Accy Old Photo's - John Kelly's Album

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Heck Walt, you don't need a degree in town planning to see that the old 1909 map and the 2 photos match perfectly. In the second photo that shows both the Slaters and the Peel/Broadway pub, you can see they were more or less opposite one another.

I've never disputed that it was on the opposite corner to the Peel.
My argument is the number of the property, 21& 23 Whalley Rd,
both in the licencing renewals, and the 1871 census show the same man in the same prroperty 21 & 23 Whalley Rd.
1860, 1909 or 1920, the property had the same number.
Retlaw.[/QUOTE]

At the risk of repeating myself, the 1860's licensing report and the 1871 census return have no relevance to the building in the photograph.

I had a look in the ref library today (Blackburn) and every trade directory they have between 1900 and 1938 have the Slaters Arms as number 13 Whalley Road. Now bear in mind Walter, that if number 13 was wrong, it would throw out every number on Whalley Road (on that side of the street anyway). Now I could understand an error being made one year, perhaps even being overlooked when the next edition was published, but over a 38 year period, you would think someone along Whalley Road would have contacted Barratt's (Preston) and complained because their home, shop, business or pub was listed with the wrong address. I'm pretty sure, in fact quite certain that a reputable compiler of directories (they produced them from the 1870's - 1966) like Barratt's would have amended their mistake and apologised to all affected.

The census returns are usually completed / filled out by hired hands, for one day, once every 10 years. Often they would be scribbling details in semi darkness, bored to tears with going through the same set of questions at each door and probably wondering what they'd be having for their supper when they got home. Mistakes could easily be made and with very little scope for the scribbler to amend his / her errors. They probably walked away from doors thinking ''I'm definitely not volunteering for this next time around, was that number 13 or was I at number 23, oh beggar it, no-one will check''

If you came to me in 20 years time with the 1931 census return with who was at the Slaters then, I would still have my doubts at the illegible scrawl in front of me. I'm sure they have their use, the returns, but like everything (including Barratt's directories) they shouldn't be read as Gospel.

As we're putting everyone to sleep, I'm making this my last on this topic (thank goodness for that, I hear people saying), but I would say to anyone else either involved earlier in this thread or perhaps joining it in the future, don't accept my word, don't accept Walter's word (not even if he attempts to humiliate you, as a novice), I would advise you look at the evidence and arrive at your own conclusion.

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[Andrew Jackson]

Fascinating thread, and some interesting opinions.

The 1917-1919 army service record of Edward Marshall Crook shows his address as Hope & Anchor, 21-23 Whalley Road. If that's any help.

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Andrew Jackson

Fascinating thread, and some interesting opinions.

The 1917-1919 army service record of Edward Marshall Crook shows his address as Hope & Anchor, 21-23 Whalley Road. If that's any help.

Thank you for your input Andrew. All the Barratt's directories I looked at today had the same address for the Hope & Anchor. I looked through about 10 editions, from 1900 - 1938.

I have just one directory from that period, the 1925 one. I'll try and attach a portion of the Whalley Rd listing. You may need to download my photo and enlarge it a little to read it.

Some of the names at various addresses changed from edition to edition, as you would expect, people moving house, businesses changing hands, properties being used for other purposes, but the house numbering didn't change and the Slaters Arms was listed in all of the ones I flipped through, as being at No 13 (the landlord changed over the years, but that's all).

Colin

[katex]

My humble theory is that there are a few mistakes here and other people have just followed these mistakes. I think when there was that gap in the block from Peel Street to Marquis Street, the enumerator just counted all the buildings. Probably didn't have the door number on display.

Why should they change the numbers and then back again (Hope and Anchor is now listed as 27-31)? It would be obvious only a temporary gap.

Looked at the 1911 census and does show a beer seller there at no. 13 and a licensed vitualler at No. 19 (Hope and Anchor)which would be correct to line up with No.13. However, there are two entries for No. 13 ??... the second one being a Medical Practiioner.

Another emission on this census is not showing a 21 and 23 ... why's that I wonder ?

Mind you, it is also showing No. 31 as Dykenook !!

[Retlaw]

Attached is the full page of the 1871 census.
Which also shows the addess of the hope & Anchor.
As for the Harrogate Tripe Dresser chipping in, he would be better occupied sorting out the mess he's made of William Turners work.
As well as the mess he made of the Greater Accrington Roll of Honour,
there are men in those Rolls who never existed & a lot you can't find.

Retlaw

[cashman]

thats me knackered it says 1971 william wilkinson census.

[katex]

Originally Posted by cashman

thats me knackered it says 1971 william wilkinson census.

Hahaha ..yeh, think Retlaw did a typo there too.

[Retlaw]

Originally Posted by katex

Hahaha ..yeh, think Retlaw did a typo there too.

Grandson keeps moving keys around the board, cries like L when I stop him, thats the 2nd time this week.

Retlaw

[katex]

Can just picture it, tee hee:

computer baby.jpg

[katex]

I suppose if they did change them 'back' at one time, there must have been some sort of newspaper announcement about it, as would be a big thing to do ... all the way up Whalley Road, and in the public interest to be informed. Not an easy job.. if it is there at all ... Or records buried deep in the Town Hall somewhere.

In the 1928 map, it is showing a large building where the demolished properties were. So could have been between 1925-28 ?

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by katex

My humble theory is that there are a few mistakes here and other people have just followed these mistakes. I think when there was that gap in the block from Peel Street to Marquis Street, the enumerator just counted all the buildings. Probably didn't have the door number on display.

Why should they change the numbers and then back again (Hope and Anchor is now listed as 27-31)? It would be obvious only a temporary gap.

Looked at the 1911 census and does show a beer seller there at no. 13 and a licensed vitualler at No. 19 (Hope and Anchor)which would be correct to line up with No.13. However, there are two entries for No. 13 ??... the second one being a Medical Practiioner.

Another emission on this census is not showing a 21 and 23 ... why's that I wonder ?

Mind you, it is also showing No. 31 as Dykenook !!

Katex, as Retlaw pointed out earlier, vacant plots of land (or yard as I called it, which it appears to be) were only included on the census return if they intended to build on the plot. The key word there is intended, ie, if plans were afoot to build on the plot. If it was a yard belonging to number 11 say, which it looks to be on the OS map, it wouldn't be given a number, as it was part of that property.

As I said Retlaw was clutching at straws. I'm sure on some streets and roads (in any town or city) you could have gaps between properties ranging from a few feet to a thousand yards. The enumerators wouldn't give every vacant plot a number just because they were there and there was future potential for development would they?

Again, even though I said I was finished with this thread, I must stress that the early census returns have no relevance, or at best very little relevance to a late 1920's photograph.

As for two entries at number 13, a beer seller and a medical practitioner, that wouldn't be unusual in a property that size. In theory you could have multiple people living in a single premises. If the beer seller was only making use of a few rooms on the ground floor for his business and living accommodation, he would have had a similar amount of rooms on the first storey that he supplemented his income with each week, by renting out (or vice versa, maybe the doctor rented rooms to the beer seller).

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Attached is the full page of the 1871 census.
Which also shows the addess of the hope & Anchor.
As for the Harrogate Tripe Dresser chipping in, he would be better occupied sorting out the mess he's made of William Turners work.
As well as the mess he made of the Greater Accrington Roll of Honour,
there are men in those Rolls who never existed & a lot you can't find.

Retlaw

I take it the Tripe Dresser remark was referring to Andrew. Having no knowledge of either of you, I wouldn't know if that was an insult or a term of endearment. At a guess, I would say the former and would assume he is someone else who has in the past dared to offer his opinion.

[Andrew Jackson]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

Attached is the full page of the 1871 census.
Which also shows the addess of the hope & Anchor.
As for the Harrogate Tripe Dresser chipping in, he would be better occupied sorting out the mess he's made of William Turners work.
As well as the mess he made of the Greater Accrington Roll of Honour,
there are men in those Rolls who never existed & a lot you can't find.

Retlaw

Such puerile remarks go well beyond "a little brusque" or "a bit abrasive".

Let me be absolutely clear. The Accrington Pals website is built on my own research into primary sources extending back over more than 30 years. It has been supported by generous help both from countless relatives of Pals, and from military historians, particularly those in Burnley and Chorley, who believe as I do that discoveries are meant to be shared.

These are the facts, and I am not going to enter into a debate about them.

Walter, you would be well advised to desist from making any further slanderous comments.

[Retlaw]

As I said Retlaw was clutching at straws. I'm sure on some streets and roads (in any town or city) you could have gaps between properties ranging from a few feet to a thousand yards. The enumerators wouldn't give every vacant plot a number just because they were there and there was future potential for development would they?
Clutching at straws thats a laugh, its thee thats clutching at straws.
The Hope and Anchor is numbered 27 & 29 to this day just as it was then, your numbering in the 1909 map is wrong.
The first from the top of Peel St then was number 3, and the numbers carried on from there, nu 5 is now a shoe shop, what later became known as Catlows was nu 19, then on the corner with Marques St was nu 21 Slaters Arms.

[blackburnlad]

Originally Posted by Retlaw

As I said Retlaw was clutching at straws. I'm sure on some streets and roads (in any town or city) you could have gaps between properties ranging from a few feet to a thousand yards. The enumerators wouldn't give every vacant plot a number just because they were there and there was future potential for development would they?
Clutching at straws thats a laugh, its thee thats clutching at straws.
The Hope and Anchor is numbered 27 & 29 to this day just as it was then, your numbering in the 1909 map is wrong.
The first from the top of Peel St then was number 3, and the numbers carried on from there, nu 5 is now a shoe shop, what later became known as Catlows was nu 19, then on the corner with Marques St was nu 21 Slaters Arms.

You're clutching at straws again Walt. You either keep harping back 60 years prior to the photo in question, or (as now) you've leapt forward 80 years on from it. There was bound to be changes after they demolished half the town centre and created Broadway (or whatever it's called). They were bound to re-number at some point.

There is no shame in admitting you're wrong you know. If you prove my findings wrong, I can promise you I'll be the first to come on here, holding my hands up and admit I'm wrong. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

Your problem is, you have been regarded by many as some kind of local guru, because you had/have a wealth of info, statistics, resources and knowledge of your home town (and probably more besides) and because of that, you have let it go to your head and somehow felt because of your superiority on such matters that you can belittle others input with a smart quip, a put down and a few old documents, but then once in a while, along comes someone who can hold their own and you don't like it. Like one person said (katex I think), you should encourage their interest, not ridicule their ignorance.

It's been fun talking to you though and you sure know your stuff, but you're not infallible, as has been proven.

I honestly believe the likes of Margaret and Jaysay when they say you're a lovely man and I'll always have time for anyone that takes an interest in, has pride in and has a passion for the town where they live, but you really could try and reign in your put downs of others. It really isn't a nice trait.