The Greyhound (Hare and Hounds)

There have been different theories about exactly where the Greyhound Inn was. A.J. Clear thought it was in the road now called Greyhound Lane, at the rear of 24 High Street. It is more likely that it was in the High Street, near the Greyhound Lane junction, and was part of the property which T.P. Willis acquired in 1866 and rebuilt as "The Elms", on the left in the photo below (now the site of Elms Court). The Greyhound operated under various slightly different names between the 1750s and 1820s. If it existed before 1753, no evidence has yet been found.

Plan of former Greyhound and adjacent buildings
The site shown on the 1880 OS map after T.P. Willis had redeveloped it. The buildings with cross-hatching are his greenhouses.

1753: Alehouse Recognizances
Hare & Hound: Joseph Ware
It's not recorded 1756-62 so this might actually have been a different inn.

28-30 High Street1763-65: Alehouse Recognizances
Greyhound & Hare: Edward Blake
Possibly the son of Thomas Blake, and brother of William Blake who later owned The Greyhound (see below): see Blake family

1766-67: Alehouse Recognizances
Hare & Hounds: Thomas Newman

1771: Alehouse Recognizances
Greyhound: Thomas Newman

1775: Fire
According to one report, "part of ye buildings of Thomas Newman's at ye Greyhound" burned down

1775: Manor court
Thomas Newman of Winslow victualler fined for faulty measures

1776-85: Alehouse Recognizances
Hare & Hounds: Thomas Newman

1784: Fire insurance

26 January 1784 Sun Insurance 11936/319/489050
Thomas Newman of Winslow victualler  

On his household goods in his now dwelling house situate as aforesaid the Greyhound brick and tiled 

£60
Utensils and stock therein £30
Wearing apparel £10
  ----
  £100

Thomas Newman didn't own the building, which was insured by William Blake in 1791 (LMA, CLC/B/192/F/001/MS11936/379/586320).

1784: register of electors
William Blake: freehold house occupied by Thomas Newman

Newman was also a small-scale farmer: he rented 13 acres from Ann Coulson (wife of William Blake) and her son Robert, and 4 acres from the Verneys. Frances the widow gave up the larger holding in about 1787 and the smaller one after 1795.

1786: Burial of Thomas Newman, 15 Jan

1790-1800: Alehouse Recognizances
Hare & Hounds: Fanny Newman widow

1793: Will of William Blake of Shipton, yeoman (proved 1797)
I also give and bequeath unto the said John Blake [his nephew] all such rent that shall be due and owing from Frances Newman Widow to me at the time of my decease.
The will doesn't specify what is to happen to William's property, for which he had presumably made separate arrangements.

1795: Land Tax
William Blake (owner), Mrs Newman (occupier): 11s 1d
This is the only Land Tax entry which appears to refer to The Greyhound.

1808: Burial of Fanny Newman, 29 March

1815-21: Alehouse Recognizances
Greyhound: John Abbot

1816: Northampton Mercury, 30 Nov

Household Furniture, Liquors, Ale, and Effects,
To be S O L D by  A U C T I O N, By SAMUEL DUDLEY,

On Thursday and Friday, the 5th and 6th Days of December, 1816, on  the Premises of Mr. JOHN ABBOTT, at the GREYHOUND PUBLIC HOUSE, WINSLOW (under a Distress, and for the Benefit of Creditors);

COMPRISING four-post sacking-bottom Bedsteads, and Furniture; tester and stump Bedsteads, feather and flock Beds, Bolsters and Pillows, Mattresses, Blankets, Sheets, and Quilts; veneered and oak Chests of Drawers, dressing Tables, pier and swing Glasses, mahogany Bureau, mahogany dining Tables, oak folding and round Tables, Dozen of Windsor Chairs, chamber and flag Chairs, oak Chests, hanging Press and Cupboards, Clock and Case, mahogany tea Tray and Waiters, japanned Ditto, Dresser and Shelves, stove and kitchen Grates, Fenders and fire Irons; Pictures and Books; Quantity of Pewter; two Settles, and Screens; ironing Boards and Trestles; salting Leads and Stands; 30-gallon Copper, brass and copper Boilers; Quantity of Earthenware and Glass; kitchen Requisites in Copper, Brass and Tin; Number of Boards, Trestles, Poles, and Fagots; several hundred Weight of Coals; pig Trough, Ladder, and two store Pigs; a Stump of Hay, about 30 cwt. - Also about three Gallons of Brandy, four Ditto of Rum, nine Ditto of Gin, and about 200 Ditto of excellent Ale; several half-hogshead and smaller Casks, with various other useful Articles too numerous to insert.
The Sale will commence each Day at Eleven o’clock.

1817: sale of Robert Watson's house in Shipton to be held on 18 July at the Greyhound Public House, Winslow

1822: Oxford Journal, 30 March, report of Bucks Assizes
Gent v. Tompkins.This was an action to recover the sum of 19l. 16s. being the amount of plaintiff’s bill, who was a surgeon, for attendance, &c, on a man of the name of Tyrrell, who had met with a serious accident by being gored with a cow, at Winslow fair, the 22d of September, 1820.  J. K. Adams, apprentice of the plaintiff’s, recollected the accident taking place.   Tyrrell was carried to the Greyhound public house, where he attended him till the 25th of Nov. following;  knew Tompkins the defendant;  heard him say he hoped the patient would be well attended to, and he would see the plaintiff paid. – Jane Butler, servant of the plaintiff’s, heard defendant tell her master, if the patient needed wine to let him have it, and he would pay for it.  Mr. Cowley, surgeon, of Winslow, said the mode of treatment was proper, and that the bill was reasonable.   Mr. Munroe, counsel for the defendant, contended, that when a person met with an accident out of his own parish, he was to be considered as casual poor in that parish where the accident happens, and cannot be removed from that parish without an order.  The parish of Winslow were bound to pay the doctor.   Mr. Serjeant Blossett, for the plaintiff, contended that Tompkins had acknowledged his right to pay the bill by becoming responsible for the wine.   He agreed that every parish had a right to take care of casual poor, but if another parish came forward and said, we will see you paid, it was another matter.  Verdict for the plaintiff – Damages 19l. 16s.

This case was reported in more detail in English Reports (1826) 5 B&C 746

Gent v Tompkins 1822
This was an action of assumpsit for work and labour bestowed by the plaintiff as a surgeon and apothecary, in and about the cure of one Tyrrell. Plea, genera1 issue. At the trial before Richards C.B., at the Spring Assizes for the county of Bucks, 1822, the following appeared to be the facts of the case. The plaintiff was a surgeon arid apothecary, residing in the parish of Window in the county of Bucks. The defendant in 1820 was overseer of the poor of the parish of Newton Longville. On the 22d of September in that year, Tyrrell, a pauper, (whose settlement was in Newton Longville) met with a severe accident in the parish of Winslow, that rendered it unfit that he should be removed. He was taken to a public house in that parish, and the plaintiff attended him there until the 25th of November following. About a fortnight after the accident happened, the defendant (who resided in Newton Longville) called upon the plaintiff at his house, and expressed his approbation of the care bestowed by the plaintiff upon the pauper, and desired that he might continue to receive every attention, and he, the defendant, would see the plaintiff paid. The defendant asked if the pauper required any wine, and upon the plaintiffs saying that he did, the defendant desired that the pauper might have it. The plaintiff, in the first instance, had claimed the amount of his bill from the parish officers of Winslow but that was by the advice of his attorney, who did not at that time know that the defendant had employed the plaintiff. It was contended that the defendant was not liable. For although the pauper was settled in Newton Longville, the obligation to provide medical assistance lay on that parish where the pauper was compelled to continue in consequence of the accident, and consequently that the parish officers of Winslow, where the accident; occurred, and the medical assistance was given, were liable to pay the plaintiff. The Lord Chief Baron reserved the point for the opinion of the Court, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the plaintiff for 19l. 10s., the amount of his bill. A verdict having been found accordingly, a rule nisi for entering a nonsuit was afterwards obtained in Easter term.
  Storks and C. F. Williams, in Trinity term, 1822, shewed cause. It must be admitted that the parish officers of Winslow, where the pauper necessarily lay sick in consequence of the accident, were, in the first instance, under a legal obligation to provide medical assistance for him, Rex v. James in Bury St. Edmunds (10 East, 25), Rex v. St. Lawrence Ludlow (4 B. & A. 660). It must be admitted, also, that the law may not be the proper place to give relief. It may happen that the [747] parish officers, without entering into the question what are the limits of particular parishes, will do that which ought to be done immediately, namely, carry the pauper [748] to the house nearest the place where the accident happens, instead of carrying her to a considerable distance. In Lamb v. Bunce the impression of the Court was, that the parish in which the house was situate was the proper parish to have given the relief ; but, without deciding that point, I am of opinion that in this case, inasmuch as the accident happened in the parish of Heybridge, and that was the place where, under all the circumstances, the pauper was entitled to receive surgical assistance, the plaintiff is entitled to look to the parish of Heybridge for payment of his bill.
  Holroyd J. The accident having happened to the pauper in the parish of Heybridge, it was the duty of [749] the officers of that parish to provide medica! assistance for her there. They might have done that although the occupier of one public house refused to receive her. But I think they could not, by removing her elsewhere, shift upon other people that burden which the law cast upon themselves ; and will not raise an implied promise from a moral obligation, Atkins v. Banwell (2 East, 505). He first adopts all that has been done, and then promises to pay the plaintiff. And the pauper being settled in Newton Longville, the defendant was under a moral obligation to provide for him and a moral obligation is a sufficient consideration for an express promise, Watson v. Turner (Bull. N. P. 147).
  Dover and Monro contra. The defendant, as overseer of Newton Longville, was not under any legal obligation to provide medical assistance for the pauper. The legal obligation was on the parish of Winslow, where the accident happened, and where the pauper of necessity lay sick during the time the plaintiff attended him. At the time when the defendant made the promise, a part of the sum now claimed constituted a debt due to the plaintiff from the parish officers of Winslow. As to that sum, the promise was to pay the debt of another, and not being in writing, was void. But the overseer was not under any moral obligation to support the pauper. There was no moral obligation, independent of the legal liability, created by statute, and the legal liability to maintain casual poor during sickness lies on that parish where the pauper continues by reason of his accident. [Bayley J. Although the promise may be void as to the bygone time, may it not be binding as to the future time? It was uncertain by whom the plaintiff was originally employed, and he might have ceased to attend the pauper when he pleased. Suppose he was induced by the promise of the defendant to continue his services, would not that be a sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise, so as to make him responsible for the attendance subsequently given?] It ought, at all events, to have been submitted as a question of fact to the jury, whether, after the making of the promise by the defendant, the plaintiff continued to attend the pauper on the part of the parish of Winslow.
  It was suggested by the Court, that the purposes of justice might be answered by the defendant paying the plaintiff 9l. 16s., and the latter entering a stet processus.  The defendant’s counsel assented to this proposition, and the case stood over for some days, to give the plaintiff’s counsel an opportunity of consulting their client. It was then intimated that they had received no instruction on the subject.
  Abbott C.J. We are clearly of opinion that the defendant, as overseer of the parish of Newton Longville, was not bound by law, in the first instance, to provide medical assistance for the pauper. The obligation to do that lay on the parish of Winslow, where the accident happened, and the pauper was compelled to remain in consequence of it. The officers of that parish are clearly bound to pay the plaintiff for his care and attendance bestowed upon the pauper before the defendant made his promise ; but if the plaintiff subsequently to that period was induced to continue to attend the pauper in consequence of the promise, the latter may perhaps be liable for such attendance, but he certainly is not liable to the extent of the present verdict. The question ought to have been submitted to the jury, whether the plaintiff, after the promise made by the defendant, was thereby induced to continue his attendance on the pauper. The rule for a new trial must therefore be made absolute. But in this case there was an express promise by the defendant.
Rule absolute.
The cause was afterwards settled, the defendant having paid 50l. to the plaintiff in satisfaction of debt and costs.


This is the last reference which has been found to the Greyhound as a functioning pub, and it's not in the 1828 Alehouse Recognizances. It is likely that it was acquired by the currier George West and merged with the adjacent tannery which he ran.

The name Greyhound Lane only came into use long after the pub had disappeared; previously the road was just referred to as the back lane. A talk given by A.J. Clear in 1922 referred to "Greyhound Lane (now called Willis Lane)" (Buckingham Advertiser, 14 Jan 1922). This is the earliest occurrence of the name so far found in print.

Copyright 29 September, 2020