Site map
A History of Preston in Hertfordshire
New news stories: 1907
This page consists of newly-accessed newspaper reports which feature Preston from1907.
There are also two extracts which provide some insight into the background to reports.
The items are in date order for the most part.
PRESTON. The new Litany Desk has not yet been placed in the church owing to the fact that it is
being specially designed and will have a good deal of work put into it. The new hanging for the back
of the altar is being got ready by some of the village girls working under Mrs. H. Seebohm and will
look very beautiful when hung. It is of blue tussore silk and will be hung upon a wrought iron rod by
blue silken cord. 12 January 1907
19 January 1907 Last Year’s Rainfall. We have to thank Mr. R. de V. Pryor, the Laburnums, Preston,
Hitchin, for the following statistics of the rainfall of 1906 as recorded by him. Preston is 480ft. above
sea level; the rain gauge is 3ft. above ground, and the diameter of the funnel 8 inches. Mr. Pryor
informs us that with the exception of the year 1903, when he measured 35.60 inches, last year’s was
the heaviest fall at Preston since 1891.
Month. Depth. in 24 hours. or more recorded.
January .......... 3.63 .65 4th 21
February ........ 1.99 .36 17th 20
March ............ 2.03 .32 25th 18
April ............. 0.72 .13 13th 10
May .............. 1.03 .23 20th 20
June ............. 3.78 2.64 28th 12
July .............. 0.84 .73 27th 5
August .......... 0.98 .30 13th 6
September ..... 1.32 .35 14th 8
October ........ 3.92 .82 18th 15
November ...... 4.00 1.21 8th 17
December ...... 2.64 .36 13th 19
Total .......... 26.88 171
A HORSE UNATTENDED.
William Sharpe, Preston, was summoned for leaving a horse and cart unattended at Hitchin on
December 4.
Police-constable Dolly said at 12.15 in the afternoon he saw a horse and cart standing unattended in
front of Mr. Franklin’s shop in Sun-street. He watched the cart for 15 minutes and no-one came to it.
Witness went up and stood against the cart, and the defendant came out and got into the cart.
Witness drew attention to the time the horse and cart had been left unattended, and he replied he
was not doing any harm.
R. J. Hare, a lad, said he was on the Market-place on the day in question and noticed the horse and
cart standing unattended for some time. He stood outside the Corn Exchange and saw the policeman
go up to the defendant. He thought it would be about a quarter of an hour during which the horse was
standing unattended.
By the defendant: He said a quarter of an hour because he saw the clock at Mr. Franklin’s shop in the
Market-place.
The defendant said he stood in the doorway of Mr. Franklin’s shop while he was being served. It was
raining and from where he stood it would not be more than five feet from the pony. He only ordered
half a bushel of maize, and it was absurd to think he would be 15 minutes in getting served. The
horse was an old one, and would stand for a week unattended. He had been in Hitchin regularly for
years and that was the first complaint.
F. Pettitt said he worked for Mr. Franklin and was “the very one who served Mr. Sharpe.” He
corroborated the latter’s statement. The pony could not have stood unattended more than five
minutes.
The Bench decided there was not a serious offence, but the defendant had committed an offence.
The case would be dismissed with a caution. 21 September 1907
(William Sharpe was born in1856 and was working as a domestic Gardener in 1911. He and his
family lived at “The Wilderness”, Butchers Lane, Preston.)
DEATHS
5 February at Back Lane, Preston. Mary Ann Freeman aged twenty-five years
12 September 1907 at the Hospital, Hitchin John Henry FRENCH aged thirty-five years.
2 October 1907 at Preston Ann Jenkins aged 82.
On March 20 the marriage was solemnised at the Parish Church, Horninghold, Leicestershire, of Mr.
Frederick William Armstrong, eldest son of Mr. Frederick Armstrong, of the Hill Farm, Preston, and
Miss Frances P. Lygo, of Horninghold Manor, Leicestershire. The church was filled with friends and
relations of both the contracting parties. The vicar, the Rev. A. C. Morris, officiated; the service was
choral, appropriate hymns being sung. Miss Florence Armstrong (sister to the bridegroom) acted as
bridesmaid, and Mr. Lygo (Hitchin), brother of the bride, efficiently performed the duties of best man.
The reception was held and the wedding breakfast served at the home of the bride’s mother, at the
Manor House, Horninghold. The newly-married couple afterwards left for a short honeymoon in
London. Peals were rung on the church bells during afternoon and evening. A large number of
presents were received—considerably over 100—chief among them was a handsome gift from the D
squadron, Herts Imperial Yeomanry, Hitchin, in which the bridegroom is quartermaster-sergeant—and
one from the employees on the Treeton Grange Asylum farms, of which Mr. Armstrong has recently
been appointed farm bailiff 30 March 1907
PRESTON. A vestry meeting was held on April 20, the Vicar presiding. The accounts were presented
by the retiring churchwardens, Mrs. Barrington White and Mr. Sharpe, who were re-elected. The
following sidesmen were appointed:—Messrs. R. de V. Pryor, Ashton, Pettitt, Longbottom, Marshall
and Thrussell. 11 May 1907
PRESTON. The Annual Flower Show will be held in the grounds at Temple Dinsley, by kind
permission of Mr. T. Barrington-White, on Saturday, July 27. A Band will be in attendance and there will
be dancing in the evening. Gates open at 3 o’clock. 20 July 1907
For Sale a BAY HORSE, 16 hands; quiet to ride and drive in single or double harness. Free from
vice; good action; no whip. Takes no notice of motors.—F. ARMSTRONG, Hill Farm, Preston, Hitchin.
5 October 1907
PRESTON. A most enjoyable concert took place in the village schoolroom on Friday week. The
songs of Miss Oakley, Mr. Dan Hall and Mr. R. de V. Pryor were enthusiastically encored, as was also
the recitation of Miss Jessie Hall. Miss Delphi Heathorn in her costume duet with Mr. R. de V. Pryor
fairly brought the house down. Three plantation songs were sung by a vocal quintet, consisting of the
Misses Oakley, Bone and Messrs. T. Ashton and R. de V. Pryor. Other various items were contributed
by Mr. J. J. P. Cole and Master G. Hall. The proceeds, in aid of village institutions, amounted to £4
16s. 6d. It is to be hoped that this will not be the last of such entertainments in Preston this season.
30 November 1907
Greatest fall
No. of days with .01
TRANSFERS. The licence of the Red Lion, Preston, from Clement Edward Wightman,
to Charles Timothy Anderson. 30 March 1907
SCHOOL CASES. The following were summoned for non-compliance with school by-laws:—Herbert
Jenkins, John Jeeves, Ernest Bell, Edward Saunders, Herbert Sharpe (Preston).
ILLEGAL EMPLOYMENT.
Charles Perkins, Langley, was summoned for employing a child contrary to the Elementary Education
Act, about September 13; and the following were charged with a similar offence:William Mansfield,
Alfred Brown, Joseph Thrussell (two cases), William Jackson (Preston). 13 October 1907
(Note: Mr. A. E. Passingham, the clerk, appeared for the Rural School Attendance Committee,
explaining to the Bench why they had prosecuted two cases. “The by-law provided that children shall
attend school till they are 12 years of age. After they reach that age they could be exempt from
attending school after passing the fifth standard. The by-laws in the district only required a minimum
school attendance. The cases that day arose out of harvest employment. The school attendance
committee had done their best to stop the illegal employment, and they had in a few cases
prosecuted farmers not to employ the children. Sympathy might be felt for the farmers in the cases,
but he thought he could place before the Bench facts which would remove that sympathy. He would
show how they could secure the children’s work for agriculture by law. It was necessary that the
children’s parents should give notice that they wished to let their children be employed in agriculture.
If that were not done the lads would have to go to school until they were 13 years of age. But when
that was done, the child would only have to make 210 out of 400 attendances in one year. That would
give them seven weeks for hay-time, potato picking and harvest-time. Thus it would be seen that it
was well to take advantage of the by-laws.
The school attendance committee had done all in their power to meet the farmers on the matter, and
had even let them fix the holidays so that it would suit their harvest. In one school an extra week’s
holiday had been granted. The parents and farmers looked upon the matter in the light that the
money the children earned would easily cover the 2s. 6d. fine which was the infliction. The farmers
for the most part assumed an attitude of defiance. The child who attended school regularly could get
through the fifth standard by the time he was twelve. It was just those children who attend irregularly
who could not take advantage of passing the standard at 12 years of age. Some of the farmers would
say no doubt that the harvest was late, but at Kimpton the lads were employed before the harvest. He
thought that the lateness of the harvest did not have the slightest effect upon the matter. If the
Magistrates did not support the attendance committee and the by-laws their position was untenable.
That kind of thing spread, and if the Magistrates did not deal with the cases then others all over the
place would say that as others employed children why should not they. It was not really necessary to
employ children in the harvest. There were a great many old men and women and young girls who
would do the work. There were also a number of men unemployed, as he saw by his position as clerk
to the Guardians, who would be glad to do the work. The children were employed because it was
easier and cheaper. It was not a matter of life and death that the children should be employed as
some farmers would have them believe. The fact that a child could not drive a cart for them for a few
days did not make much difference. He trusted he had put the position fairly before the Bench, and
he said that the school attendance committee relied on the Magistrates to support them. The wages
the lads earned were from 5s. to 7s. 6d. per week, and he suggested that the fine should bear some
relation to the sum they earned.”
This is far more than a routine report. It’s hard evidence of the rural labour economy in action:
The key point is not just that children were being used—it’s that the system enabled it. The by-laws
allowed a child to attend only 210 out of 400 sessions, effectively building in roughly seven weeks of
labour time. That is not abuse of the system; that is the system.
Then a second layer cuts in: farmers preferred children because they were cheaper and easier, even
when adult labour existed. The clerk explicitly says unemployed men were available. That
undermines the usual “necessity” argument one sometimes sees in softer histories.
And the third layer—the one people often miss—is behavioural: fines were treated as a cost of doing
business. If a child earns 5s–7s 6d a week and the fine is 2s 6d, the economics speak for
themselves.
This news report illustrates how village life actually functioned beneath the concerts, cricket and
flower shows.)
CRICKET
PRESTON. The village cricket club entertained Offley on Wednesday, the home team winning by an
innings and 23 runs. Offley went in first and scored 13 (W. Day 5), and Preston replied with 83 (C.
Longbottom 39 not out and Kellow 10). At their second venture Offley could only amass 27 (S. Marlow
11). For Preston Longbottom did most damage with the ball, he taking seven wickets.
1 June 1907
St. Paul’s Walden C.C. v. Preston C.C.—Played at Preston on June 12, 1907, and resulted in a
victory for the visitors by 31 runs on the first innings. A. Sansom, St. Paul’s Walden, both batted and
bowled well scoring 32 runs and taking 9 wickets for 21 runs. Score:—
ST. PAUL’S WALDEN.
M. Toohey, l.b.w. b Pettitt .......... 2
F. Hassard, c Sharpe, b Pryor ........ 3
G. Knight, b Longbottom ............. 12
A. Sansom, b Pryor .................. 32
C. J. Kite, b Longbottom ............. 1
C. Bonfield, b Pryor ................. 9
H. Knight, b Pryor .................. 12
E. Knight, not out ................... 2
C. Pettitt, b Longbottom ............ 12
A. Sansom, b Longbottom .............. 8
V. Martin, b Longbottom .............. 0
Extras ............................... 7
Total 78—
PRESTON.
J. J. P. Cole, run out .............. 11
W. Sharpe, c E. Knight, b Sansom ..... 2
O. Longbottom, c E. Knight, b Sansom 15
G. I. E. Pryor, b Sansom ............. 1
R. de V. Pryor, b Sansom ............. 4
Pettitt, b Sansom .................... 0
Robinson, b Sansom ................... 0
Kellow, not out ...................... 7
Smallwood, b Sansom .................. 0
Thrussell, l.b.w. b Sansom ........... 0
Sansom, st. Hassard ................. 0
Extras ............................... 7
Total 47—
King’s Walden v. Preston.—Played at King’s Walden on Saturday, July 20. A very exciting game
ended in a win for Preston by four wickets and 2 runs, after King’s Walden had led by 22 runs on the
first innings. Score:—
KING’S WALDEN.
E. Wise, b Longbottom .............. 1
L. Mulcock, run out ................ 1
J. Toohey, c Robinson, b G. I. E. Pryor ... 3
H. Nash, not out ................... 25
G. Hill, c G. I. E. Pryor, b Longbottom ... 6
H. Keen, b Longbottom .............. 3
C. Varley, b G. I. E. Pryor ........ 1
F. Street, c Smallwood, b G. I. E. Pryor ... 0
Pryor, c Smallwood, b G. I. E. Pryor ... 0
P. Oliver, b G. I. E. Pryor ........ 27
R. Mardle, b E. Knight ............. 0
E. Somner, b E. Knight ............. 7
Extras ............................. 3
Total 79
Kings Walden. Second innings: Wise, b Longbottom, 1; Mulcock, b Longbottom, 1; Nash, b G. I. E.
Pryor, 1; Hill, b Longbottom, 4; Keen, b Longbottom, 0; Varley, run out, 18; Street, run out, 0; Oliver, b
G. I. E. Pryor, 4; Mardle, c Wray, b G. I. E. Pryor, 4; Somner, not out, 0; extras, 1; total, 30.
Preston. Second innings: Second innings: Longbottom, b Mulcock, 1; H. Knight, not out, 13;
Rowlands, b Keen, 0; R. de V. Pryor, c Nash, b Keen, 2; G. I. E. Pryor, b Keen, 3; Sharpe, not out, 4;
Pettitt, b Mulcock, 0; Robinson, b Keen, 28; extras, 3; total, 54.
PRESTON.
C. Longbottom, b Keen .............. 17
H. Knight, b Toohey ................ 2
R. Rowlands, b Keen ............... 8
R. de V. Pryor, c Mulcock, b Keen ... 8
G. I. E. Pryor, b Toohey .......... 1
E. Knight, c Keen, b Toohey ........ 3
W. Sharpe, c Mardle, b Toohey ...... 3
W. Pettitt, c Toohey, b Keen ....... 8
E. Robinson, not out .............. 12
H. Smallwood, b Toohey ............. 1
E. Wray, b Keen .................... 0
Extras ............................. 2
Total 57
Offley v. Preston.—Played at Offley on August 5, Preston winning by 78 runs on the first innings.
Score:—
PRESTON.
C. Longbottom, b Macdonald .......... 57
G. I. E. Pryor, b Macdonald .......... 58
W. Pettitt, b Macdonald .............. 1
E. Robinson, c Mears, b Macdonald ... 6
R. de V. Pryor, b Baron .............. 1
J. Westwood, b Baron ................. 1
C. Wray, b Baron ...................... 0
H. Smallwood, b Macdonald ........... 0
R. Ashton, run out ................... 4
E. Robinson, not out ................ 0
E. Wray, b Baron ...................... 0
Extras ............................... 14
Total 136—
Second Innings, 36 (Longbottom 15).
OFFLEY.
A. Baron, b G. Pryor ................. 0
W. Macdonald, b Longbottom .......... 16
Rev. E. J. Baron, b G. Pryor ......... 12
W. Davis, c Longbottom, b G. Pryor ... 10
D. Hall, c Smallwood, b Longbottom ... 6
H. Way, c G. Pryor, b Longbottom ..... 1
E. Bland, c and b G. Pryor ........... 2
F. Grant, b Longbottom ............... 3
C. Woodfield, b Longbottom ........... 0
C. Mears, b Longbottom ............... 1
F. Way, c and b Longbottom ........... 0
Extras ............................... 7
Total 58—
Second Innings, 78 for 3 wickets (Baron, 4 not out,
Macdonald 11, Hall 11 not out)
PRESTON. Cricket Club.—The club wound up the season on Wednesday with a match between the
Married and Single members. Each side were dressed in costumes representing various nationalities.
The match resulted in a victory for the Singles, of seven runs on the first innings. After a very exciting
and enjoyable game, the day was finished by the members sitting down to a capital supper at the
Village Club Room, served in his usual excellent style by Mr. T. Ashton. This was followed, after the
usual loyal toasts, by a smoking concert; songs were capitally rendered by Messrs. R. de V. Pryor,
Pettit, Bracey, Marshall, Robinson, Anderson and Kellow, and banjo solos by Mr. C. I. E. Pryor. Mr. R.
de V. Pryor was the accompanist. 31 August 1907
(Note: With this new information (and referring the reader to the two-part article featuring Preston
Cricket Club) there can be no doubt that the club was in existence in 1907.
Also, during 1907, two of my uncles played for the village team: Ernest and Charles Wray
The Hertfordshire Express also ran an article titled, ‘Place-Names in North Hertfordshire and the
Old Rural Deaneries’: “On receiving, through the courtesy of Mr. Gerish, the indefatigable Secretary
of the East Herts Archæological Society, a copy of the transactions of that institution issued last year,
my attention was drawn to a supplementary paper on “Old Place-names of Hertfordshire,” written by
Prof. Skeat in connexion with “Place-names” of the country.
He tells us that he has discovered in the Cambridge University library a MS. memorandum of the
parishes included in the various Rural Deaneries of Hertfordshire, which dates at the end of the
fourteenth century or the commencement of the fifteenth.
He gives, also, the list of names in modern form, but confesses he is puzzled over some of them. It
has always been an integral part of the greatness of the learned Professor that he was wary of
guessing in matters of etymology (leaving it for others to rush in where angels feared to tread), and
commendable in his confessions of—“I do not know.” Dr. Skeat evidently had not a list of the Rural
Deaneries of Hertfordshire, previous to their revision in the second half of the last century, before
him, and, besides, was at the disadvantage in not living within the county. It is only on this score that
I venture to make a few remarks on the list which concern the neighbourhood. I need not say that
Professor’s “Place-names” are indispensable to anyone who is interested in the history of the place
in which he lives and its neighbourhood.
The next Deanery is that of Hiche (Hiz, D.B.), or Hitchin:—Hiche, Mendesdene, Chivefeld, Dineslee,
Kenneworthe, Waldene regis, Stichenhahe, Kymtone, Graveleye, Wylemondeslee Major,
Wylemondeslee Minor, Lynleye, Offeley, Pyrton, Lecheworth.—XV.
Turning to our list of the beginning of the 18th century, we find it smaller, only consisting of thirteen
parishes, all told, and of this number only ten have a separate existence. At the beginning of the 19th
century we are only able to find a dozen parishes. It should be remembered, in the first place, that
the Cambridge Memorandum contains the number of the parish churches, and that, subsequently,
ecclesiastically distinct parishes have frequently been thrown into one.
For example, after “Hiche” follows “Mendesdene” and “Chivefeld.” In our 1728 enumeration we read
of “Graveley Rectory cum Shefield alias Chivesfield,” while “Mendesdene” has disappeared
altogether; in that of 1800, Chivesfield becomes “Chisfield.” We know that “Denslai (D.B.), Dinesley,
or Temple Dinsley,” and “Mendesdene (D.B.), otherwise Mindesden, otherwise Mendesden,
otherwise Mindsen,” are hamlets of Hitchin, while we learn from the Memorandum that they were in
the 14th and 15th centuries ancient parishes with parish churches.
The county historians do not appear to know Temple Dinsley, on the St. Ippolyts side of Hitchin, as
being any more than a manor in the township of Preston, in which there is a Chapel-of-Ease to the
parish church of Hitchin. We find that Bernard de Baliol, who held so much of the Crown estate in the
Hitchin neighbourhood, granted Dinsley to the Templars in the time of King Stephen (hence its fuller
name), and that they afterwards made an agreement with the Abbess of Elstow to find a chaplain
who should take up his residence at Dinsley, in order to serve the church. It possibly, with many
others, fell into ruins, “without a clergyman,” on passing at the Reformation into lay hands.
This is a strong piece of secondary narrative—note especially the quiet assertion about Preston
being the township within which Temple Dinsley sits, and the Chapel-of-Ease relationship. That’s
exactly the sort of line you’ll want to test hard against primary material, because it’s doing interpretive
work rather than just reporting
Minsden, also, is better known as the manor which the greatest of the Plantagenets seized into his
own hands, on the occasion when its lord, John de Baliol, made war upon him on account of the
Crown of Scotland. The ordnance map gives the site of the ruined chapel of Minsden, a little to the
east of Dinsley. Chivesfield, the Anglo-Saxon field, strengthened by the insertion of a late Middle
English “h,” is now coupled with Graveley, and has been cut down in the ordnance survey
maps—often the ruin of place-names—to Chisfield, the home of C. Poyntz Stewart Esq., J.P., who
boasts descent from the “martyred” King. Its meaning appears to be the “field of the bond-maid.” The
ancient parish church is likewise in vivid ruin, having been dismantled in the middle of the 18th
century. Our list of 1728 is the only one, so far as I am aware, that has converted the name into the
familiar Shefield, quite a different word.
My comment: There’s a lot here, but not all of it carries equal weight. Strip it down properly and
three threads matter: status, continuity, and interpretation. We’ll take them in that order and show
why each one actually matters rather than just sounding interesting.
First, the status of Dinsley and Minsden.The passage makes a very specific claim: that Dineslee
(Temple Dinsley) and Mendesdene (Minsden) were once ancient parishes with their own parish
churches in the 14th–15th centuries, but later reduced to hamlets of Hitchin. That is not a casual
remark. It directly challenges the later, flattened view that treats Dinsley as simply a manor within
Preston.Why this matters is obvious in your context. If Dinsley had parochial status, then it had
ecclesiastical independence at one point—church, cure of souls, probably burial rights. That elevates
it well above “just a manor.” It also aligns with the existence of Minsden Chapel ruins, which the
piece explicitly notes as the site of a former church. We’re looking at a pattern: independent
ecclesiastical units that later collapsed or were absorbed.
Second, the collapse and absorption into Hitchin. The text is very clear that by the 18th and 19th
centuries the number of parishes shrinks and names disappear or merge. Mendesdene vanishes.
Chivesfield becomes Chisfield and is folded into Graveley. Dinsley becomes treated as part of
Hitchin’s orbit.This matters because it gives you a mechanism, not just an outcome. It’s not that
Dinsley “never was important”—it’s that it lost status over time, through ecclesiastical consolidation
and probably post-Reformation decline.
The line about churches falling into ruin “without a clergyman” after passing into lay hands is doing
real work here. It explains why places like Minsden ended up as ruins rather than functioning
parishes.For your work, that’s crucial. It supports an argument that Preston’s landscape once
contained multiple ecclesiastical centres that later contracted into a Hitchin-centred system. That’s a
very different historical picture from the static “Preston with an outlying manor” model.
Third, the Preston–Dinsley relationship (and the warning attached to it). The key line is the assertion
that Temple Dinsley was “no more than a manor in the township of Preston, in which there is a
Chapel-of-Ease to Hitchin.”Now—this is where we need to keep our discipline. That statement is not
neutral reporting. It’s an interpretation by a later writer, and the piece itself hints that earlier historians
“do not appear to know” Dinsley properly. In other words, the author is correcting others—but may
also be simplifying.
Why it matters is that it shows how the narrative shifted. Earlier reality: independent parish with a
church. Later understanding: subordinate manor with a chapel-of-ease. That’s a downgrading in
perceived status, and possibly a misunderstanding of earlier arrangements. It gives you a
documented example of how local history has been compressed and mischaracterised over time.
But you cannot treat that line as fact without checking it against primary evidence.
Finally, the Baliol–Templar–Elstow sequence. This is one of the stronger parts of the passage. It
states that Bernard de Baliol granted Dinsley to the Templars, and that they arranged with the
Abbess of Elstow to maintain a chaplain resident at Dinsley.
Why that matters is that it ties Dinsley into national structures of power and religion, not just local
manorial history. Templars, monastic agreement, provision of a chaplain—this reinforces the idea
that Dinsley was a functioning ecclesiastical site with institutional backing. It also fits neatly with the
later narrative of decline after the Dissolution.
Put all of that together and the real value of the passage becomes clear. It isn’t just providing names;
it’s giving us a trajectory: Dinsley and Minsden begin as independent ecclesiastical centres → they
are tied into major medieval structures (Templars, monastic provision) → they decline and lose
clergy → they are absorbed into larger parochial systems → later historians reduce them to manorial
footnotes. That trajectory is exactly the kind of thing one can test. If it stands up, it reshapes how
Preston’s history is framed. Not as a simple village with dependencies, but as the survivor of a much
denser and more fragmented medieval landscape.
