Thirty-eight inventories are included among the wills and probate inventories of fifty-three people dying in the period 1600-80 who have been certainly identified as residents of Outwood or Kearsley. The inventories show that local people worked both linen and wool. In the case of wool, the quantities were usually small, although its occurrence was quite widespread: the quantity owned by Gyles Dixon of Rhodes in Outwood at the time of his death in 1668/9 was exceptionally large, being valued at £10. His woollen goods were described as ‘wool Cloth and yarne’, and he also had a flock of 24 sheep and a pair of looms. He owed Henry Coulborne £7-16-0 for a pack of wool and his total moveable estate was valued at £58-2-4. Linen yarn and goods also occur regularly, but the quantities are very variable, and in this small sample do not suggest an overall trend.Three of the inventories include cotton. As early as 1604/5 Zambwell Walworke of Kearsley, linen weaver, had cotton yarn valued at 5/- and white linen yarn valued at 8/-. As the inventory also separately and specifically indentifies black wool, and includes six fustian pieces, there seems little doubt that this was true cotton. Rauffe Seddon of Prestolee, which was an area within Outwood, had ‘cotten woll and cotten yearnes’ valued at £17-16-0 in 1611/12, as well as linen worth £19-14-0. He also had a boukhouse with boukkeares and a loomhouse with two pairs of looms, and was wealthy by the standard of his neighbours, with an estate valued at £465-14-1. The third villager who had cotton was Thomas Parr of Ringley, whose goods in 1638/9 were worth the substantial sum £437-11-7. He had one bag of cotton wool, valued at £6-10-O, and a small quantity of wool and hemp, but there is no indication that he was as closely involved in (lie textile trade as were Rauffe Seddon and Zambwell Walworke.Other inventories refer to looms and spinning wheels. William Holland of Rhodes (1614) had an ‘inkele frame’ for weaving tapes. Robert Barrs of Kearsley (1613) had a pair of linen looms, linen yarn, and four pounds of wool, as well as having a yarn croft.The largest financial investment for most families, however, was not in textiles but in cattle. In the group of thirty-eight inventories, only one did not include cattle. Four of the inventories did not separate cattle from other beasts, but the remainder indicated an average figure of 19.2% as the proportion of a villager’s wealth invested in cattle (the figures include oxen), varying in individual cases between as little as 5.9% and as much as 48.5%. A few local farmers had cheese or butter rn quantities larger than would be expected for purely household use Gyles Dixon of Rhodes (1668/9) had cheese valued at £6-16-O, and as John Harpur of the neighbouring township of Farnworth had 41 cheeses worth £2-1O-O in 1647 this implies a substantial quantity of cheese, even though nothing is known of the size of the cheeses in each case. But most inventories did not record large stocks of butter and cheese, and any which was produced surplus to home requirements must have been quickly sold.Some sheep were kept, although the largest flocks only numbered about two dozen animals. Grain crops, which often accounted for a substantial proportion of the value of the farm produce, consisted chiefly of oats and barley, with some wheat; John Ouldham of Pilkington, in November, 1639, had ‘wheate growinge’, showing that the climate was not too inclement to allow some winter wheat to be grown. Hay was widely cropped, and beans and peas occasionally feature in the inventories.The valley was well wooded. and a number of local people had equipment for catching birds; Richard Heape of Outwood (1664/5) had a net for birds, William Holland of Rhodes (1614) had nets and cords and Thomas Wallworth of Outwood (1671) had a ‘bridding peece’.

In this scattered, rural community, lived a family of substantial yeoman farmers, the Seddon family of Prestolee. The name Seddon is one of the most widespread and common surnames in south-east Lancashire. By the seventeenth century branches of the family were to be found in Kearsley, Prestolee, Farnworth, Rumworth, Westhoughton, Over Hulton, Middle Hulton and Eccles, among other Places. The origin of the name is unknown; it may derive from a place-name, perhaps a local name now lost. The suggestion, often made, that the family took its name from Sedan on the River Meuse in France is quite unsupported by any evidence.By the end of the sixteenth century members of the family held land in Prestolee in the Outwood of Pilkington. The Seddon family did not rank among the gentry; they were substantial husbandmen who also became involved in commercial activity when this was opportune. Prestolee took its name from its situation as a ‘lee’ or meadow belonging to the estate of Presto or Prestall on the opposite bank of the River Irwell, and in the seventeenth century the name was still sometimes written as two words: Presto (or Prestall) Lee. At least two branches of the family were living in Prestolee in the early seventeenth century, and one of these was headed by Rauffe Seddon, farmer and textile trader, whose inventory has already been mentioned. Rauffe’s father, Peter Seddon, had married one of two daughters of the Kearsley family of Seddon in the mid-sixteenth century, and together with Thomas Marcroft, who had married the other daughter, purchased property in Hanging Ditch, Manchester, and probably also in Millgate in the same town. Rauffe Seddon was over 21 years of age in 1578, by which time both his parents were dead. He may well have been the Rauffe Seddon who, with others who were his Kearsley relatives, was accused by George Hulton in 1589/9 of unlawfully digging coalpits in Kearsley.

Reference has already been made to Rauffe Seddon’s stock of textile goods, including cotton, at the time of his death in 1611/12. He also had new broad cloth and new linen cloth, but it is impossible to say whether he was trading in these items or whether they had been purchased for domestic use. As he had a boukhouse and boukkeares he was probably involved in the bleaching industry; the ‘fearne ashes’ which were valued at 12/- were perhaps being used as a constituent in the lye which was used to scour the cloth before bleaching. Fern ashes, or sometimes simply ashes, are not uncommon in the inventories; they were used in making soap.”

Rauffe Seddon also had farming interests. He was tenant of a farm leased for lives from the Earl of Derby, Lord of the Manor of Pilkington. At the time of his death there is no indication that he was engaged in arable farming, but he had cattle valued at £76-8-8. In addition to the farm at Prestolee, Rauffe leased additional land in other parts of Piikington and owned or leased a tenement in Farnworth which was put out to rent or sublet. These outlying tenancies were left to his second and third sons when he died.Rauffe Seddon married Mary Foxe, daughter of William Foxe of Rhodes in Pilkington. William Foxe was a man of some local importance; he was clerk comptroller of the Earl of’ Derby’s household, and accompanied the Earl in 1584-5 on his visit to the French court. The Foxe family were puritans, and one of Mary’s sisters, Anne, married John Bruen, the noted Cheshire puritan. This is the first intimation of the puritan sympathies which were to be a dominant influence in the Seddon family throughout the seventeenth century.Rauffe and Mary Seddon brought up nine children; sons Peter, George, Henry, Thomas, John and William (twins baptised in 1604), and daughters, Susan, Cicely and Dorothy. Before Rauffe’s death his eldest son, Peter, had been secured in his inheritance, for Rauffe wrote in his will:’. . . I. . . have made my said son Peter Joint tenant with mee of the farme in the Outwoode and have payd the fyne for the same’. George and Henry were left the outlying tenancies, and financial provision was made for his remaining children. His wife, as was customary, was left a third of his estate, together with a small additional income from rents. She lived until 1622.Rauffe’s three eldest sons were thus provided with some means of livelihood in Prestolee or its neighbourhood, although Henry eventually moved to Stanley Gate, near Ormskirk, and the tenancy of the land which he had inherited was transferred to his uncle Michael, who was Rauffe’s brother and who lived in Prestolee. The reason for Henry’s move to Stanley Gate is not known, but the proximity of Stanley Gate to Lathom House makes it possible that Henry was working for or had become a tenant of the Earl of Derby.Henry’s younger brother, Thomas, left Prestolee for London. and kept in touch with his family by letter. As was usual at the time, the letters were carried by acquaint ices travelling between London and Lancashire, there being a considerable amount of movement between London and the provinces. Moving to the capital did not necessarily mean that contact between family members was infrequent. For instance, on July 4th, 1620, Thomas Seddon in London wrote to his brother Peter at Prestolee. Thomas had received a letter from the twins, John and William, dated April 20th, and thought that by now he should have had another, ‘But I think ther study takes away ther: pen Peter had received two letters from Thomas dated the 16th or the 26th of May, which arrived at Prestolee on June 2nd, and to which Peter replied on June 12th. Before Thomas received that reply, he wrote again to Peter on June 20th. It does not appear that Thomas had become remote from his family, or that the brothers had any difficulty in finding a traveller to carry letters.Peter Seddon’s letter to Thomas had been taken from Prcstolee to London by a man named Charnock, formerly in Peter’s employment. Charnock had sought work in London on his arrival there, had found a ‘goode place’ as a footman with the Countess of Pembroke, for a salary of £4 a year and two suits of clothes, although he is reported to have said ‘that if hee weare in the outwoode again hee would not make haste to London’. the placement with the Countess of Pembroke is not surprising; Nathan Walworth, a friend of Peter Seddon about whom more will be said later, was a steward in the household of the Countess, and probably found ‘ould Charnock’ his new post. Both Nathan Walworths and Thomas Seddon’s letters show that they were from time to time asked, as local people living in London, to perform small services for their friends at home, such as making purchases on their behalf, and generally helping anyone who visited the capital.Thomas Seddon’s letter to his brother Peter written on July 4th, 1620, contains hints that he was short of money, although this is not specifically stated; excuses are made for not having made certain purchases, and Peter is asked to settle an account on Thomas’s behalf for a cloak bought in London from Lawrence Rydings, a man from the Bolton area — ‘you have monie that I left with you, and if that bee put forth as you writ affore I pray you make some meanes that hee may bee paide: and I wi I pay you as soone as my money cometh in’. In a later letter, Thomas gives Peter instructions as to the disposal of his estate if he should die or not return; he writes’. . . for my selfe I mean to goe with Sr Thomas Smith to the east Indes: and if I come againe I shall sett all straight. . .‘ He did not return, for the letters are filed among the probate records for 1622 in lieu of a will.Soon after Thomas’s death, Peter became involved in the undertaking with which his name has come to be chiefly associated: the building of Ringley Chapel. Nathan Walworth, whose family had long occupied land at Ringley Fold, had in his youth entered the service of William, third Earl of Pembroke. Nathan had prospered, and had become steward in the Earl’s household. Although he had spent his life in the service of the Earl and his family, Nathan had retained links with his native Outwood, and determined to build a chapel or school which would serve the locality, for Ringley was some 3½ miles distant from the Parish Church at Prestwich, and 5 miles from the Parish Church of Deane. By 1623 Nathan was corresponding with Peter Seddon, who was to become his local representative in all matters concerning the building of the church. A site had been found, the site of the present church by Ringley Bridge. The picturesque bridge which stands now at Ringley was not built until 1677, but an earlier bridge, which had a timber superstructure supported on stone piers, preceded it, although it is not known at what date it was first erected. The older bridge probably stood about a hundred yards further downstream than the present stone bridge. Apart from arrangements about the actual building of the chapel, Peter’s most demanding task was the finding of suitable land in which to invest money on Nathan’s behalf to provide an income for a minister; a task in which he constantly failed to satisfy Nathan’s expectation of him. Peter also approached local residents for money for the chapel; perhaps some of the bequests which appear in wills at that time were the result of his effort. George Allen of Outwood in 1628 instructed that six pounds should be paid out of the estate left to his son George towards the maintenance of a minister ‘on this condition of the inhabitance of Pilkington and Kersley doe suffre my said sonne to have and quyetly to enioye one halfe of a Seate or forme within the said Chappell.. .‘ Other benefactors were William Farnworth of Prestolee who in 1627 left five pounds which he had earlier promised towards the maintenance of the new chapel; Barten Fletcher of Prestolee whose will in the same year refers to ‘fyve pound alreadie agreed to bee given to a preacher’ at Ringley Chapel; and Ellice Walworth of Ringley, Nathan Walworth’s nephew, who in 1630 bequeathed five pounds ‘to the Chapell of Ringley accordinge to my Covenant...’Eventually, after much chiding and scolding on the part of Nathan, the chapel was ready for consecration. A letter written by Peter Seddon to Nathan describes the consecration ceremony in detail. It was performed by Bishop Bridgeman, who lived for part of each year on his estate at Great Lever, a little over two miles from Ringley. After repeated requests from Peter and his colleagues, at last, on December 7th, 1634, the Bishop agreed to perform the consecration. He told a deputation from the chapel on that day that he ‘would goe towards Chester upon friday and therefore must ether come upon Thursday or not at all until! Lent’, so the Thursday was agreed upon. When the day came, Peter and a group of neighbours went in the morning to the Bishop’s house, but found ‘my Lord: was not well yet’. They waited, and he had recovered by the afternoon sufficiently to travel to Ringley, where refreshments awaited him at Nathan’s family home at Ringley Fold. Peter reports that ‘my Lord having been troubled with a loosness the Night before would not drink; only put upp some sugar Cake or such like but I warrant you nothing was Left’. At last the Bishop put on his robes and went to the chapel, and the building was consecrated.In 1636 Peter’s wife, Ellin,visited London in the hope of being ‘touched’ for the ‘King’s Evil’, for it was still widely believed I hat the disease known popularly by that name could be cured if the sufferer was touched by the monarch. The ‘King’s Evil’ is now generally thought to be scrofula, although the term was probably applied to a variety of skin disorders and facial swellings. Nathan Walworlh tried to arrange for Ellin to attend one of the audiences which the King held for sufferers, but in this he was unsuccessful: he wrote to Peter Seddon, ‘I have made fortye lorneys to Whytehall for Elin hut can doe no good, the sicknes begins in London and the ki: wil sulfer no diseased persons to come neere him’. In view of Peter’s puritan disposition, Ellin’s visit might be thought a curious incident, but the principle of royal healing was aceepted by the church, and from 1634 to the eighteenth century the ritual was included in the Book of Common Prayer.There is no reason to suppose that Peter questioned the divinity of the ceremony.

One-hundred and Eighty Two years ago, in 1823, the Earl of Derby granted a lease to a bleacher in Prestolee named Ralph Crompton. This lease was for a plot of land on the right bank (South) of the River Irwell on which Ralph was to build a bleach works. So Ralph, with his two nephews James and Roger as partners, crossed the river from Prestolee, and Stoneclough Mill, then known as Kersley Bleachworks, was born. The tax assessment on this land for the remainder of 1823 was only 10d, rising for a full year in 1824 to no more than 18/9d. This is an interesting comment on the change in value of both money and land since the 1800s. There are few contemporary records of Ralph Crompton other than the mentioning of him in the trade directories of the day. These show that he and his elder brother, James, who died in 1813, were in partnership as bleachers in Prestolee as far back as 1805. But from a letter written by Ralph Crompton’s grandson, S Douglas Crompton, to his kinswoman. Maria Crompton, in 1935, the former states that he was the son of James Crompton who lived at Breightmet Old Manor until his death in 1785. This house, no longer standing, had been in the possession of the Crompton family since the time of Elizabeth I, when Sir Thomas Crompton was Auditor General to the queen. Mr Crompton adds that the family is related to the Cromptons of Hacking Hall, Bolton, and it is also claimed that they were descended from the Venables, whose roots are to be found in the days of the early Normans. In 1813, the partnership between James and Ralph was brought to an end by the death of James, and as soon as they came of age James’s two sons, James and Roger, were taken into partnership by their uncle, trading as Ralph Compton and Nephews, bleachers, of Prestolee also of the Old Boar’s Head, Hyde’s Cross, Manchester. According to administration papers issued in 1844 on the death of the younger James concerning the estate of Ralph Compton, who died intestate in 1826, the business became insolvent during the partnership of Ralph and his nephews. It is probable, therefore, that with fresh capital becoming available from whatever source, this was the major cause of the transfer of the business to its new site across the river at Stoneclough. When the first James died in 1813 he left his entire estate to his brother-in-law Thomas Hewitt of Ardwick, Manchester, on trust for his three children, James, Roger, and Mary, who were then minors. From those days to the present time no more was heard of insolvency and one may assume that the firm prospered from the start. Ralph Crompton was destined not to enjoy this prosperity for more than three years, for in 1826 he was drowned in the Irwell. As mentioned above he died intestate and the business passed into the hands of his nephews, James the younger Roger. Later, Roger undertook to act as guardian to Ralph's two younger children Rachel and James Roger of whom the latter was born in 1827 after his father's death. The administration papers referred to above also state that in 1829 James and Roger started making paper at Stoneclough. Another 15 years or so were to elapse before textile bleaching was finally abandoned, leaving papermaking alone in the field. This combination of papermaking and textile bleaching was entirely in keeping with the practice common in this district for many years past. It was also a natural venture, in view of the fact that papermaking had been flourishing on the banks of the Irwell and the Croal since the 1670s, when James Crompton set up a paper mill at the Bottoms, Little Lever, later known as Creams Mill, and his younger brother set up as a papermaker at Darley Mill, Famworth Bridge. The descendants of these two brothers, whose father is still a mystery, continued to own paper mills in the district for over 150 years, and their example was followed by others, such as the Seddons, the Liveseys and the Grundys who established mills at Prestolee, Springfield, Bolton, and Little Lever. The most important of these Cromptons, who may or may not have been related somewhere back in the 18th or 17th centuries to the Breightmet Cromptons, was the famous Thomas Bonsor Crompton. His contribution to the industry was immense, and his invention of the continuous drying cylinder, together with the introduction for the first time of a dry felt to hold the paper against the cylinder, was revolutionary. He took out his patent in 1820 and it provided just what was lacking in the earlier Fourdrinier machine. For with the latter the paper was wound from the continuous wire mould onto a wooden reel, cut by hand into sheets, and hung in lofts to dry as had always been the custom with hand made sheets. From this day onwards the old vat mills were fighting a losing battle against the new machines. By 1820, the year of T B Crompton’s patent, production from these machines had already equalled that of the old vat mills, at about 10,000 tons per annum each.There after, machine production raced ahead and the gap between the two rapidly widened. This is not surprising when it is realised that the new machines could produce in a 12-hour day the output of eight vats. The result was that it became increasingly difficult for the small vat mills to compete, and only those survived which were fortunate enough or far seeing enough to have concentrated on highly specialised types of paper. Thus, of all the mills mentioned above set up on the banks of the lrwell and the Croal only three had survived at the time when Ralph Crompton founded Stoneclough Mill in 1823, Creams mill, Farnworth Bridge mill, and Springfield mill, all of whom had installed machines. Of the 41 licences for Fourdrinier machines, for which the user had to pay the Fourdriniers £350 per annum, granted between 1807 and 1822, when the patent expired, three had been granted to Thomas Bonsor Crompton at Farnworth Bridge and two to his brothers in law, John and James Livesey of Prestolee. It is obvious, in view of the current trends in the industry towards more and more mechanisation, that when the Cromptons started making paper at Stoneclough in 1829 they must have installed at least one of these new machines at the start. At this period of time no one in his right mind would have even contemplated the idea of setting up a vat mill and there is certainly no evidence of a mill race ever having been, which rules out the existence of water power by which the vat mills were all run. Although no records are exact concerning the types of paper made at Stoneclough it is reasonable to assume from the reputation the Cromptons rapidly acquired of being producers of fine tissues that these were the papers manufactured there from the start. When Stoneclough Mill began, the paper industry was passing through a period of transition from making paper by hand into the unknown future of intensive mechanisation. Excellent as this was in many ways it was disastrous for the workers in the old vat mills, who regarded the new machines as evil things that would destroy their craft. Added to this, a reduction in wages had had to be enforced to meet the new competition and unemployment among skilled workers reached serious proportions.As a result of this strikes and rioting became an ugly feature of this part of Lancashire for many years to come. So much so that strong measures had to be taken to protect life and property. Thus, as early as 1824, the year in which the hated Combination Laws making trade unions illegal were abolished, a public meeting at the Black Horse Inn, Kearsley or Kersley as it was then known resolved ‘that a number of special constables be now appointed’. One of these was James Crompton of Stoneclough and another was Thomas Bonsor Crompton of Farnworth Bridge.The trouble sprang, however, more from the unemployed workers of the older local industries than from those who had found work in the new mechanised mills. There are no records of labour unrest at Stoneclough at this time, but the attitude of the masters towards their workers, influenced to a large extent by the terrors of the French Revolution only a few years away, was at the worst intolerant and unjust, and at the best paternalistic. In either case no sign of unrest could have been tolerated. Fortunately, there is some evidence that the Cromptons at Stoneclough belonged to the latter category, as did their namesake, T B Crompton, at Farnworth Bridge. It is known, for example, that they sprang from stock that was predominantly puritan in outlook, and they must have sincerely deplored the ignorance, vice, and coarseness that the Industrial Revolution brought in its train. It is not surprising, therefore, to find that they were actively engaged in local ecclesiastical affairs : James and Thomas Bonsor being members of the select vestry of St johnts Church, Farnworth with Kersley, and Roger having inherited his uncle Rogers lifelong interest in the Swedenborgian religious sect. This Roger Crompton was the second son of James Crompton of Breightmet and was the brother of James and Ralph, the lafter of whom later founded Stoneclough Mill. He died before this event, however, in 1805 at the age of 49. Today one would call this a young age at which to die, but of all the Cromptons associated with Stoneclough only the younger Roger lived to be over 60, and even he was only 62 when he died in 1859. Roger, who was described as a gentleman, a rank to which papermakers apparently could not aspire - was a wealthy bachelor living in what was then the aristocratic suburb of Manchester named Ardwick. He seems to have been a more enthusiastic supporter of the Swedenborgian sect than either of his brothers, for among his minor bequests was the sum of £20, a large sum in those days to a Society of Gentlemen of Manchester for the purpose of translating into English and publishing the works of the late Honourable Emanuel Swedenborg whereof the Reverend John Clowes of St. John’s Church is President. Following the footsteps of his uncle, the younger Roger and the Seddons of Prestolee Bridge took a prominent part in managing the affairs of the small Swedenborgian meeting house which the elder Roger had founded in 1791 at what was known as Top o’th’ Brow, Ringley. To this meeting-house the Reverend John Clowes, mentioned in the elder Roger’s will, paid periodic pastoral visits and it is said that he would ride out there from Manchester on horseback, and that as soon as he was seen approaching, a flag was hoisted on the building as a signal to the faithful to come and hear him preach and to worship with him. Later, in 1837, the Swedenborgians having in the meantime completely outgrown their small meeting house in Ringley, Roger and the Seddons were the prime movers in founding the New Jerusalem Church in Kearsley where Roger was to hold the offices of honorary secretary and superintendent of the Sunday school for many years, and to become its most munificent benefactor. It was at this time, as a result of the increased demand for labour created by the erection and expansion of Stoneclough Mill, that Stoneclough village, was no more than a scattered hamlet, quickly emerged into a shape not dissimilar from that of the present day. Some of the houses then built, in fact, still exist, including Kearsley Vale House, standing in its own grounds opposite the mill in Blackhurst Green, now Market Street, which the Cromptons, and later the Fletchers, made their home. Thus, with a village growing up on one side of the mill and a river flowing on the other, the site chosen for it clearly ensured two important requirements for either a bleachworks or a paper mill: availability of labour and an abundant supply of water. It suffered, however, from the drawback that its produce and its raw materials had to be carried to and from the mill by horse-drawn transport over roads that by the standards of today were little more than muddy tracks. This entailed a long pull up what was known, as it still is, as Stoneclough Brow, which was so steep and had such a muddy and uneven surface that an extra horse and carter had to be employed to get a laden wagon to the top. To overcome this drawback the local turnpike trustees set to work on the construction of a cuffing to reduce the steepness, but when this was completed they found themselves faced with a crippling financial burden. So they applied to Parliament for powers to levy a toll at Stoneclough and Kearsley to recoup their losses. But this was strongly opposed by the Cromptons at Stoneclough. They no doubt welcomed the better road, but like many of us today were unwilling to pay for it, but their resistance was in vain. The trustees, convinced that the Cromptons were now saving an enormous sum of money in the reduced wear and tear of horseflesh in order to get over Stoneclough Brow, stuck to their guns. As a result, the Moses Gate and Ringley Road Turnpike Act was placed on the statute book in 1830, and tolls were finally abolished in 1875.In so far as it is possible to trace them completely from the scanty records that have been handed down to us, these were the roots from which the firm sprang 182 years ago. Enough has been revealed, however, to show that thanks to a congenial soil and to skilful nurture on the part of the Cromptons, they were able to take a firm hold even at a time when the Industrial Revolution was beginning to exert its maximum effect on every aspect of both the industrial and social life of the district. Never in the long history of papermaking on the banks of the Irwell and the Croal had there been greater opportunity for success nor greater risk of ruin and failure. To the Cromptons of Stoneclough this must have been the greatest challenge of their lives. That they accepted it and not only survived and prospered exceedingly.

Stoneclough Mill was only seven years old when Robert Fletcher first appears upon the scene in 1830. Exactly what his ancestors were is still uncertain, but he appears on good authority to have been a kinsman of the Cromptons. Thus, in the letter written to Maria Crompton, Sydney Douglas Crompton writes that my fathers cousin was Roger Crompton of Kearsley Vale House who owned paper mills there (later belonging to his relatives the Fletchers). Apart from this the only records so far available show that he was born in Radcliffe, that he began his working life with a local printer, who subsequently failed, and that he then set up in business on his own account as a textile bleacher. But this business also failed, and it was presumably then that his kinsmen, the Cromptons, came to his rescue by offering him the job of textile bleacherman in the croft of Stoneclough Mill. Robert Fletcher was then a man of 26, which in those days of shorter lives would have been considered almost middle-aged. He was, in fact, nearly halfway through his life, as he was only 61 when he died. It is not surprising that after such a disastrous early career he appears to have looked upon his new job more as a haven in a storm than as a stepping-stone to better things. In fact, four uneventful years were to pass before his real abilities as a textile bleacher first came to the serious notice of the Cromptons. This was as a result of his skilful handling of a problem concerning the treatment of dimities which had long been troubling them. We do not know exactly what the problem was, but the Cromptons were so impressed by his solution of it that they immediately put him in charge of the whole bleaching department. This appointment was to lead only three years later to a turning point not only in his own life, but also in that of Stoneclough Mill itself This occurred after he had been consulted by the Cromptons about a batch of paper that had been returned by a customer on account of its low strength. He was not only able to immediately point to the cause of the trouble, but also to advise them how to avoid its repetition. What he suggested would seem obvious today, but was by no means so obvious for them. As an experienced bleacherman he must have been more alive than many of his contemporaries to the hazards that might be encountered in the application of calcium hypochlorite to any form of cellulose. This compound, discovered in 1799 by Charles Tennant, was by this time in general use as a bleaching agent for both textiles and paper under the name of bleaching powder, but it was still sufficiently new not always to be handled with the care its use demanded. Robert Fletcher, therefore, rightly advised that stricter control of the conditions of bleaching and more efficient final washing should be insisted upon. He was, in fact, so convinced of the importance of these simple precautions that for the rest of his life he clung doggedly to the motto that paper is made or ruined in the croft. This invaluable advice, which presumably produced the desired results, coupled with the high opinion the Cromptons obviously already had of him, suggested to them that they might profitably make far greater use of his ability. They therefore took the decisive step in that direction of offering him the position of manager of the whole mill, including both papermaking and textile bleaching. At first, having no direct experience of papermaking other than what he will have picked up during his seven years at the mill, he turned the offer down. Having already tasted the bitterness of failure as a young man on more than one occasion he was understandably not prepared to run the risk of being forced to submit once again to the same misfortune The Cromptons, like the importunate widow, were insistent and eventually wore his resistance down. But though he finally accepted their offer, he still had misgivings and did so only on the following unusual, but characteristic, terms, which seemed to him to be the essential conditions that would ensure his future security. His first condition was that if he were to prove to be a failure as a papermaker, which he did not claim to be, he was not to be dismissed from the Cromptons’ service, but was to be allowed to resume his former work as head of the cloth bleaching department. Secondly, the Cromptons were to tell him without reserve whenever they disapproved of any of his actions. And finally, whatever at any time was ordered to be done by himself was not to be countermanded by the Cromptons, or vice versa, without mutual agreement. In spite of his earlier diffidence over accepting responsibility these conditions were clearly those of a man who knew exactly what his goal now was and who had sufficient confidence in himself and the necessary strength of character to ensure that no foreseeable obstacles should hinder his progress towards it. At the same time, his insurance against possible failure was not an act of timidity, but that of a wise man. That the Cromptons had the wisdom to: accept these terms without question is a clear indication of the faith they had in his ability. He was obviously a man after their own hearts. And Robert Fletcher, far from needing to ask for his old job back again, rapidly acquired, as the Cromptons must have known he would, the same mastery over the art of papermaking as he had already acquired over that of textile bleaching. From this time onwards, fortified by his strong, religious convictions, he became a dedicated man. He had been brought up by his parents in an atmosphere of strict, puritanical nonconformity so typical of those who revolted against the ignorance, vice, and depravity of the unsettled times in which they lived. There can be little doubt that these convictions had enabled him to rise above the failures and disappointments that had beset him as a young man, and developed in him the singleness of purpose that governed the rest of his life. He himself attributed his later success to what he termed a good Sunday school education and this may well have been the only education he had ever received. It is clear that the influence of such a man as Robert Fletcher must have been immediately felt by all those who worked for him. While one cannot imagine a man of his character and upbringing suffering fools gladly or countenancing slipshod work, he seems to have been a just, if strict, master who displayed none of the petty, ignorant tyranny that was all too prevalent a feature of the industrial life of his day. Even so, he was not popular with his workers during the early days of his management. it was a case, no doubt, of a new broom sweeping a little too clean for the comfort of those whose habits were already firmly set. But his unpopularity was short lived, for it became increasingly realised that strict discipline often leads to greater efficiency, and this in turn to constant work and regular wages, however poor these undoubtedly were by modern standards. For in those days of financial insecurity, well named the hungry 40s when the fear of unemployment and the dreaded workhouse can never have been wholly absent from the minds of so many men and women, this must have meant much more than anyone living in the welfare state of today can possibly imagine. That his workpeople did not lose a single day’s work through scarcity of orders during the whole of his managership, and later ownership, of the mill was indeed a rate achievement. Conditions in Stoneclough Mill, therefore, must have been in sharp contrast with those that prevailed in many of the local mines and cotton mills. These were often so bad that a fierce resentment had grown up against the whole set up of factories and machines, particularly with those who had been ruthlessly replaced by them. Destroy the machines, it was argued, and the status quo would be immediately restored. That in the long run these same machines would bring more, and not less, work did not occur to them, but hungry men do not take long views. The result was that rioting and general unrest became a common feature of the times, and bands of desperate men, emulating their predecessors the Luddites, went from factory to factory throughout the district attempting to bring production to a halt by drawing the plugs from the boilers. In 1842 these plug drawing riots, as they were called, reached such alarming proportions that strong measures had to be taken to put them down. Thus, on August 16th of that year a meeting of special constables sworn at the Bowling Green Inn, Farnworth, to act for the townships of Famworth and Kersley passed a resolution that a committee consisting of 10 persons, besides the petty constables of each township, be appointed to make arrangements for the protection of persons and property with power to add to their number. Among the members of this committee, as might be expected, was Robert Fletcher, and it also included the names of James and Roger Crompton, and that of the famous Thomas Bonsor Crompton of Famworth Bridge Mill. It appears to have acted with vigour, had a number of volunteers properly drilled, and was given permission by the justices to obtain arms from the military at Manchester for their use. It is not known to what extent resort to force was found necessary, but Robert Fletcher, though a member of the committee, declined to take advantage of armed protection for his mill. Instead, presumably with the approval of the Crompton brothers, he decided to take the law into his own hands. From a report by his great grandchildren, Miss D E Fletcher and Mrs E W Winstanley, it appears that as soon as he heard that the rioters were coming from Farnworth down Stoneclough Brow he had all work stopped and closed the gates. Then arming himself with a watchman’s truncheon he fearlessly took up his stand at the entrance to the narrow passage that led past the timekeeper’s office into the mill yard. When the rioters arrived on the scene they were presented with the spectacle of a big, powerful man brandishing a truncheon in an entrance not wide enough for more than one man to pass at a time. However, they were bold enough to ask if the mill was working, and getting a negative reply said they would come in to find out for themselves. This however, did not have the intimidating effect on Robert Fletcher they had anticipated, and he retorted promptly by asking them who would like to try first. Such unflinching resistance to their demands was something they had not expected, and the sight of this determined man, threatening to break the pate of anyone bold or foolish enough to come within striking distance of his truncheon must have struck terror into their hearts. For courage in the face of determined resistance is rarely to be found in the ranks of an undisciplined mob. After a hasty council of war they decided that discretion was the better part of valour, and leaving both Robert Fletcher and his mill unmolested, they went hastily on their way to Radcliffe, where they hoped, no doubt, for easier prey. Work was immediately resumed in the mill, and never again, as far as is known, was it threatened with attempted interference of this kind. On the purely technical side no records are available concerning developments within the mill. But it is highly probable that even during these early years of papermaking there it was already specialising in the manufacture of tissues. Within 20 years of the production of the first sheet of paper, in fact, the mill had acquired the reputation of being one of the world’s leading manufacturers of fine tissues. In the meantime, the bleaching of textiles had been discontinued and all the efforts of the mill were thereafter concentrated solely on the manufacture of paper. Thus, in 1844, Roger Crompton was still officially described as both a textile bleacher and a papermaker. By 1851, on the other hand, his firm is recorded in local directories solely under the heading of papermaking: the mill now being referred to as Kearsley Paper Works The discontinuance of textile bleaching must therefore have taken place sometime during the late 1840s. There is indirect evidence, however, of how Robert Fletcher appears to have tackled a problem that must have faced Stoneclough Mill during the early days of his managership. This was the increasing pollution of the water of the River Irwel!, which was used by the mill for both processing and steam raising, and had resulted from the rapid growth of industry along its banks and those of its tributaries, the Roach and the Croal. When the mill was built in 1823 the river was still a fishing stream, and in an early conveyance the right to fish and take salmon from a specified length was granted by the Earl of Derby to the owners of the mill and in 1824 it was still possible for Baines to write that the lrwell and its tributaries were ‘frequented by trout, chub, dace, and gudgeon’. Only 14 years later, on the other hand, a pamphlet commemorating the opening of the railway from Manchester to Bolton on May 29, 1838, has a very different story to tell. In the flowery language of his day the author of this pamphlet, Arthur Freeling, has this to say about this same river. We do not now see the angler with his picturesque attire and busy rod, for the once invigorating waters which sparkled with life are now like the Dead Sea, filled with a poison inimical to life, no philosophic Walton now reclines on its banks: but the poisonous waters bear away their odours to the sea, proving as they flow that the enterprising spirit of the manufacturer leaves no solitude unvisited, in this country at least, which can contribute to the objects of trade. And after referring to the comments by Baines, quoted above, he continued that he would like to see a specimen of these fish, for they must be of a species which can live in sulphuric acid a race so rare as to have eluded our piscatory researches.This pollution was going on all over the country, and some way of purifying such waters to make them fit for use became increasingly essential. Hence, it came about that in 1829 the biological purification of water by means of its slow passage by gravity through a bed of sand was first developed in this country for treating water from the Thames for drinking purposes. This process must have come to Robert Fletcher’s notice, for there is evidence that he constructed such a sand filter during the early days of his managership. This sand filter later became a storage reservoir, known since the turbine was installed in 1931 as the spray lodge because cooling water from the turbine was also sprayed into it, and it was only recently that it was done away with to make room for a new machine house. Exactly when it was constructed is not known, but it is included in the first ordnance survey of the district made in 1845. II must therefore have followed very closely on the heels of the original invention: a clear indication, if one were needed, of how a man like Robert Fletcher, with no scientific background, was nevertheless determined to keep abreast of new ideas. In April 1844, the death of James Crompton brought the partnership between himself and his younger brother, Roger, to an end. He had been a rather shadowy figure, and little is known about the part he played in the affairs of Stoneclough Mill. And outside the mill his name appears on only rare occasions in local records in connection with such organisations as the parish church and the special constabulary. He was only 52 when he died, was unmarried, and left his entire estate, including his share in the business, to his brother, Roger. This must have been considerable another indication of the firm’s success for Roger was now able to acquire a house in Regents Park, London, where ‘he kept an almost princely retinue of servants and entertained a lot. From then on he divided his time between his London and his Stoneclough homes. It is clear from this that Roger Crompton must have had complete confidence in Robert Fletcher’s capabilities as a mill manager. He would not otherwise have been prepared to leave the affairs of Stoneclough Mill so entirely in his hands. And this unchallenged ascendancy of Robert Fletcher may well explain why Roger’s ward and nephew, James Roger Crompton, who was still a minor when his uncle James died, was not subsequently taken into partnership, in spite of the remarkable ability he was later to show. There can hardly have been room for both Robert Fletcher and himself under the same roof and one is not surprised to learn that in 1856, when he was 29 years old, he followed the example of so many of the Cromptons before him of leaving the paternal roof to set up elsewhere on their own. Shaking the dust of Stoneclough from his feet, and taking with him as his manager a machine foreman of the name of Joseph Sidebottom, he started the manufacture of fine tissues in a new paper mill at Elton, Bury. This mill, now the home of the well-known firm of J R Crompton Brothers, is controlled to this day by James Roger’s descendants.Roger was now the only representative of the Crompton family to be connected with Stoneclough Mill. But it was only three years later that he died in his London home at the age of 62. Thus passed the last of the Cromptons and a chapter was closed in the life of the firm he had helped to create and over the destinies of which he had presided for many years. In spite of his frequent absences in London during the later years of his life, his death must have been no little loss not only to the firm, but also to the district he had served so long and so well by the standards of his day. For he had always given active support and had been a generous benefactor to any cause he considered worthy. In particular, the worshippers at the New Jerusalem Church, Kearsley, in the building of which, in 1837, he had played such a prominent part, had every reason to be grateful to him for the life-long interest he had taken in their affairs. And in his will, which ran well into six figures, he left this church the handsome legacy of £17,000, which in those days was a lot of money. He was buried in Highgate Cemetery, but a memorial service was held in the New Jerusalem Church, Kearsley. At this service, with a parade of grief so typical of the time, The whole congregation was in mourning, and his widow and daughter provided all the church officials with black gloves, black silk scarves, and black hat bands. Men from his works came in procession similarly clad. This long association, lasting nearly 30 years, between Roger Crompton and Robert Fletcher must have been an extremely happy one. Both were able men of high principles and integrity, and under their direction the business had prospered exceedingly and grown in both national and international prestige. It was, therefore, a fitting and gracious recognition of this fruitful business association and personal friendship that in his will Roger Crompton not only named Robert Fletcher as one of his three executors the other two being Edward Howarth, a calico printer’s engraver of Manchester, and John Christian Williamson, schoolmaster of Gorton, Manchester but also gave him the option to purchase the business under most favourable terms. Thus, he stipulated that when the mill was to be valued for this purpose by two valuers, of whom one was to be appointed by Robert Fletcher and the other by his two co executors, as an acknowledgment of the long and faithful service of the said Robert Fletcher in the management of my said business the goodwill of the said business is not to be considered. He further stipulated that Robert Fletcher’s two coexecutors were to allow him to pay the agreed purchase money for the business in five yearly instalments. Availing himself of this concession, Robert Fletcher immediately took over the control and ownership of the mill. He made his elder son, James, then aged 26, a partner and gave the firm the new title of Robert Fletcher and Son: a title that was not changed when his younger son, John, was later taken into partnership, and has persisted through other changes to the present day. He also moved into the Cromptons’ old home at Kearsley Vale House. It was about this time that the trademark ‘Archer’ was adopted because of the coincidence that the word fletcher means a maker of arrows. This change in ownership cannot have made any difference in the fortunes of the firm so long as Robert Fletcher remained at the helm, where he had been for many years. But his health was troubling and he died in Vale House on May 17, 1865, at the early age off 6l. He was buried in the churchyard of the Parish Church of his native Radcliffe in what was to become the Fletcher family vault. He was followed only a few months later by his wife, Tabatha.

Until the nineteenth century Whitefield existed only as part of the Manor of Pilkington,which covered not only Whitefield but also Outwood, Ringley and Unsworth. Over the centuries hamlets grew up in the Lily Hill district, at Besses o’ th' Barn, at Park Lane, at Moss Lane and at Stand. These hamlets, together with Stand Lane (now part of Radcliffe), were united as the township of Whitefield in 1866. In Elizabethan times Whitefield was only a barren moor, but Stand Hall was the Manor House of Pilkington. Apart from the story of the Pilkington family of Stand there is little to recount until the seventeenth century. Even at that time Pilkington was in the ecclesiastical parish of Prestwich-cum-Oldham. How the hamlet came by the name of Whitefield is uncertain. ‘Field’ means a clearing in a forested area (Whitefield was on the edge of Rossendale Forest), but the derivation of ‘White’ is doubtful. The name existed before the Flemings settled at Bury so it does not come from the woollens being tentered upon the field to be bleached. It may be derived from a field of white flowers, hence the name Lily Hill Street; or it may be a derivation of ‘Wheatfield’. The history of Whitefield starts at Stand where Stand Hall had been the seat of the Pilkington family for centuries. They were here before the Noman Conquest. The name 'Stand’ is derived from a hunting stand, from which the country could be scanned for game. The descent of the Pilkington family can be traced from Leonard de Pilkington, Lord of the Manor of Pilkington, who fought under Harold at the Battle of Hastings. His descendant, Sir John Pilkington, with his son John and their retainers went to France with Henry V and fought at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415. At Agincourt the retinue of Sir John was John Kay, Roger Kay and William Lee. His men consisted of ten lances and forty-five archers. In order to pay his troops Henry pledged some of his jewels and plate to the younger John Pilkington. They were not redeemed until 1431. At the time of the Conquest the seat of the Pilkingtons was at Stand Hall. This, the original Stand Hall, was probably on the site of the building which is now known as Stand Old Hall, an Ringley Road just beyond Old Hall Road. Later, probably in the 13th century, another Hall was built opposite the top of Stand Lane. Much confusion has arisen because a part of the medieval Hall survived until recent times and some referred to it as 'The Old Hall’, to distinguish it from the Victorian Stand Hall which, at that time stood less than one hundred yards behind it. In this narrative the name Stand Old Hall refers to the building that stands near Old Hall Road. The medieval building is referred to as Stand Hall or ‘the old barn’. Some time later the Pilkington family came into possession of the Manor of Bury, after which Bury became the principal residence of the family. Bury Castle was fortified and castellated in the reign or Edward IV. It has been stated that Edward also gave a licence to Sir Thoman Pilkington to kernel and castellate his manor house at Stand, but it is doubtful if the work was carried out. Sir Thomas Pilkington fought for Richarcd III at the Battle of Bosworth Field where Richard was killed and his opponent, Henry Tudor became king. As a result, Henry VII confiscated all Sir Thomas’s lands and gave them to Sir Thomas Stanley, whom he created Earl of Derby. The property included land at Nether Kellet, Haleworth, Salmesbury, Pilklngton, Bury, Cheetham, Cheetwood, Haliwell, Undesworth (Unsworth), Salford, Shuttleworth, Middleton, Shippelbotham, Smethills, Tottington, Bolton in Furness, Broughton-in-Furness, Urswick and elsewhere. Sir Thomas’s lands were therefore extensive and well-spread. Shortly afterwards, Bury Castle was razed to the ground but the Hall at Stand opposite Stand Lane was only partly demolished. A portion of the original buildings right on the edge of Ringley Road, was for many years used as a barn. The ‘barn’ was built in the reign of Henry V. A Ministry of Housing and Local Government Report made in the middle of the 20th century stated that it was a remarkable example of an elaborate timber-framed medieval Great Hall. It contained some very fine timbers with quatrefoil decorations, and had two square-headed, four-light windows with 14th Century tracery. It has been suggested that the building was constructed from material brought from the Old Church at Manchester when it was re-built in 1442, but this is unlikely. After the Second War steps were being taken to have the barn preserved as an ancient monument but, just as arrangements were nearing completion, the roof fell in. Attempts to preserve the building were then abandoned. It was finally demolished in the 196O’s when all the land belonging to Stand Hall was cleared to make way for a housing estate now bounded by Ringley Road, Ringley Drive and Ten Acre Drive. Harland says that Sir Thome Pilkington was killed whilst fighting for Lambert Simnel at the Battle of Stoke. On the other hand, the Victoria County History of Lancashire states that he was not killed there and that he was pardoned in 1506; but this seems unlikely as it is stated that his son Roger died in 1501 and that Roger had no son so what was left of his estate was divided between Roger's six daughters. It seems probable that Sir Thomas was at Urswick when he joined Simnel, for Simnel landed at Piel Castle in Furness and rallied his forces on Swarthmoor, which is not far from Urswick. Later in the sixteenth century, the Derby family built a new Stand Hall for their residence on the site of the old one. This building was destroyed by fire within a few years, so yet another was built. This house was demolished about 1840 and another built. This the last Stand Hall, was demolished in the 1960’s when the Willan Family sold it to speculative builders. The Hearth Tax Returns for 1666 state that Whitefield had 135 hearths, Outwood 70 and Unsworth 40. It must be remembered that at that time Whitefield included Stand Lane as far as Radcliffe Bridge.The residents of Whitefield who paid the Hearth Tax were:

Hearths

Margaret Sergeant of Stand 8       Nathan Wallwork 4        Jo. Sidall Jun. 4        Ric.Morris 4          Geo. Syddall 3         Hen. Coulborne 3     Ja. Wilson & Mater 3     Wm. Walker 5

Mrs. Margaret Sergeant also contributed 2/6d to the collection in Prestwich Church made in 1678 for the re-building of St. Paul’s Cathedral after the Great Fire of London. An inventory of the possessions left by James Buckley of Whitefield, gentleman, dated 1608 included:

                                                £ s. d.

Steaves and heffers                   13 0 0

A mare, a folle and a fillye          4 0 0

35 Sheepe                                 6 6 8

Corne                                      13 6 0

2 Sadles and a calff skine           0 4 0

1 Square table and a wheelbed   0 10 0

The following were taken from the Lancashire Quarter Sessions Records:

In 1657 Jane Asmall, a Whitefield widow who had been evicted, petitioned the Justices to order the church-wardens and overseers of Prestwich to provide her with a cottage. In October 1649, Grace Hardman, a widow of Pilkington applied to the Justices of the Peace in the following tems: ‘That upon the eighth day of September last past there happened a most suddayne and lamentable fire which utterly consumed to the ground the dwelling house where your petticioner dwelled with all her goods and apparell and having five children whereof three of them can not help themselves, the extreme want and necessitye with the coldness of the season of the years approaching emboldeneth your petticioner humbly to crave and implore your worshipps favour in her distresse: and grant your petticioner libertye under your hands to ask and receave the benevolence of the well disposed people in severall congregations within the hundred of Salfford towards the helping of her and her children to apparrell and other necessaryes which they are utterly destitute of. And your petticioner shall ever praye for your Worshipps health and happiness’. In July 1657 six inhabitants of Whitefield certified ‘Wee whose names are hereunder written doe certify unto the justissess of the peace and others whom it doth or may concerne that James Kershaw of Whitefield is able to keepe and maintaine or contribute towards the maintaineing of a child of his sonne John Kershawes, rather than the said child should be chargeable and burdensome to the parish, the said James Kershaw beinge its naturell grandfather’. Clerk of the Peace’s note. ‘To take and keep the child under pains of 20s. a month.’ One wonders had the six people a spite against James Kershaw or were they only trying to save themselves money? On 30th April 1691, John Collinge of Whitefield petitioned:

‘The humble peticion of John Collinge of Whitefield within Pilkington in the parish of Prestwich, husbandman, Humbly sheweth That your poor petitioner lying under the sad and deplorable distemper of the palsy and continueirig sometimes five or six hours together in such manner as he is insensible of anything and at all times in a weak and languishing condition, that he is unable to maintain his family being a wife and three small children and those few goods they had one Gilbert Haddock has taken and will take for two years rent of his house which your distressed petitioner is not able to pay in moneys. Therefore does humbly beg that your good worshipps would bee pleased to grant your order for the allowance of sixpence a week for the help and assistance of your petitioners poor family’.Clerk of the Peace's note.. ‘Referred to the Overseers’ Even though Pilkington was in Prestwich parish, there is evidence that between 1649 and 1655 the following families resident in Pilkington regularly attended Radcliffe Parish Church. They probably lived in and around Stand Lane. The families of Thomas Fletcher, Lawrence Carter, Mary Radcliffe, Peter Walker, Roger Walker, James Walker, Henry Siddall, Richard Walker Snr., Richard Walker Jnr., John Blakelowes, John Crompton, William Barlow, Richard Ramsthorne, James Scholefield, John Davenport and Margaret Davenport, widow. Through all these years Whitefield remained a small hamlet, and life was comparatively uneventful. But things were moving in Stand. . The Five Mile Act, passed in 1665, made it an offence punishable by transportation for more than five persons to assemble for worship other than in the manner allowed by the Church of England, and for any nonconformist to minister within five miles of any parish of which he had been the parson. Stand was six miles from Mancliester, six miles from Bury and six miles from Bolton, so it was a most convenient place for nonconformists to meet. In 1689, the Toleration Act gave freedom of worship to most dissenters on their own premises. It seems that the Presbyterian congregation at Stand began when Thomas Pike was ejected from the living of Radcliffe because of his Puritan leanings. Though he went to Blackley, those who agreed with his views began to meet at Stand. It was in 1689 that, under the will of Henry Siddall, a tailor of Whitefield, 41 acres of land were bought for a school 'to teach little boys to read Fnglish'. This land was on and around the present site of Stand Unitarian Chapel. Henry Siddall was married at Prestwich Church and was buried there in 1676. His will stated: ‘This is the will of Henry Siddall of Whitefield, tailor, in which he bequeaths his pocket watch to Roger Walker of Radeliffe, butcher, his best suit of apparel to John Siddall, a broadcloth suit to Edward Siddall also his messuage and tenement in Whitefield to his wife Alice for life - afterwards the profits are to be employed to some pious use’. This pious use was later decided to be the payment of the salary of the Master of Stand Grammr School. Alice was the daughter of Abdy Schofield, churchwarden of Prestwich. The total value of Henry Siddall’s possessions came to £34.14.5d. This list included:

                                                 £ s d

One cow                                    3 0 0

In Hay                                       1 0 0

A pocket watch                          1 0 0

In apparel for his body etc.          2 10 0

Probably the first nonconformist meetings were hold at the house of Thomas Sergeant of the Old Hall, Stand, for he belonged to an old Puritan family. Among the signatories of a parchment roll dated February 1636, dealing with a Church rate levied on the whole parish of Prestwich is Thomas Sergeante of Pillkington. The Sergeant family lived at the Old Hall for four generations. Until the late nineteenth century the road leading from the Old Hall to Molyneaux was called Sergeant’s Lane. Thanks to the efforts of the Rev. Leonard Smith, the present Minister of the Unitarian Chapel, the name has been revived on the new housing estate behind the Old Hall. It is known that a trustee of the Unitarian Chapel, Joshua Crompton, formerly of Heaton, Prestwich, lived at the Old Hall in 1693. In 1672 the barn belonging to the house of William Walker was licensed for preaching. There is documentary evidence that in that year the Rev. Robert Eaton, M.A., ejected Minister of Daresbury, near Warrington, was preaching there. In 1693 he became the first Minister of Stand Chapel. William Walker’s house was almost certainly the Broxups in Higher Lane, then a farm. Walker's grandson waa living there in 1736.The will of William Walker of Stand within Pilkington, dated 1709, states that he assigns his messuage and tenement in Stand Lane called Rawsthorns to his son Daniel in trust for the use of his son William. After various bequests to his relatives and friends he left forty shillings to the poor of Pilkington and twenty shillings to the poor of Radcliffe Parish. An inventory of his possessions included the following:

                                                                                 £ s d

Two horses one mare and one colt                              12 5 0

Five cows, a twinter, a sterk and two calves                 20 16 8

Carts, wheels, horse gears husbandry & looms              5 7 0

Four swine and three stone troughs                             0 19 8

Barley, oats and hay                                                 29 16 0

Looms , gears and warping walls in the loomhouse        1 7 4

In the parlor three tables and carpets 12chairs

and a landskip (landscape painting)                             2 16 0

In bacon, cheese and potatoes                                   2 16 6

Wheat, malt and oatmeal                                           7 4 1

Six silver spoons                                                       3 0 0

In linnens and the decendent’s aparell                         4 3 6

In wool, cloth and debts owing to the decedent           68 19 0

The total value was 198 19 4 1/2

This William Walker was the grandfather of Peter Walker who gave the land on which the Independent Chapel in Stand Lane was built, and great-grandfather of William Walker, master of Stand Grammarr School. In 1711, Gilbert Haddock of Pilkington, blacksmith, desired to build a smithy of two bays on part of the waste land in Whitefield. A number of inhabitants of Pilkington signed his petition. The Commissioners for the Countess Dowager of Derby, Lady of the manor of Pilkington gave the necessary licence. Her Ladyship's Bailiff to decide on the site. This was probably the Gilbert Haddock to whom the Churchwardens of Prestwich paid seven shilling and four pence in 1665 for ‘bands and mendinge the lockes of the arke’, and who distrained on John Collinge for his rent. In 1693 a lease was obtained from the Trustees of Stand Gramar School and a chapel built on the plot of land now occupied by the existing chapel. The School was held in the chapel on weekdays. The earliest known master of the school was Isaac Antrobus. In 1729 a separate room was built to be used for the school. William Walker died in 1770 after having been master of the school for 48 years. His predecessor as Master, a man named Watson, died in 1721. Some of the boys were boarders and lodged with the school-master’s father at the Old Hall. Until he was ten years old Robert Clive (Lord Clive of Plassey), was at the school during Walkerts headmastership. It is thought that he may have been a day boy and, about 1733, rode from Clifton each day. In that case he would ford the Irwell at Bradley Fold, where the brook from Mere Clough joins the Irwell. Alternatively he may have been a boarder at the Old Hall. At that time his uncle lived at Clifton Hall. Clive was the grandson of a trustee of Stand Chapel, Nathaniel Gaskell, who married Sarah, daughter of James Wilson of Poppythorn, Prestwich. Their elder daughter was Robert Clive’s mother. Nathaniel Gaskell was the son of Daniel Gaskell, also a trustee of the Chapel and a Prestwich landowner. Nathaniel also worshipped at the Unitarian Chapel on the corner of Marble Street and Mosley Street, Manchester. William Gaskell, pastor of the Cross Street Chapel and husband of Mrs. Gaskell, the novelist, was a descendant of Nathaniel. In 1769 John Pope, Minister of Blackley Chapel was headmaster. No scholars were taught free. The endowment was to provide a residence for the Master. Mr. Pope taught Greek, Latin, French, Geometry, Trigonometry, Algebra, English language, Pronunciation, Reading, Geography and History. The syllabus was , therefore, much wider than in the Public Schools of that time. He advertised that boys could be boarded at Mr. Walker’s, the former Master; Mr. Bond’s and also at the Old Hall where Mr. Pope lived. A writing master also attended the school. It was not all peace in those years. Dissenters usually supported the Hanoverian monarchy so were a target for the Jacobites. On 21st June 1715 there was a Jacobite riot at Stand. About forty or fifty people broke the windows of the Chapel with stones, pulled down the seats and pews, broke and pulled down the pulpit, the sounding board and the belfry and took away the bell. The bell was later recovered and still hangs in the belfry. Eleven days earlier, on the birthday of the Old Pretender, Tom Syddall had led a Jacobite mob which wrecked Cross Street Chapel, Manchester. This was the first act of the 1715 Rebellion. The doors and windows were smashed in, the pulpit and pews pulled down and everything portable carried away so that only the badly damaged walls remained. After the 1715 Rebellion had been suppressed Tom Sydall was hanged at Manchester and his head impaled on the Market Cross.In 1788 Stand Parsonage was given to the congregation by a relation of Mr. Kay of Stand House, this was probably Peter Walker, who at one time also lived at Stand House. The Rev. Leonard Smith in his researches has discovered that the house was used as a Parsonage as early as 1740.The Sunday School at Stand started in 1808. At first it was held in the Chapel, and it was not until 1893 that a separate building with a house for the caretaker was built on the opposite side of Ringley Road on the corner of Ton Acre Lane (now Ten Acre Drive). In the 1970’s the building became unsafe and was demolished to male way for flats. A new Sunday School was built behind the Chapel.It is difficult to understand how the name Stand Old Hall came into being. It seems certain that the original building was on the site of the present Old Hall, which is comparatively modern. It is possible that round about the time of the Norman Conquest the Pilkingtons lived in a building where the Old Hall now stands and that they built a new Hall opposite Stand Lane a few centuries later. To make things more confusing, in nineteenth century directories the hamlet behind the Old Hall is described as ‘Old Hall’, and it is sometimes difficult to be certain who was living in the Old Hall itself at a given time.Richard Kay, a Bury surgeon, says in his diary on 1lth November, 1745: ‘This day, in the afternoon, I took off Joseph Allen’s wife (sic) leg at Old Hall near Stand, being bad for some years past; father, brother Robert, Mr. Nightingale, apprentice to Mr. Clough in Bolton, Mr. William Walker, schoolmaster at Stand and Mr. Braddock (Minister of Bury Chapel), were present.' Probably the Minister prayed before and after the operation. The operation may have been at a cottage in the hamlet.A gravestone formerly in the burial ground of Stand Chapel bore two names, Ellen, wife of William Walker of Pilkington, died 2nd May 1775 and Mary, wife of William Walker died 19th October 1775. Thus, he buried two wives within six months, and before the year was out had married a third. He was a handloom weaver who lived at Goat’s Gate. It was said of him that 'he had two dead wives and one wick ‘un while he were on t’ same nankeen out.' His third wife died in 1804 and he himself died in 1815. He was 31 years old in the year his wives died.There is a story that in the middle of the eighteenth century a dispute arose between a Prestwich man and an Unsworth man concerning which of them could produce the most gold coin. The trial was made at Unsworth village inn. The Prestwich men came in a procession, the central figure being a beautiful well-dressed girl on a white palfrey, attended by a bodyguard of mounted yeomen in Lincoln green. Despite this display, to his chagrin, the Prestwich man lost. This event came to be known as the Unsworth Guilding.

The following population statistics are of interest:

                               1714 1789 1792 1801 1811 1821 1831 1841 1851

Whitefield                 740 2455 2780 } 5786 7353 8976 11006 11186 12862

Unsworth No Return   575 755 }

Outwood                   315 780 915 }

In the first three years given, the population of Whitefield alone was nearly double that of Prestwich and greater than that of Prestwich and the Heatons combined. Thereafter, the combined population of Whitefield, Unsworth and Outwood for the period under review was always more than double that of Prestwich and the Heatons.In 1776, at Snape Hill, died John Taylor, grandfather of John Edward Taylor, founder and first editor of the ‘Manchester Guardian’. He was a Unitarian and worshipped at the Chapel, where in 1789, the Rev. R. Aubrey decided to follow that form of religion. The transition to the Unitarian doctrine was gradual, for two of his predecessors were Arians. Disagreeing with the Unitarians., part of the congregation, led by Peter Walker, who had been a benefactor of the Chapel, formed Stand Independent Chapel in Stand Lane. It was illegal to call one-self a Unitarian until 1813.John Taylor's eldest son, James was the grandfather of Mark Taylor of Poppythorn, Prestwich. The Taylors and Scotts were already closely related before John Edward Taylor married his cousin, Sophia Russell Scott, one of whose nephews was Charles Prestwich Scott, the famous editor of the 'Manchester Guardian’. A number of John Edward Taylor’s friends invested £1,100 to set him up with a paper of his own, i.e. the ‘Manchester Guardian’. Among the subscribers were George Phillips and Robert Philips, of whom more will be told later. Thomas Hughes the author of ‘Tom Brown’s Schooldays was a contributor to the ‘Guardian’s’ London Letter.The Mason Family were connected with the Chapel for several generations and their tomb is still in the Chapel burial ground. Samuel Mason of Poppythorn, Prestwich left a manuscript diary which gives interesting insights into the life of a farmer in this district in the early part of the nineteenth century. His son rented a farm in Philips Park. Samuel brought his manure (possibly nightsoil), up the Irwell by boat from Manchester to near the farm in Whitefield and carted some of it to Prestwich. Much of his produce he sold in Rochdale. Samuel suffered from frequent agonising headaches. From his diary it is evident that he was a great worrier, so possibly he suffered from migraine. He died in 1829. One of his ancestors, Richard Mason, born 1693, lived to be ninety-one years old.The Unitarian Chapel was re-built in 1818. After 1839 it became possible for weddings to take place there. Baptisms and burials had always been legal.The first step towards modern Whitefield made when Bury Old Road was constructed in 1755. Soon, cottages began to be built on either side of the road, for it was the main road between Manchester and Bury. By 1792 the population was 2,780. Even so, there were only a dozen tenements at Besses o’ th’ Barn, though in a newspaper of 19th January, 1746 there is an advertisement concerning a meeting of creditors at 'Bessy’s o’ th' Barn". It seems that the hamlet derived its name from an inn with a barn adjoining which stood on the ground where the Ambulance Station is now, the name of the landlady being Bess. The inn was demolished in the first half of the twentieth century. John F Wilson remembers changing in the inn when playing rugby for the Prestwich Club on a ground in Thatch Leach Lane, now covered by houses.Even in the middle of the nineteenth century the district was also known as Stone Pale. Originally the Junction Hotel was known as Stone Pale Tavern. It bore that name in the 1780s. Some people believe that it was so-called because it was surround by stone paling fences. It is more probable that it got its name from the district, a name that came from the stone peles or lookout towers built by the Romans. Besses is quite near the old Roman Road and there may have been a pale nearby. The hotel was originally a farmhouse dating from 1580. The farm covered the present Jewish Burial Ground.Part of the village of old Whitefield was on the road between Whitefield and Bury, nearer to Whitefield than Lily Hill. These cottages were thatched with straw and were occupied by hand-loom weavers and small tradesmen. Probably about the only men of any substance in Whitefield were the farmers. It is certain that the farm labourers would be extremely poor and that, following a bad harvest, many would be starving.About 1800, a string band was founded at Besses o’ th’ Barn. It was the forerunner of the brass band which became world famous.As one considers early Whitefield, certain points come to mind. It is puzzling that, unlike most Manors, there was no church near the Manor House, Stand Hall; the Hall lying in the Parish of Prestwich.The Lily Hill area probably developed because of its proximity to the old Roman Road from Manchester to Ribehester, whereas the Four Lane Ends district probably developed because it was a cross-road where the lane from Prestwich to Bury intersected with a lane from Unsworthand another lane to Higher Lane, part of the Roman Road. This lane contained the pinfold where stray cattle were penned because it was convenient for all the nearby hamlets.Whitefield probably developed by the two hamlets at Four Lane Ends and at Lily Hill extending until they met. Later the hamlets at Four Lane Ends and Besses would meet in a similar way.When Whitefield Local Board of Health District was carved out of Pillkington in 1866, Stand was a residential area and Stand lane a thriving industrial area. Why, then, was the district named Whitefield and not Stand? All Saints Church built in 1829 was called Stand Church. The probable reason is that the hamlet of Whitefield lay on the main road to Bury and was a much busier area than Stand. Whitefield had more shops, more public houses and was more central for the new township than Stand, which lay on one of the boundaries.