Jump to content

Far Cotton Wharf


Featured Posts

8 hours ago, Captain Pegg said:

 

So is it not plausible that it’s ‘Ware’? Especially, as we we know that’s what the author believed the boat in question to be called. ‘Naro’ makes no sense written with that spelling by an educated person.

 Yes, it's inconclusive. My point is that whilst the educated person is doing the writing, it is from hearing from an informant verbally, and Naro sounds like narrow. The informant may not have known how 'narrow' was spelt, but he may well have known the letters on a boat named Naro, though may not have been in a position to correct the clerks spelling, and clerk will simply have been filling in details of yet another certificate and took the word as it sounded. As Pete Harrison has yet to discover a narrow boat called Naro, it sounded a plausible suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Chris M Jones said:

Just to be correct the boat WEAR was registered at Berkhamsted 439 not Brentford 439 as previously stated. 

 
Also when Thomas Clayton's new wide boat CHESS was registered at Berkhamsted number 437 on 20th November 1906, Jesse Harrison was also recorded as its master.

Chess was given to G Grandad James (Jess) as a change boat due to the death of a daughter onboard prev boat whilst at Buckby Wharf this is a thing that was done often when a death happened the Steerer would have a what was called a change boat & the boat the death happened on would be docked for repairs ,painted ect for a few weeks. The Steerer would then have the option to have his old boat back but I have only found one of mine that did this .

My Uncle once told me this was also a time when a few boat's might have had a name change whilst out of the water 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, pete harrison said:

What date :captain:

Pete 

Have scanned from the cert's I have .

Sorry this is the way they (G.R.O.) send them now they scan originals then copy over sometimes cutting out some of the info . as an added info my G Gran is  under the name Anne or Annie in a lot of certs & census but that was not her birth or Baptised  name 

104_4998.jpg

104_4999.jpg

104_5000.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B.C.N. gauge table BCN16323 was issued on 11 August 1898 as MEDWAY 25 for Thomas Clayton, Oldbury (Thomas Clayton (Oldbury) Ltd. was formed in 1904) where it is described as having a tank deck. It is recorded on this gauge table that this boat was previously gauged as BCN9966, which is missing but can be dated to either 28 February 1878 or the first week of March 1878. BCN16323 was cancelled in September 1919 with the comment 'boat cut up'.

 

Linking health registrations is sometimes very clear, but is often a matter of interpretation based upon other information such as gaugings and inspections - and this is my interpretation for MEDWAY (Chris M. Jones might have a different interpretation):

 

MEDWAY was first health registered on 19 March 1879 as Birmingham 97 for William Clayton, Saltley, a single cabin horse boat that carried the fleet number 6. MEDWAY was re-registered as Birmingham 687 on 15 May 1889, still for William Clayton, Saltley but now with two cabins. The final health registration for MEDWAY was on 22 July 1892 as Birmingham 818 and for Thomas Clayton, Oldbury - and still with two cabins. These health registrations suggest that MEDWAY was an open boat employed in the carrying of general goods, including tar, between Birmingham and London - and it is my suspicion that the B.C.N. gauging of 1898 was when MEDWAY was fitted with its tank deck (although there was a considerable amount of re-gauging going on at this time).

 

I do have quite good records for Thomas Clayton (Oldbury) Ltd. boats as a transcript was taken from a document at their yard in Oldbury in the early 1960's, Interestingly there is nothing that captures 25 or 35, so what I have listed for 25 is about as good as it gets for now although Chris M. Jones will no doubt add more detail. As for 35 well that will have to wait until more information becomes available as this fleet number is not captured on any of the gauge records I have seen so far :captain:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far cotton wharf was just above the last lock. When I first knew it in the 50’s there was a big warehouse which stored paper rolls for the local newspaper the Chronicle and a Echo. It later became the Magnet joinery centre. It was down a small lane and on the other side nearer the lock was a timber company called Trenery’s who I believe had received timber by canal in the past. Just below south bridge was another timber yard called Smiths who had extensive river side premises.

it is likely that these boats did go to the gas works which were just up the river past the breweries and my father who worked at the Northampton Brewery NBC told me that they used to have malt by boat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Birmingham boat register states number 97 MEDWAY was sold, which makes me suspect number 687 MEDWAY (and subsequently 818) was a different boat. Alan Faulkner seems to have thought that too and believed number 97 became number 692 MEDWAY for FMC in 1889.

 

A photo of Clayton's MEDWAY registered 818 Birmingham appears in NarrowBoat page 27 Spring 2019 issue.

 

Jeannette - very interesting details about boaters dismissal and how James came to be on the CHESS. Many companies were hard pressed to find crews so had to keep them on unless their dismissal was something really serious. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Chris M Jones said:

The Birmingham boat register states number 97 MEDWAY was sold, which makes me suspect number 687 MEDWAY (and subsequently 818) was a different boat. Alan Faulkner seems to have thought that too and believed number 97 became number 692 MEDWAY for FMC in 1889.

As I say people have differing interpretations.

 

Fellows Morton and Clayton Ltd. MEDWAY was gauged BCN12408 on 11 April 1889 for Fellows Morton and Company, Birmingham - and with the registration Birmingham 692 being dated 25 July 1889 suggests this was a new boat in 1889.

 

The late gauge number BCN9966 is quoted on BCN 16323 (Thomas Clayton MEDWAY 25) so in my opinion gives a direct connection to William Clayton's MEDWAY 6 registered as Birmingham 97 - regardless of it stating sold in the register (I do have this note but I am wary as these notes are undated and could have been added at any time, i.e years after the event). William Davies / Davis is given as Master for both Birmingham 97 and Birmingham 687 - both MEDWAY for William Clayton so again giving some strength to my opinion.

 

I am not particularly interested in getting into 'tit for tat' with Chris M. Jones so I am leaving this thread now :captain: 

Edited by pete harrison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Chris M Jones said:

The Birmingham boat register states number 97 MEDWAY was sold, which makes me suspect number 687 MEDWAY (and subsequently 818) was a different boat. Alan Faulkner seems to have thought that too and believed number 97 became number 692 MEDWAY for FMC in 1889.

 

A photo of Clayton's MEDWAY registered 818 Birmingham appears in NarrowBoat page 27 Spring 2019 issue.

 

Jeannette - very interesting details about boaters dismissal and how James came to be on the CHESS. Many companies were hard pressed to find crews so had to keep them on unless their dismissal was something really serious. 

Chris the way I was told & is  written in the diary's I have kept for over 50 years on tales & facts told  by family that where there was if the company lost trade because of mistakes made by themselves it reflected on them & those big Company's needing the good carried from a to b  would go to another carrying company thus the boatman looses his regular route.

So the boatman often took the blame .Stupid boatman cant read ect  amongst other things where common to their ears.

Attatched is part of a letter from Caroline Jones who in 1905 was the Archive Research Assistant at Gloucester Docks . these boats where taken to Bulls Bridge the day after Aunt Emily drowned.

My Grandad, Dad & Uncle joe  collected the boats from Cowley lock to Bulls Bridge taking  all their belongings off the boats & stowing them all on the change boats whilst Laurel & exe 

where put into dry dock as was the normal when some one died.

 William was the eldest son . J Harrison in the second page of this letter is refered to as  Jack Harrison =another 2nd name twist as he was known as little Jackie Harrison but his real birth name was John Allen Harrison he is also in the list of boatmen that went to war that Lorna has & his baby sister is one of the little ones buried in Brentford that I am fighting against Boatmans graves being built over but that's another part of my diarys . Later this week I will as I have done since Grandad went to the great cut in the sky keep my promise & place 2 yellow roses above Cowley Lock 

104_5005.JPG

Emily Harrison.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, pete harrison said:

As I say people have differing interpretations.

 

Fellows Morton and Clayton Ltd. MEDWAY was gauged BCN12408 on 11 April 1889 for Fellows Morton and Company, Birmingham - and with the registration Birmingham 692 being dated 25 July 1889 suggests this was a new boat in 1889.

 

The late gauge number BCN9966 is quoted on BCN 16323 (Thomas Clayton MEDWAY 25) so in my opinion gives a direct connection to William Clayton's MEDWAY 6 registered as Birmingham 97 - regardless of it stating sold in the register (I do have this note but I am wary as these notes are undated and could have been added at any time, i.e years after the event). William Davies / Davis is given as Master for both Birmingham 97 and Birmingham 687 - both MEDWAY for William Clayton so again giving some strength to my opinion.

 

I am not particularly interested in getting into 'tit for tat' with Chris M. Jones so I am leaving this thread now :captain: 

Please stay Peter I as do many others value your input you have been a dimond for help with this thread & many others you have helped me with in past years .We cant all agree all the time .

I now feel rotten because in  you both helping me out you & Chris have had words 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been no ‘words’ between us as far as I am concerned and I always look forward to Pete’s contributions.

 
I think it's important to show readers who may not engage in first hand research themselves, that these histories of boats are open to a deal of interpretation, especially the further back into history we go. I was just showing this applied to the history of the MEDWAY boat, which given the remaining material available will never be resolved.
 
It's an unfortunate fact that nearly all the research material we use today originated from private companies and vast quantities have been destroyed over the years, some of it within living memory of some older people. What we have today is merely the dregs of what once existed, and it's from these remains that we have to piece together our unique canal history and achieve a level of accuracy.
 
It's not a question of competing with others to show how much we know but hopefully encouraging others to take up the challenge of research which will give us all a more well rounded knowledge of our past.   
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On writing about historical details, it is always worth remembering the quote from Niesche, 'There are no facts, only interpretations'.

 

I also felt that, given the title of this thread, it needed a photo of a cotton wharf:

Church wharf, 2 boats.jpg

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, pete harrison said:

I am not particularly interested in getting into 'tit for tat' with Chris M. Jones so I am leaving this thread now :captain: 

 

18 hours ago, jeannette smith harrison said:

I now feel rotten because in  you both helping me out you & Chris have had words 

 

5 hours ago, Chris M Jones said:

There have been no ‘words’ between us as far as I am concerned and I always look forward to Pete’s contributions.

There have been no 'words' between Chris M. Jones and me, but we were starting to use this thread to discuss / dispute a particular boat history that does not really matter to this thread (it matters to me and Chris but probably nobody else). Having these differing opinions / interpretations can be unhelpful and distracting which is why I decided to opt out.

 

As far as I am concerned the important thing is that No. 25 has been identified as MEDWAY, and just as important is that further research is needed to identify Thomas Clayton / Thomas Clayton (Oldbury) Ltd. boat number 35 - any volunteers :captain:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Caroline Jones was always helpful when at Gloucester. The records are now at Ellesmere Port. The information sent is of particular value as it relates to boat movements during the war. FMC, like the canals, had a period of direct control in order to support the war effort. It is quite likely that the traffic carried in those days was in the national interest.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/11/2019 at 13:50, Heartland said:

Caroline Jones was always helpful when at Gloucester. The records are now at Ellesmere Port. The information sent is of particular value as it relates to boat movements during the war. FMC, like the canals, had a period of direct control in order to support the war effort. It is quite likely that the traffic carried in those days was in the national interest.

This Lady in the time I was in contact with her  was a very dedicated person in her work & has on more than one occasion 

been of great help .I did hear that these records went to Ellesmere & had to go into storage due to lack of space if that was true then I am even more in Caroline's debt for her help. I have many tales of the loads carried during the war time told to me (my grandad & G Grandad where some of the men sent from Manny Smith  @ Brentford to Teddington to help get the smaller boats ready that went to Dunkirk)  but I have no way to prove this & not many  people  seem intrested in tales passed down through the boating people unless  proof is in black n white signed on the dotted line 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is handed down is often important as it provides the means of checking records. Sadly not all records have survived, yet all such information adds to building up the correct image of what happened.

 

Now regarding the family history According to the 1911 Census where Wear and Soar were recorded at Brentford Lock with Harry ans Annie and the whole family (5 sons and daughters) Rose Cutler as "lodger" and Harry Fisher as mate. This census record shows there were a number of people living on the two boats and next to them was Chess with Mr Neal in charge.   

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Heartland said:

What is handed down is often important as it provides the means of checking records. Sadly not all records have survived, yet all such information adds to building up the correct image of what happened.

 

Now regarding the family history According to the 1911 Census where Wear and Soar were recorded at Brentford Lock with Harry ans Annie and the whole family (5 sons and daughters) Rose Cutler as "lodger" and Harry Fisher as mate. This census record shows there were a number of people living on the two boats and next to them was Chess with Mr Neal in charge.   

 

 

 

 

 

A bit faded with age but name on mentioned  1911 census  is James Harrison note 5 children have died 4 of these are still resting in St Lawrence Brentford .

Rose Cuttler is a Niece the daughter of James sister 

It can get a bit confusing as 3 other boating  family members are in the  area at the same time  as well  including my GG Grandad still working the boats at the ripe age of 70 & my GG Gran age 58 who are on a boat (Name Unknown) up at Norwood canal Bridge

100_5206.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.