Coquet and Coast Forum
Don't forget to check out our sister site: Amble and District

Go Back   Coquet and Coast Forum > Local History, Genealogy, People and Places > The Lost Villages, Radcliffe and Chevington Drift.

 We no longer use activation emails. Please allow 24h after sign up and your account should work
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-12-2014, 08:55 PM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default Radcliffe timeline

The Rise and Fall of Radcliffe.

Well, I got the blank page up for the time-line.

so who is first to contribute?? just post your piece in here and I'll copy it over

Time I plough on with the WW1 deaths.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-12-2014, 09:05 PM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

The newspaper archives are full of stuff if anyone has access, buildings going up, railway, water supply, coal seams coming on stream, drifts being sunk, death of village notables, Janwhin's Radcliffe mining deaths, ww2 bombing, wartime deaths of locals on active service, etc etc.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-12-2014, 09:07 PM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

The beginning is a bit unfathomable at the moment but we don't have to dwell on that at this stage.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-12-2014, 09:09 PM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

I can't even find the date it was hit by a land mine. Not a good start. It is on here somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-12-2014, 09:21 PM
hollydog's Avatar
hollydog hollydog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Amble
Posts: 516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coquet View Post
I can't even find the date it was hit by a land mine. Not a good start. It is on here somewhere.
Sunday, 15 February 1942, at 8:22 pm I believe
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-12-2014, 12:37 AM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

Done. Should have some CWGC details for the 1942 event as they list civilian deaths as well.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-12-2014, 02:05 PM
janwhin janwhin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nr Eglingham
Posts: 1,342
Default

I don't know, I go off to the depths of London for a couple of days and we're off into the life and times of Radcliffe

Nice start, Coquet. I'll see if I can find any of the Cornish blacklegs left behind.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-12-2014, 08:10 PM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janwhin View Post
I don't know, I go off to the depths of London for a couple of days and we're off into the life and times of Radcliffe

Nice start, Coquet. I'll see if I can find any of the Cornish blacklegs left behind.
Yeah, felt like I needed a break from the death and destruction of the 1915 page. Get's you down after a while. [Although I did some work on it this morning; can work on it for hours on end now and you can't see where I've been]

Did you dig any deeper with Robert Arthur Fitzhardinge Kingscote? Was he a Colonel in the 17th Lancers? born 1811? Still find it astonishing someone could plonk a colliery down on your land without your full approval.


I've put some of the Dand v. Kingscote in the next post. The second bolded bit is worth reading for a description of the start of the project.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-12-2014, 08:11 PM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

Dand v. Kingscote
By a deed, dated in 1630, the grantor conveyed in fee farm, land in the manor of Amble., In the county of Northumberland, “excepting and reserved out of the grant all mines of coals within the fields and territories of Amble aforesaid, together with sufficient wayleave and stayleave to and from the said mines, with the liberty of sinking and digging pit and pits:” with our covenant by the guarantees that they, their heirs and assigns, “should give such accustomed recompense for the digging and breaking the ground within Amble aforesaid, in which any pits should thereafter happen to be sunk and brought, as formerly had been usually given and allowed there in like cases.”
By another deed of the same date, the same parties conveyed in fee farm, to other persons, land in the manor of Hauxley. (Adjoining Amble.) With a like exception, reservation, and covenant.
Quaere, whether under this reservation of a “sufficient wayleave,” the coal owner had now a right to make a railway, for the purpose of carrying the coal from the mine for shipment, with cuttings and embankments, and fenced in so as to exclude the owner of the soil.
Held, however that the right was not confined in such a way as were in use at the time of the grant.
Held, also, that under the reservation of liberty of sinking pits, the right of erecting steam engine, and other machinery necessary for draining them, with all proper accessories past as incident thereto.
Held, also, that under the reservation in the former deed, the coal owner could not carry over Amble coals got in Hauxley, also from part of the same mineral field.
To an action of trespass for breaking the plaintiff’s close, and laying a railroad thereon, that defendant justified under the reservation in the above deeds. The plaintiff new assigned to the plea, that the trespasses were committed on other and different occasions, and to a greater extent than was necessary, and for other and different purposes, and on other parts of the close; to which there was judgement by default: — Held, that, on these pleadings, the plaintiff could not dispute that some species of railroad was with in the reservation, but that the question was, whether the railroad was constructed in a direction on a manner unauthorised by the reservation.

This was an action of trespass. The declaration contained two counts. The first count charged the defendant with breaking and entering a close called Cuddy’s Close, in the township of Amble, in the county of Northumberland, and four other closes, called Kirton’s Moor, Front-field, Clark’s North Moor, and Creswell’s Moor, in the township of Hauxley, in that county and with making and continuing excavations and embankments, and laying a railroad thereon, and with committing other the trespasses, on foot and with horses, carts, and carriages, therein enumerated. The second count charged the defendant with breaking and entering at close called Clark’s South Moor, in the township of Hauxley, in that county, and with committing similar trespasses as are enumerated in the first count, and also was making in the last mentioned close pits and ponds, and with erecting houses, cottages, and engines, & c.
The defendant pleaded, to the trespasses in the first count, with cattle other than with horses, mares, and geldings; and as to the second count, except as to one pit, one shaft, one engine house, and one edifice, not guilty; to which the plaintiff entered a nolle prosequi.
Thirdly (a), the defendant pleaded to the trespasses in Cuddy’s Close in Amble, that Sir W. Hewytt and Thomas Hewytt, being seised of Cuddy’s Close, and other lands in Amble, and of all of the veins and seams of coal under all the land in the township of Amble, on 23 November 1630, by bargain and sale enrolled, granted to Henry Lawson and Henry Horsley, Cuddy’s Close and other lands in Amble, in fee, excepting and always reserved thereout all mines of coal within the said close, and also other the fields and territories of Amble aforesaid, to get with sufficient wayleave and stayleave to and from the said mines, together with the liberty of sinking and digging of pit and pits, for the winning of coal in Amble aforesaid.
(a) the second plea, which set up a custom of a manor of Amble, became immaterial.

The defendant then deduced a title to the coals, with the reserved liberty, from Sir William Hewytt and Thomas Hewytt to the Dowager Countess of Newburgh, and then, as her servant, justified the trespasses in Cuddy’s Close, for the purpose of carrying away coals got in Amble. The plaintiff, by his replication, after admitting seisin, deeds of bargain and sale, and title as deduced, replied de injuria absque residuo causae, upon which issue was joined.
Fourthly, the defendant pleaded to all the trespasses in all of the closes in Hauxley, that is to say all of the closest in the declaration except Cuddy’s Close, that Sir William Hewytt and Thomas Hewytt, being seised in fee of those closes, and other closes and lands in Hauxley, and all of the coals under all of the lands in township of Hauxley, by indenture of bargain and sale enrolled, dated 23rd of November, 1630, conveyed to Richard Brown and Thomas Pelfrey in fee, those closes and other lands in Hauxley, excepting always and reserved their out all mines of coal within the same closes, and all other the lands and territories of Hauxley aforesaid, with sufficient wayleave and stayleave to and from the said mines; together with the liberty of sinking and digging pit and pits for the winning of coal in Hauxley aforesaid. The defendant then deduced the same title from Sir William Hewytt and Thomas Hewytt to the Countess of Newburgh, and justified sinking a pit and getting coals in Clark’s South Moor, and making railroads, &c., for the conveyance of these coals got in Hauxley. The plaintiff did not traverse this plea, but new assigned, as to the trespasses in the second, third, and fourth pleas, that the defendant committed these trespasses on other and different occasions, and for other and different purposes than those mentioned, and to a greater extent than was necessary, and in other parts of the closes. The defendant pleaded to the new assignment, that the closes in the declaration were in and parcel of the manor of Amble, and that the Earl of Newburgh was seized in fee of the manor, and veins and seams of coal, with the liberty for himself and his heirs, seized of the manor, and the veins and seams of coal, of getting coals, and making pits in the land of other persons, and making convenient and sufficient roads for carrying them away. The plea then stated a devise thereof to the Countess of Newburgh for life, and the defendant then justified, as her servant, in getting coals and in carrying them away, under that liberty. The plaintiff, by his replication to this plea, traversed the seisin of the manor, and coals, and liberty, as alleged, whereupon issue was joined; and also new assigned that the trespasses were committed on other and different occasions, and to a greater extent than was necessary, and for other and different purposes, and on other parts of the close; to which last new assignment the defendant allowed judgement to pass by default. A copy of the pleadings are companies this case, and to which each party is at liberty to refer on the argument, and also to the several deeds and other documents of title set forth in the pleadings. The cause came on for trial at the Northumberland Summer Assizes, 1838, before Mr Baron Alderson, when the second plea to the declaration, and a plea to the first new assignment were abandoned by the defendant and a verdict was taken by consent for the plaintiff, the damages to be assessed by an arbitrator according to the judgement of the Court, subject to the opinion of the Court on the following case: —
The plaintiff, before and at the time of the trespasses, was and is seised in fee, among other lands of the closes mentioned in the declaration. The closes called Kirtons’ Moor, Frontfield, Clark’s North Moor, Creswell’s Moor, and Clark’s South Moor, are in the township of Hauxley, and other close called Cuddy’s Close, is in the township of Amble, in the county of Northumberland. Whilst the plaintiff was in the occupation of the aforesaid closes, about the month of January 1837, the defendant sunk a pit in the close call Clark’s South Moor, to get coals out and erected upon the same close a building of stone containing a steam engine of 50 horse power, for the purpose of drawing off the water, and raising the coal to the surface. The defendant also made a large pond, 5 feet in depth and 158 feet in circumference, for supplying the engine with water, and erected sheds and other works upon the same close. The shaft, engine, pond, and sheds, occupying altogether about two acres and a half of land of Clark’s South Moor. In the summer of 1839, the defendant caused a railway to be made from the pit in Clark’s South Moor, for the transit of coal from that pit, which railway passed over that close, then across a public highway, then across Clark’s North Moor, Kirton’s Moor, then across Frontfield, all in township of Hauxley; then across Cuddy’s Close, in the township of Amble, and then for about half a mile over the lands of other persons in the same township, to a piece of land belonging to the Countess of Newburgh, adjoining the Coquet and likewise in the township of Amble. The defendant has constructed a staith for the purpose of loading the coals brought along a railway from the pit, on-board of vessels in the river Coquet, which is there a navigable river, at a distance of about 500 yards from the mouth, where it empties itself into the German Ocean. The pit in Hauxley is a quarter of a mile from the nearest boundary of Amble. The coal seams lying in the latter township can be conveniently won by outstroke from the Hauxley pit, and be raised to the surface by means of the shaft in Hauxley, the shaft being sunk so as to win from it coals from both townships, there is an extensive field of coal within these townships, which the seams dip to the east and reach to the sea and the river Coquet. The railway was completed about the month of October, 1837; it is made from iron, fastened upon stone pillars or sleepers, which are sunk into the soil; it is of the breath of 8 feet, and severed from the remainder of the close by wooden rails on both sides of it. These wooden rails are necessary for the protection of the railway, and to prevent cattle from straying upon it. The entire space of ground between the wooden rails averages in breadth 35 feet. In making the railway, the defendant has cut the soil, and made embankments and dug ditches on each side of the railway, and broken down hedges separating the several closes from each other; and the defendant, by the wooden rails to fence the railway, and by the cuttings and embankments, has severed one part of each field from the other. The defendant also made embankments and cuttings in Clark’s South Moor, and in Creswell’s Moor, for another railway to the south-west of the pit opened in Clark’s South Moor, which railway was afterwards abandoned.
The engine erected by the defendant is necessary for winning and working the lower seams, which are the principal seams in his coalfield; and in erecting the steam engine, and in other works of the colliery he has expended about 30,000, for which expenditure there can be no adequate return, unless by the profits from an export trade. There is a highway leading from Hauxley to Amble, which is crossed by the railway between Clark’s South Moor and Clark’s North Moor, and after the railway passes out of the plaintiff’s closes, but before it reaches the staith, it crosses another highway: but at the expense of conveying coals to the place of shipment along either of these highways would be such as to preclude the defendant from exporting without loss. The place of shipment on the river Coquet is well chosen, and the railway connecting it with the pit has been judiciously designed and constructed; no unnecessary ground has been taken, nor injury been done, either in making the railway or erecting the engine, and forming the pond and other works connected with the colliery, and the defendant has been always ready to make compensation to the plaintiff for the damages occasioned by the acts complained of. Railways, such as the defendant has laid down, are now in universal use throughout the counties of Northumberland and Durham, in the case of collieries. Since the completion of the railway, and before this action was commenced, coals have been carried along it to a great extent, from the pit in Clark’s south Moor to the place of shipment in Amble. These coals have been exclusively the produce of the seams in Hauxley, but have passed by the railway, as well over the plaintiff’s close in Amble, called Cuddy’s Close, as over his Hauxley closes, and a large quantity of stone and wood for the purpose of the colliery have also been carried along it across the same closes.

The deeds of which the following abstract as set forth are to form part of the case. (The case then set forth an abstract of the following deeds:
8th of March, 1629. — Indenture between Edward Ditchfield and others of the one part, and William Hewytt and Thomas Hewytt, Esq. (his son and heir apparent), of the other part, being a conveyance, by appointment of the Corporation of London, of the town of Amble, with its appurtenances, in the county of Northumberland, together with (inter alia) all those mines of coal there, with the appurtenances; and also the town of Hauxley with its appurtenances, &c., &c.; habendum to Sir W Hewytt and Thomas Hewytt, and the heirs and assigns of Sir William Hewytt forever, to be held of the Crown, as of the manor of Earl Greenwich, by fealty in the fee and common socage.
23rd of November, 1630. — Bargain and sale enrolled, between so William Hewytt and Thomas Hewytt, of the one part and Henry Lawson and Henry Horsley of the other part (the indenture referred to in the third plea) being a conveyance to Lawson and Horsley, of lands and tenements in Amble, parcel of the premises comprising the foregoing deed; “accepting always and reserved out of this present grant, all mines of coals within the fields and territories of Amble as aforesaid, together with sufficient wayleave and stayleave to and from the said mines, with liberty of sinking and digging pit and pits;” — habendum to Lawson and Horsley, their heirs and assigns, in fee farm, to hold of the Crown and before mentioned, at certain rents therein stated. This deed also contained a covenant for so William Hewytt, that he, his heirs and assigns, should give and yield to Lawson and Horsley, there is and assigns, such accustomed recompense for digging and breaking the ground within the fields and territories of Amble aforesaid, in which any pit or pits for getting of cool should thereafter happen to be sunk and wrought, as formerly had been usually given and allowed there in like cases

Same date. — Bargain and sale enrolled, between Sir W. Hewytt and Thomas Hewytt of the one part, and Richard Brown and Thomas Palfrey of the other part, (the indenture referred to in the fourth plea), being a conveyance to Brown and Pelfrey of lands and tenements in Hauxley, parcel of the premises comprising the deed of 8 March, 1629, in the same terms and containing the same reservation and covenant, as a conveyance to Lawson and Horsley.
1st April, 1785.— lease from Lord Montague and Sir Herbert Mackworth, Lords of the Manor of Amble, to John Widdrington, (through whom the plaintiff claims the closes and the declaration mentioned), Edward Cook, and William Smith, all of the coal mines and seams of coal belonging to the lessors, lying within and under the lands belonging to the leasees and other persons named, within the township of Amble in Hauxley, in the parish of Warkworth and manor of Amble, for nine years from 1 May, 1785, at an annual rent of 21 5s., On condition that they should not try for, dig, sink, win, or work the said mines or seams of coal, or in any manner impair or diminish the same there was also a covenant by the leasees to the same effect.
Rent reserved by the said last mentioned lease was regularly paid.
The defendant did all the acts above alleged to be done by him, claiming to do them under and by virtue of an agreement between Lady Newburgh and the defendant, and Mr Thomas Brown, by which the lady Newburgh agreed to grant to the defendant and Brown a lease for a term of years of the coal mines and seams of coal in Amble and Hauxley, with the right addict pits, and wayleave and stayleave, and all rights incident and appurtenant there to.
The term stayleave, according to the custom and understanding of miners and other persons conversant with coal mines, means a right in the coal owner of having a station, where he may deposit his coals for the purpose of dispensing them to the purchaser. This place of deposit and vend is either at the pit both, all, when detached, it is, in the case of land sale collieries, at some station by the highway, and, in the case of sea sale collieries, at a staith, trunk, or spout in some navigable water. Wayleave is a privilege of crossing land for the supply of coals to the purchaser. This privilege is generally the subject of detailed contracts, specifically the particular direction and extent of the wayleave, and there is no usage or understanding amongst persons conversant with coal mines, by which to interpret the extent of the privilege, when conferred on the general terms using the deeds above set forth. The narrowest enjoyment of wayleave is when the sale is at the pit’s mouth, and the purchases cross to the pit with their carts from the highway. When the sale is at a detached station, the grantee of wayleave generally sends coal to the station by means of a railway; in the course of sea sale collieries this is universally the mode of transit, and the railway is laid down in the most direct and commodious course from the pit to the place of shipment, for which the coal owner can obtain leave from the landowners, without regard to the intervention of highways.
Coals have formally been wrought for land sale in Amble and Hauxley, and for the supply of salt pans established there, and there are old shafts within those townships; but there was never any railway connected with these workings, neither had any steam engine been erected in these townships for colliery purposes, before that of the defendant. Railways were not in use and 1630; but unless there was a steam engine to drain the pit and raise a call, and a railway and staith to ship the coals by the lower seams, the defendant’s coalfield could not be work without loss, as has been before stated.
The plaintiff contends, that, on the above facts, he is entitled to a verdict upon the several issues raised in the cause. If the Court should be offered that opinion, the verdict is to be entered accordingly otherwise it be entered as the Court may direct. The defendant, under the above circumstances, contends, but he is justified by the exception or reservation in the before mentioned indentures, or some of them, in making the railway over the several closes, and in doing the other acts in working the coals in Clark’s South Moor. The plaintiff contends, that the reservations or exceptions in these deeds give sufficient wayleave to the nearest highway, in the direction the coals are to be taken from the pit, for the conveyance of the coals and no further; and that the defendant has no right to make this railway or any road over the highway above-mentioned, through the lands of the plaintiff and the other persons; and that the defendant has no right under the deeds, to carry the coals raised in Hauxley over Cuddy’s Close in Amble, or to make our railroad over that close for such a purpose. Moreover, the plaintiff contends that a defendant has no right to make embankments, or cuts, or sever the field as stated, or to lay a permanent railway as done by the defendant; and that the defendant had no right to erect a steam engine and engine house, or make a pond or the other erections in question.
The question for the opinion of the Court is, one as a defendant, to any what extent, has in the circumstances above-mentioned, exceeded his power and liberty: and the damages, if any, are to be assessed by the arbitrator according to the opinion of the Court, and a verdict and judgement are to be entered upon in pursuance thereof.
The case was argued in this term by
W.H.Watson for the plaintiff. — The main question in this case is, whether, under an ordinary reservation of “wayleave and stayleave” for the carriage of coal from a mine, a right to cut and lay down a railway is included; that being a species of way which was not in use at the period of the reservation. The recent case of Doe d. Wawn v. Horn (a) is an authority to show that the making of a railway across land is an absolute ouster of the occupier of the land. So, where under a lease of wayleave the purpose of carrying coals, with the liberty of laying wagon ways over certain lands, the leasee made wagon ways and inclosed them, so as to exclude all other persons, it was held, that he was rateable to the poor for the ground so enclosed, as having the exclusive occupation of it. Rex v. Bell. Here there is absolute ouster of the plaintiff from his rights over the surface, instead of the mere use of an easement, consistently with his enjoyment of the surface. In Vin. Abr., Chimin Private, (D.) 2, it is said — “


continues for about 25 pages, [and I've learnt what an 'em dash' and an 'en dash' is]
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-12-2014, 08:25 PM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

Did you know the Radcliffe folk drank condensed steam out of the Colliery engine?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-12-2014, 11:02 PM
janwhin janwhin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nr Eglingham
Posts: 1,342
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coquet View Post
Did you dig any deeper with Robert Arthur Fitzhardinge Kingscote? Was he a Colonel in the 17th Lancers? born 1811? Still find it astonishing someone could plonk a colliery down on your land without your full approval.
.
By 1840 he had been in the 17th Regiment of Light Dragoons (Lancers) for 8 years (Hart's Army List). He was a cornet from 1832, a lieutenant from 1836 and a captain from 1 November 1839.

He died in Harrogate but in 1871 he was living in Eastbourne, occupation, "treasurer of county courts" and in 1881 was visiting a family in Scotland where he was still giving the same occupation. In 1851 he was treasurer of the South Wales county courts.
Apparently his great uncle was Lord Raglan of Crimea fame. So basically, a privileged member of the aristocracy who could dig holes anywhere he liked
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-12-2014, 11:06 PM
janwhin janwhin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nr Eglingham
Posts: 1,342
Default

Robert Arthur Fitzhardinge Kingscote, died 15 February 1888 at 2 Westminster Terrace, Harrogate. Estate valued at 14,495 12s 11d. Sole executor was his son, Robert Frederick Kingscote of Lowestoft, Suffolk, gentleman.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-12-2014, 10:29 AM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

That's the one. Part of the Gloucestershire aristocracy and an army family through and through. Quite a young age to be involved with the high finance of Radcliffe and the harbour, but that seemed to be the way in those days.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-12-2014, 10:35 AM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

When you wrote your Amble Boom Town piece did you have a full list of shareholders for Radcliffe Colliery? Kingscote, Browne, and...
Might be worth putting that in at the start.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-12-2014, 01:22 PM
janwhin janwhin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nr Eglingham
Posts: 1,342
Default

I didn't find all the partners of the company but the following is basically how it was structured:
Browne and Kingscote were the original 2 lessees from the Countess of Newburgh which was for 42 years.
On 18 March 1839 they entered into a contract with 10 others who were to put into the business 4000 each, subject to Browne and Kingscote fulfilling certain conditions regarding output.
The names I have are Sir Henry Webb, Lord Newburgh, Dr Elliotson, Mr Lamie Murray, F Mills and a chap called Smith.
Kingscote was replaced by Ladbroke in 1842 and, of course, Browne was declared bankrupt in 1847.
There seems to have been legal disputes arising from whether the conditions imposed on Browne and Kingscote were met.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-12-2014, 10:25 PM
janwhin janwhin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nr Eglingham
Posts: 1,342
Default Radcliffe Chapel and Sunday School

One for the timeline: Sunday 5 March 1843, a chapel and Sunday school opened at Radcliffe Colliery. The chapel was built by the owners of the Colliery. The building to be used during the week as a day and evening school.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-12-2014, 10:39 PM
janwhin janwhin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nr Eglingham
Posts: 1,342
Default Building at Radcliffe

October 1837, to let, the mason and carpenter work and slating of the Colliery Shops and a number of cottage houses at Radcliffe Colliery.

August 1839, tenders invited from builders and masons to contract for the building of thirty cottages at Radcliffe Colliery.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-12-2014, 10:54 PM
janwhin janwhin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nr Eglingham
Posts: 1,342
Default Schools at Radcliffe

New council schools, replacing the church schools formally opened on Wednesday 17 January 1906. The ceremony was performed by Mr Montague Maclean of Morwick Hall. The accommodation was for 200 infants and designed for further extension. The work was carried out by Messrs R and G Brown of Amble and the plans prepared by the County Surveyor, Mr Beane. Mr Gibson had acted as clerk of works. The cost of the building, playgrounds etc but exclusive of the purchase of land, amounted to 2000.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-12-2014, 10:59 PM
janwhin janwhin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Nr Eglingham
Posts: 1,342
Default Electric Lighting

February 1909: Electricity installed for the lighting of the streets. The Broomhill Collieries provided the current from their generating station at Newburgh Colliery, while the apparatus was installed by A E Green of Amble. The cables ran from the Colliery and were tapped at the east end of the village. A suitable building was erected and poles placed at various points along the streets.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-12-2014, 10:34 AM
Coquet's Avatar
Coquet Coquet is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Amble
Posts: 3,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by janwhin View Post
By 1840 he had been in the 17th Regiment of Light Dragoons (Lancers) for 8 years (Hart's Army List). He was a cornet from 1832, a lieutenant from 1836 and a captain from 1 November 1839.

He died in Harrogate but in 1871 he was living in Eastbourne, occupation, "treasurer of county courts" and in 1881 was visiting a family in Scotland where he was still giving the same occupation. In 1851 he was treasurer of the South Wales county courts.
Apparently his great uncle was Lord Raglan of Crimea fame. So basically, a privileged member of the aristocracy who could dig holes anywhere he liked
You got me thinking about the Crimea. Kingscote's regiment the 17th Lancers were in the infamous charge of the Light Brigade. Guess he must have got the postcard from Raglan 'keep away from this place Bobby' although he's getting a bit on the old side too for that campaign. I've got a book of biographical notes of the 'chargers', and those officers with known birth years generally fall in the 1820-30 decade. Young guys generally. Young and crazy, although they did reach the Russian guns.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:01 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.