THE APPROACH of Bonfire Night is a reminder of the erroneous assertion
that the infamous Guy Fawkes plot to blow up King James I and the Houses of
Parliament during the early 17th century was hatched at the Red Hall in Bourne,
a suggestion still to be found in some guide books and magazine articles.
One of the earliest references appears in John Moore’s account of the town
published in 1809 but as he was stating beliefs that were prevalent at that time
it is safe to assume that there was a widespread oral tradition that
subsequently filtered down through the printed word, notably by later written
historical accounts, particularly those that appeared regularly in trade
directories such as Kelly’s and White’s between 1842 and 1937 and are still
available and often quoted today.
Historian Joseph J Davies, the distinguished headmaster of the former Council or
Board School in Abbey Road, now the Bourne Abbey Church of England School, was
quite specific in his 1909 edition of Historic Bourne that one of the leading
conspirators, Sir Everard Digby, was born at the Red Hall and was executed for
his part in the Gunpowder Plot which he had joined with the sole purpose of
restoring the Roman Catholic religion in England.
But by 1925, John T Swift dismissed all connections between the conspiracy and
the Red Hall in his history Bourne and People Associated with Bourne yet it was
to be another forty years before the myth was finally laid to rest. In between
times, Bourne was stuck with the legend which was often referred to in the local
newspapers and there is evidence that many still believed it in later years and
still do so today. In fact, it was not until 1964 that the story was totally
discredited by Mrs Joan Varley, archivist to Lincolnshire Archives Committee,
after studying parish registers and deeds of the hall that had recently been
deposited with them by a descendant of the Bourne Digby family, Sir Everard
Philip Digby Pauncefort Duncombe, of Great Brickhill Manor in Buckinghamshire,
and so the popular theory was well and truly laid to rest.
The story had evolved around the mistaken belief that Sir Everard Digby was born
and lived at the Red Hall and it has been frequently stated that as he was one
of the main perpetrators, he and his fellow conspirators met at his home where
the plot was hatched. The date the hall was built is not known exactly but 1605
is the most favoured. This was the year that the plot was actually discovered
and as the building was some time in the planning, it would have been impossible
for it to have been the meeting place for those involved in the conspiracy.
In fact, Sir Everard Digby, who was involved in the plot, lived at Stoke Dry,
Uppingham, Rutland, and was one of the great landowners in the Midlands although
he had no connection with Bourne. But over a century later, the building did
pass into the hands of a Digby family and James Digby, gentleman, appears as a
deputy steward to the Manor of Bourne Abbotts at a session of the manorial court
in October 1730, and from then onwards there are numerous references to him and
his descendants in the manorial records. It is at this date also that the name
Digby begins to appear in the parish registers. The family owned and inhabited
the Red Hall from then until about a century later and this fact appears to have
been the cause of some wishful deduction that Sir Everard was a direct ancestor
of the Digbys of Bourne which was certainly not the case.
After an exhaustive search through the documents, Mrs Varley published her
findings in April 1964, with some reluctance it would seem, because she said at
the time: “I am sorry in a way that I have robbed Bourne of its best known
legend but I was merely trying to get at the truth. It is very easy for
incorrect statements to get into local town guides. Stories grow up about
places, following generations believe they are true and eventually they are
accepted as fact. They are written into books and other authors do not take the
time to check and revise them.”
This is still the case. Once a statement is made in print, it is filed away in
various archives and then when a subject or place is to be written about again,
the writer consults the cuttings and repeats the error. So it is that the
Gunpowder Plot will surface occasionally as having happened at the Red Hall
because, as Mrs Varley pointed out, some writers are careless about checking
their facts.
Nevertheless, this is one of the reasons why Bonfire Night has been celebrated
with great enthusiasm in Bourne during past times and on some occasions,
particularly during the 19th century, extra police were drafted in because of
possible trouble. Riotous behaviour and vandalism became an annual event on
every Fifth of November and special sittings of the magistrates were held the
next morning to deal with offenders. The worst riot of this kind was in 1877
when 40 men and youths were arraigned on charges relating to disturbances in
Bourne and the surrounding villages, their main enjoyment being the rolling of
lighted tar barrels down the street, a popular although illegal method of
celebration at that time, and of starting bonfires on the highway. Other
offences included assaulting the police, firing guns, discharging fireworks in a
public place and causing a general commotion to the annoyance of the public.
Disturbances of this magnitude are now unknown although there is a continuing
public debate over the sale of fireworks and their indiscriminate use,
especially in the run up to November 5th when the night sky is regularly
illuminated by rockets while the use of bangers and other explosives in
residential areas frightens old people and their pets. The current situation is
that most of us deplore their universal sale and use because of the dangers
involved but would accept some form of regulation that would prohibit all
firework events except those which are organised and supervised and this would
seem to be the perfect solution. |