Alexander Lock 1679 – 1743: Continuance of Lease 1684

One story that keeps cropping up is a continuance of lease granted to Alexander Lock (1679-1743):

“Extract from an old deed “Alexander Lock, carpenter of Ryhall in the County of Rutland, held a continuance of lease dated 7th January in the sixth and thirtieth year of the reign of the Sovereign Lord Charles the second of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the faith, in the year One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Four, given the right to sell cattle in the streets of Stamford Lincs”.”

The Last will and testament of Alexander Lock makes no mention of any deeds. These deeds be inherited or otherwise. It also makes no reference to cattle.

Information from other researchers has:

“Other information supplied by Peter Fisher Locke (1940) is that an early entry in the original Parish Records of Ryhall around 1667 show that JOHN LOCK obtained permission from the Duke of Rutland to sell cattle in the market-place of Ryhall. This could be the correct entry that had been mis-understood and attributed to Alexander (Son of JOHN LOCK) as expressed on the 1936 Family Tree produced by Charles and Herbert LOCKE. (These notes are taken from another researcher and as yet cannot be verified)”

These extract(s) come from others who do not seem to be able or willing to show proof of its existence. I have made many efforts to track down any evidence of this deed. These efforts include contacting Ryhall Parish Church where the deed is supposed to have originally been found. I have also visited archives, libraries, and any other sources that hold evidence of this deed. Yet, I have so far been unsuccessful. The search will continue though!

The dates are slightly difficult to interpret in this “deed for Alexander Lock.” It reads “7th January, in the six and thirtieth year” (36) in the reign of Charles II. Charles I was executed on the 30th January 1649. Charles II was reinstated to the throne in 1660. Yet, all documents were to assume he succeeded the throne in 1649. This virtually forgot Oliver Cromwell existed. But I digress! That being the case Charles II came to the throne on the 30th Jan 1649. Some argue that the 7th Jan in his 36th year of reign would change the date to 1686. The so-called deed then goes on to state the year “One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Four”. I’m not convinced a deed would mention two years this way. Still, I am willing to take it at face value.

One or two problems do come to mind. It states this is a “continuance of lease.” Who held this lease before Alexander was it his father John? If the lease was dated 1684, Alexander would have been five years old at most. This was at the time of this lease. His father John actually died in 1682 would it have taken over two years to transfer/inherit the lease? And secondly, what happened to the lease? Did it lapse through non-use? Was it passed onto someone else? As stated earlier, Alexander’s will of 1743 makes no mention of this lease. It does not mention anything at all to do with cattle. He was primarily a carpenter. This trade was passed down through the generations of Lock men.

Alexander Lock married Anne Twilley, his second wife of three, on the 25 Mar 1706 at Ryhall, in Rutland. In researching the Twilley line, I discovered that others have done a great deal of research on the Twilleys. One document, in particular, is very interesting and helpful in finding this lease.

Twilley family history and lore written by Ian Twilley and Fenton Twilley in 1973.
Page 4 of this family history states:

“In 1706, an Alexander Lock married Anne Twilley, daughter of Lawrence Twilley. Alexander Lock’s ancestor (should say descendant!) W.B. Locke of Brice Rock, West Australia, found that Alexander was a tenant farmer on Lord Cecil’s estate. Documents show that he was licensed to sell cattle in the Red Lion Square.”

This is the first sign I have come across that Alexander Lock was a tenant farmer. It is also the first hint he had anything to do with cattle. Lord Cecil’s estate would be Burleigh Estate near Stamford Lincolnshire so would their archives offer any clues……. Red Lion Square is also the main Market Square in Stamford. This raises an important question. Was the lease part of any tenancy as a farmer? It is not specifically directed at Alexander Lock. So, did the lease pass onto the next tenant of any farm when Alexander Lock gave up the tenancy?
So the possibility of finding this lease would be increasing.

Acknowledgment and thanks are gratefully given to Jennifer (Jenny) Symien for supplying me with copies of pages from “Twilley Family History & Lore” relevant to Alexander Lock and Anne Twilley

When all available information has been analysed and ran through “Co-Pilot” it concludes:

What the wording appears to mean

The extract reads:

“Alexander Lock, carpenter of Ryhall in the County of Rutland, held a continuance of lease … giving right to sell cattle in the street in Stamford, Lincolnshire.”

In ordinary 17th‑century legal language:

  • “Carpenter of Ryhall” identifies Alexander by occupation and residence.
  • “Held a continuance of lease” suggests this was not a brand-new grant but the renewal or continuation of an existing lease or privilege.
  • “Giving right to sell cattle” sounds less like ownership of cattle and more like a legal right connected with a market, fair, stall, or market position.
  • “In the street in Stamford” likely refers to trading in Stamford’s market area rather than literally wandering through streets selling cattle.

The dating problem

The extract dates the lease to:

“the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Charles II … in the year One Thousand Six Hundred and Eighty Four.”

Researchers in your correspondence have already noticed a problem:

  • If Charles II’s regnal years are counted from 1649 (the convention often used after the Restoration), the 36th regnal year would not neatly align with 1684.
  • The deed appears to contain both a regnal year and a calendar year, which has led to confusion over whether the effective date should be read as 1684 or 1685/1686.

Without the original document, this cannot be resolved confidently.

The biggest genealogical issue

The strongest objection raised by Wayne Brown and Leigh Robinson is the age of Alexander. If Alexander was the man baptised in 1679, he would have been only about five years old in 1684.

That creates a serious difficulty:

  • A five-year-old carpenter is impossible.
  • A five-year-old independently holding a commercial lease is highly unlikely.
  • Therefore either:
    1. the date is wrong,
    2. the age/birth year is wrong,
    3. the deed referred to another Alexander Lock,
    4. or Alexander inherited or was named in a lease previously held by his father or family.

A very interesting alternative explanation

One family tradition recorded by other researchers says that:

Peter Fisher Locke reported that an early Ryhall parish record showed John Lock obtaining permission from the Duke of Rutland to sell cattle in a market place.

That is significant because it could explain several inconsistencies:

  • John Lock was an adult.
  • John was Alexander’s father.
  • A later family historian may have mistakenly connected the cattle-selling privilege with Alexander instead of John.
  • The “continuance of lease” wording would make more sense if Alexander inherited or succeeded to a right originally associated with his father.

However, the correspondence also notes that this tradition has not yet been verified from original records.

Why Stamford matters

Ryhall lies only a few miles from Stamford. Stamford was a much larger market centre, so it would be far more valuable to possess a recognised market right there than in the small village of Ryhall itself. The wording therefore sounds plausible historically, even though the document itself remains elusive.

My assessment

Based on everything found, the most likely interpretation is:

  1. There probably was some form of lease, market licence, tenancy, or trading right connected with cattle sales in Stamford.
  2. The phrase**”continuance of lease”** suggests an existing right rather than a new grant.
  3. The privilege may originally have belonged to John Lock, not Alexander.
  4. The surviving family-tree extract compiled in the 1930s may have condensed or misinterpreted the original wording.