hall, laundry or toilets, and inadequate heat, guarded by barbed-wire fences, patrolled by armed guards and watchdog, Scott and his family were interned in southern Idaho's Minidoka camp. Scott's father was Swedish and sent him phonographs of popular music that eased his being picked on because he was only half Japanese. Scott was not traumatized by his experience, but he never wanted to talk about it. After Minidoka, Scott became a student at the University of Washington's School of Interior Design and became an accomplished designer and artist of ballet and costume designs. His painting of a nude is in the collection of Seattle Art Museum.
Bill Parkin remembers: "Scott was very much a mystery man. He'd walk into a room and the room would stop because he was so tall and handsome. He had a large following; a lot of people were interested in him. He mixed well with everyone and knew all kinds of people. He was extremely charismatic and as secretive as his relationship with movie actor Farley Granger." Scotty was very much a star himself, admired by Gay Seattle and local businessmen when he was a waiter at the chic Marine Room in the Olympic Hotel and when he opened a Japanese import shop on Pine Street with fellow student Ruth Nomura in 1955.
Bill Maclane remembers: "I met Scott at a party. He was so good-looking and unusual. I asked him if he was Japanese and [asked him] things [about being] Japanese, and he wouldn't be able to answer. He'd say, 'I'll ask my mother; she's Japanese.' I was a Far East major at the University and tried to get him interested in Japanese arts. We started having Japanese dinners together and went to Japanese restaurants. I helped him, along with friends Yoshi and Mary and Ruth, to embrace his Japanese heritage and he was so artistic anyway. He was just bursting to go anywhere but he didn't know where."
Ruth Nomura remembers: "He wanted to open a restaurant, but didn't have enough money. He was fascinated by all things Japanese, and after a trip to Japan we opened a Japanese import shop called Haru, years before Trident Imports. Haru quickly became the in place to shop for household accessories - fruit jars, candlesticks, unusual ashtrays, vases, lots of beautiful silk pillows, loose fabrics that you could do things with. We were equal partners; I ran the store while Scott, the master of display and decoration, worked his magic. For a while we had gravel on the floor, but it became dangerous for women with Martha Mitchell heels. One brick wall Scott painted gold, and a grand piano we used for a counter. Scott was a perfectionist, worked long hours, and changed windows every week.
In Scott Hattori a star was born, but it was not to last as he died of leukemia at age 31.
'Two Gay dudes on a mission'
GSBA's 2009 Business and Humanitarian Awards
Success as New Hampshire House kills anti-marriage bill
BREAKING NEWS: Anti-Gay riots in Kenya
ACLU-NJ sues police for abuse of Transgender woman
Signature-gathering underway for I-1068
Out to Quit: Going through 'The Program' - Week 7
Rosehedge hosts third annual Love Without Boundaries fundraiser
SnoGLOBE offers LGBTQ support in Snohomish County
Gay demonstrations mark Valentine's Day across Latin America
Malawi police arrest one Gay man, hunt for more
Chinese contestant afraid to go home after pageant
Uganda pastor shows Gay porn in church
Tour de Life: The upside of being pissed off
General Gayety: Kenya - a joint crusade
Paul Malcolm Edwards
SOaP board members vote to change 2010 Seattle Pride theme
Gay Man Named National Editor of New York Times
Openly Lesbian Dutch Speed Skater Ireen Wüst Wins Gold Medal
Olympic Pride House: Government throws a party for the gays
U.S. Supremes let rulings stand in favor of nonbiological lesbian mom
Religion, politics and Africa's homophobia
Senior bishops want gay weddings in churches
There was an elephant in the San Francisco courtroom
Md. attorney general: State to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere
A Means to an End
Same-sex marriage opponents appeal, advocates look to March 3
Campaign Goes After Opponents of Gay Marriage
Beverly Hills disowns Miss California contestant
Co-owner of Chicago Cubs is open lesbian


- Family Christian Center from Eric B.
In regards to the introductory piece about kids being rude, I have a slightly different take on the topic. My take very much depends though on whether I understood what you were talking about properly, so if I didn't I may be on completely the wrong track.
I'm on the cusp of generations X and Y, so always find it interesting when I notice myself quite strongly having traits of both. What I've tended to notice with pureblood (he says in jest) Gen Y's isn't so much that they're lacking in manners, and courtesy, but moreso something elder generations mistakingly consider to also be part of manners and courtesy - respect.
With older generations, respect is something given automatically to elders, politicians, military officers, police etc. With gen Y, there is no automatic respect - instead respect is something that has to be earned.
In many situations when coming across new people, they are simply arespectful while waiting for the person place or thing to earn it. Many in the older generations mistake this for disrespect, and a lack of manners and courtesy as to them automatic unreserved respect is part of those things. To Gen Y though, it isn't.
This respect doesn't need to be earned in person in every situation though, it can also be earned through other forms of media (magazines, TV, books, online etc) and non-direct interaction.
So, it is quite possible for people to be given that respect straight up, but they need to reach out to Gen Y first and put something out there themselves that would earn that initial respect.
Hi! Great episode. Love from Sweden. I listen every week, and wait for the next with great constipation.
I spotted a funny "blooper" during Moishe's talk. For being so well versed in English, it's a bit embarrassing for him that he lacks any grasp of yiddish/hebrew. If he did, he would know that the englishified "goyim" is only used about people, in plural. As in: "They are goyim". "im" is a plural form, originally in hebrew but also in yiddish. "ot" is the feminine ending of a feminine word, like "kippa" (or yarmulke in yiddish). Kippa (feminine word) is kippot in plural, and navi ("profet", masculine word) is nevi'im in plural.
It's common in American english to say "goyim" about something that should only be called "goy", as in "that's a goy cheeseburger you have there", but no jew who really knows hebrew or yiddish would say it. Goyish is also accaptable as "ish" is a common form in yiddish. But then it should really be "goyisher", as in "O'bama is such a goyisher president."


Penny Kittlitz is a Canine Massage Therapist in Edmonton, Canada. She graduated from the diploma program in Canine Massage Therapy through Treetops Animal Massage. She is also certified in Pet First Aid. Animal health and well-being have always been top of mind for Penny, who has a special desire to help dogs rehabilitate, relax and rejuvenate.


Hard-wired to proactively lead and perform at the highest levels.Take advantage of a progressive career in advertising with a proven ability to creatively ignite top-line growth. I am experienced at the strategic planning of integrated marketing communications, sales, brand management, promotions, channel management and web-based marketing.
· Sales Igniter: Aconsultative business developer, adept at listening, clarifying and understanding customer needs. Experienced consultant earning respect and confidence of executives and employees at all levels. Particularly skilled atquestioning and identifying systemic causes, applying problem solving methods and identifying potential solutions.Able to take complex and abstract information and synthesize into practical customer solutions. Personal accountability evidenced by positive, "make it happen" attitude.
· Marketing Guru: Skilled marketing communications professional fully versed in integrated marketing communications, SEO and social media marketing. Avid buyer behaviorist who leverages market research, media placement, public relations and brand building with a laser focus on growing revenue.
· Strategic Innovation: Adept at taking complex challenges, identifying business objectives, aligning resources to deliver simplified and profitable solutions. Blue ocean strategist seeking out opportunity.
· Thought Leader: Marketing strategist with expertise in brand building, market segmentation and a thorough understanding of buyer behavior, in B2B and B2C sales framework. Advertising expertise that includes leveraging digital and social media.
· Project Manager: Successfully led intricate, multi-factorial projects resulting with high return on investment. Big picture mind set that is comfortable with the hands-on details and execution.
· Team Builder: Skilled at galvanizing commitment, deploying resources, managing and developing talent to ensure customer satisfaction on every engagement.
Authored and implemented a strategic sales and marketing plan that has opened new market opportunities, resulting in 60%lift in revenue for 2011. I have created and executed a marketing communications programat Five Star Tool that resulted in doubling lead generation in new profitable accounts. Profits jumped 75% through a segmentation project that discovered a new customer base opportunity.
Responsible for executing all copywriting and marketing collateral design. Implemented lead referral, lead tracking, and sales CRM database. Designed the search engine optimization strategy, email campaigns, packaging design, brochures, catalog, photography, surveys and social media plan. Executed the sales plan that contributed to the significant revenue growth.
Created a sales lead generating business development program to leverage Sutherland's minority owned status within the Fortune 500 diversity supply chain.
Defined and launched brand marketing strategies, created revenue-generating advertising communications, and expanded production capabilities for this locally owned and operated cable station. Managed and directed creative service and promotions team charged with increasing sales through direct marketing efforts, e-mail promotions, and web site development (RSS feeds, interactive games, polls, blogs, downloads). Oversaw media planning, buying, and strategic resource allocation.
Producer/Director (1995 to 1999): Oversaw product and service marketing for ad sales customers that included consumer packaged goods and high level technology solutions: including all creative, copy writing, photography, and editing. R News Promotions Coordinator (1993 to 1995): Coordinated on-air promotion of local news, including copy writing, directing, and editing all on-air promos/presentations. Initiated use of special events to promote the station at festivals. Directed and implemented guerrilla marketing strategies using minimal resources. Created highly successful on-air promotional "watch and win" contest for R News. News Videographer (1991 to 1993): Award winning videographer for start-up local all-news TV station. Introduced use of long form documentaries to build station credibility and the use of sponsor driven public service announcements.


Mission Statement: "We Wish to provide families of addicts a place to share openly and to find resources while realizing they are not alone"
Meeting time: 3rd Saturday of each month at 11am. Meetings consist each month of special speakers such as members of the healthcare field, law enforcement, rehab centers, recovering addicts and the family members.
Who We are: (A Non-Profit Group) A volunteer group consisting of Parents( or family members) who have lost their loved ones, law enforcement, volunteers, County Coroner Tom Carmen, Judge Mike Shaw, Pastor Anne Canfield and various medical associations volunteers.
Our Vision: To raise drug awareness through Drug Education in our schools and through parent forums throughout our community and Bradford County. To have a community free of substance abuse. We also administer the N.O.P.E. Program in our school and community.
-To create a support network that youth can turn to for help in a confidential setting.
-Annual 5K run "Brandon Schuchardt Race Against Addiction" to raise funds.
-Frist 5K was held October 25, 2014 at McDonald's in Sayre, PA and was Zombie themed.
-We need volunteers committed to making The Valley a safer place for our children through education. We also need community support through donations.
*Have recovery resources you want to share! Just email them to us (opendoormissionofowego@gmail.com) and we will post them!


text:
High Impact Opportunities by Issue Area
Education, public health, disaster relief, and more
How to Achieve Impact Anywhere
Guidance for donors, no matter what the cause
How We Define High Impact Philanthropy
What it is, and how to do it
Funder Education
donor and executive education, workshops, speaking engagements, and more
Campus Programs for Penn Students
teaching, advising, and student employment opportunities
Funders and Partners
Guidance from the Center, plus perspectives from the field
The Center's work featured in mainstream media
Home » Blog & News » It Ain't What You Give, It's the Way That You Give It: Q & A with Caroline Fiennes
It Ain't What You Give, It's the Way That You Give It: Q & A with Caroline Fiennes
Philanthropy & Social Impact
It's mid-May, students are graduating and many people are making plans for the summer. In fact, it's a great time to start preparing your summer reading list and I'd like to recommend It Ain't What You Give, It's The Way That You Give It by Caroline Fiennes, a donor advisor and the Director of Giving Evidence, based in the U.K. The book, released in March 2012, is available from www.giving-evidence.com/book.
I'm also pleased to share my interview with the author, as she discusses issues in philanthropy such as why giving based on overhead/admin costs is "bollocks", the value of systemic impact, and selection bias in evaluation—while also covering things such as her passion for medieval choral music, thoughts on gender imbalance at the World Economic Forum, and what economists can learn from high impact philanthropy.
Are you concerned that readers will read the book's "10-Minute Guide to Supporting Charities" and assume they don't need to read the rest of the book?
Fiennes: No. It's rather the other way round: I know that lots of people only read the first few pages of a book (they're waiting for somebody in a bookshop, they find it on a friend's kitchen table etc.) and since I'm keen that even they get the key messages, I put them upfront in the 10-minute guide. There is of course loads more detail in the rest of the book, as well are more stories and jokes.
You make an important distinction between effectiveness (improving the world) and efficiency (lack of waste). Do you think these terms are overused or misused by both donors and organizations?
Fiennes: Yeah, I think that people focus too much on lack of waste (and they conflate "admin" or "overheads" with waste, when actually it's often totally different), and not enough on what the charity actually achieves: its "effectiveness", or what an economist might call its productivity.
I'm really angered when I see charities flaunting the low-ness of their admin costs (as WaterAid did) because it feeds the notion that admin = waste and should be minimised: and
(a) that's bollocks, and
(b) it's dangerous bollocks because converse is true, and
(c) therefore most charities spend their lives trying to disabuse donors of this dangerous notion.
Of course, reducing waste is important. Of course. But it is impossible to see waste from outside an organisation, so we should never encourage donors to try, and it anyway doesn't tell you much: a charity with a terrible theory of change, or doing something which doesn't need to be done, but with no waste isn't going to do a good job.
In reference to breadth vs. certainty, you encourage donors to support work that has a high risk of failure but has the greatest capacity for impact. Is there a certain donor profile you're thinking of for this type of support? For example, a high net worth individual, giving circle, foundation, corporate philanthropy, large service organization, all of the above?
Fiennes: Not particularly. I've explained this to people who give £millions and people who give £10—companies and individuals—and they've all understood it and liked it. People giving at any scale can understand the value in systemic impact.
For instance, Obama's Presidential campaign was financed in large part by regular "retail" donors giving a few dollars: without needing to take sides on his presidency, you can see that changing the president is quite a "bottom of the triangle" way to change a nation, and loads of regular people responded.
The triangle is relevant to any donor because they all need to be aware of their options, and the choices they're making. Same reason I explain what theories of change are.
It also speaks to the point above about waste, actually. People sometimes think that spending on advertising is "waste". But in the case of charities of charities advertising to get people to avoid getting skin cancer, or to be more aware of the needs of disabled people (or a million other virtuous examples), that isn't waste at all. It's an effective intervention.
What type of market (or other) research did you perform before or during the writing of this book? Did you learn anything particularly surprising or were certain long-held theories or beliefs merely confirmed?
Fiennes: Ha ha. Well, I have worked advising donors and funders for years, and been a charity CEO, so I started out thinking that I knew this stuff and would just write it down. Through my research—which comprised talking to lots of people, and reading quite a lot—I learnt absolutely masses.
Two of the three main influences on this book were people/disciplines I'd never encountered when I started writing: one is Professor Dean Karlan (Innovations for Poverty Action-IPA, MIT's Poverty Action Lab J-PAL) the whole "movement" to bring scientific, randomised evaluations into development work; and the other was Dr. Ben Goldacre, through whose book about medicine I learnt masses about social science research and where data collection goes wrong (e.g., selection bias, confirmation bias, publication bias). Those areas are obviously related—in fact, Dean, Ben and I had dinner together. In terms of rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of various ways of "doing things to other people", medicine is way out front, the international development are learning and doing a lot, but the domestic charity sector is at the back.
I'm now genuinely shocked that I thought I was an expert in this stuff and didn't even know about selection bias—which renders many "evaluations" totally useless. But there are lots of other people in the charity world who also claim to be experts in evaluation/impact who don't understand it—and that is shocking. Even Goldman Sachs doesn't seem to understand it.
Completely unrelated to philanthropy: What kind of music are you into these days?
Fiennes: One of my big passions is medieval choral music(!) My husband went away for two months last year, and I bought the complete works of Thomas Tallis and sat down to write! Tallis is even thanked in the acknowledgements, and there's a reference to cathedral music in the book somewhere.
And my weird attachment to (cheesy 1980s popband) Starship has recently been rekindled, courtesy of the Muppets movie!
There was an interesting Economist article, Mick Jagger's Davos Top Ten, on last year's World Economic Forum in Davos at which Mick Jagger was the hot celebrity guest. The article's author, Matthew Bishop, plays on the Rolling Stones tune "Some Girls" as a commentary on the gender imbalance at the conference. Do you have plans to break into the World Economic Forum or have you already?
Fiennes: I have not been, though would be happy to. Gender is an issue: I remember the Chair of an endowed UK foundation noting that "the trustees are all men in their 50s onwards, but the staff are all women in their 20s and 30s." Actually, that's not so much gender itself as the fact that many boards want trustees with significant business experience, which is a skew against women. (See, that's selection bias right there! It's everywhere, honestly.)
What do you think is the most important thing that economists can learn from those of us working on the impact of philanthropy?
Fiennes: I'd like to see much more sophistication in the debate about impact, for which we clearly need people from many disciplines. The philanthro-sector can learn much from economists: it's not by accident that the rigorous evaluations in development are done by people called "development economists".
The challenge to economists obviously is that much of what the social sector does isn't readily quantified / isn't at all relevant to price / comes in non-interchangeable units (e.g., education advances & cultural deepening) / occurs over a range of timescales.
And we can learn much from medicine and the physical sciences as I've mentioned.
Anything you'd like to add?
Fiennes: As BBC Children in Need—a large & progressive UK grant-maker—were kind enough to write on the cover, this is "the book which charities want donors to read" because it explains the importance of all the things we always ask: unrestricted, long-term giving with help but not meddling etc. So many charities are recommending it to their donors.
I've had people question the book, disbelieving that donors will really do what I'm asking. To which I'd respond with two observations. One is that donors will do this: I was this morning with a donor I'm advising who, having read it, is doing only unrestricted grants of $00,000s for several years, has ceased looking at admin costs, and is now more than happy to pay for evaluations alongside. And the other is the stream of people who write to me saying things like "I had no idea that this was in the public domain", or "I'm totally changing my giving now".
Read more about It Ain't What You Give, It's the Way That You Give It at www.giving-evidence.com/book.
LearnPhilanthropy: Q & A with Dara Major
World Malaria Day 2012 – How Donors Can Sustain the Gains
The Center for High Impact Philanthropy
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6179 (Map)
impact@sp2.upenn.edu | 215.573-7266
Copyright © 2019	Center for High Impact Philanthropy – University of Pennsylvania