• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team
  • HI folks the server that hosts the site completely died including the Hdd's and backups.
    Luckily i create an offsite backup once a week! this has now been restored so we have lost a few days posts.
    im still fixing things at the moment so bear with me and im still working on all images 90% are fine the others im working on now
    we are now using a backup solution

James Burgoyne photographic collection

thats brilliant edcartermo...i misread the 1892 kelly for no 94 so ive edited my last post..so if william hunt funeral was there in 1869 and ive got him there in 1892 revelopement must have taken place after 1892..no much after though...thanks for your input...

lyn
 
Well I started looking on the 1841, and no numbers but the Cadbury family were living in Bull Street. Edcartermo has proved that they still had a foothold in Bull Street in 1869, but in 1851 most were in Islington Row and in 1861 Wheeleys Lane.

My gut feeling is that the garden might have been Cadbury's in 1841 - but that is probably guided by the fact that they were non-conformists and non-conformists liked classical shapes, etc, as they were deemed less 'showy'. I might be way out here, but I would like to think that it was a Cadbury garden! Now back to earth, dinner to cook!
 
i will go along with that shortie as cadburys started out selling tea and coffee.. so if they were at no 93 bull st in 1869 that must have been their back garden..or at least shared with numbers 92 and 94

lyn
 
Thank goodness I am not on my own in my thinking Lyn. Do you think they would have shared a garden though? I think it's marvellous that we now have some real idea of where exactly they lived.
 
shortie the reason i think the garden was shared is because the info on the pic i posted says...the rear of numbers 92 to 94 therefore the garden spanned those numbers...cadburys was at no 93 so in the middle of the 3 businesses...actually it says richard barrow cadbury tea merchant it does not really confirm that the cadbury family was there in 1869 but i would imagine as you said earlier thats where they started out from and it could be when they moved on richard barrows continued selling cadburys tea...any road up i am quite happy with the findings...

lyn
 
Last edited:
I was about to insert my comment that no 93 was the original John Cadbury shop in bull St , which was passed on to Richard Cadbury barrow when John decided to concentrate on chocolate.
 
Perhaps some numbers did not have a garden Lyn - can you see cultivation being shared? Not to worry, it's Cadbury's garden as far as I am concerned. I wonder what happened to the summer house - hardcore for Corporation Street?
 
mikejee said:
I was about to insert my comment that no 93 was the original John Cadbury shop in bull St , which was passed on to Richard Cadbury barrow when John decided to concentrate on chocolate.
Click to expand...

thanks mike for confirming...this is what i thought had happened...so we know for definate now that the garden was shared by john cadbury...love it when a plan comes together and well done shortie for spotting the possable cadbury connection..

lyn
 
Lyn, just had a look this morning, I think that by the 1891 census No 93 Bull Street will have been a new building in a slightly different position. I knew that Corporation Street was built in the 1880's and so I checked when the Cobden Hotel was built (on the site of Rackhams) and it was completed, you could actually stay in it, by 1883. It's very puzzling, seeing as he Cadbury Shop had the same number, but it does make you think as to how the re-build was all done. I have a drawing/painting of the old Cadbury shops/house which I will scan in later. Just off to Lichfield this morning to buy a dress (important stuff first you see!). I have another photo of The Gullett, too.
 
Shortie
I agree that there was a rebuild. By the 1889 map there is no open space which could be the garden, and it does not look like an obvious addition (rather than a rebuild). A bit later the Barrow shop is altered to no 94. This, though is likely to be expansion into the shop next door (which sometimes results in the whole shop being given the second shop's number). The earlier maps are not clear enough in detail to be certain what the position was
 
Sorry for the delay lyn. That quick look-up was for 1881, but now I've read it properly it means no details for 92/3 and Samuel Hunt, draper, was at 94.

For 1861 it gives a list of staff for the drapers. At 93 it's a tea dealer, and 94 is a "shoe manufacturer" and his wife and staff . (I can't find listing for 1871. I do have problems with their searching methods though!)

It reminded of the film "Half a sixpence" where all the staff lived up in the attics!!

I hope I haven't caused too much confusion.

rosie.
 
TheGullett1875.jpg


Photo of The Gullett, taken in 1875 (I hope this is not the same as the ones you posted Lyn, I think it's differerent). Two years later it was demolished.
 
CadburysshopsinBullStreet_0002.jpg


The Cadbury empire in Bull Street. Interestingly, one of their shops was a linen shop. This is apparently 1824, according to the text in the book.
 
Shortie
The 1824 directory lists ;
Cadbury Richard and Son, linen drapers and silk mercers, 92 Bull St
​

The 1829 directory lists:
Cadbury Benjamin and James, linen drapers, silk mercers , haberdashers 92 Bull St
Cadbury John, Tea dealer. coffee roaster, etc.93 Bull St

mike​

 
All interesting stuff Mike. I have found another picture of Bull Street, possibly reflecting the style of the rebuild, but I can't see any Cadbury on it at all, but it does give an idea of how the Victorians rebuilt it. I will probably post it tomorrow now. How my concept of Bull Street has changed, it's getting more and more interesting!
 
hi shortie...just caught up as ive been out since early morning and not long got in...smashing pics you have posted..both new to me....

lyn
 
rosie said:
Sorry for the delay lyn. That quick look-up was for 1881, but now I've read it properly it means no details for 92/3 and Samuel Hunt, draper, was at 94.

For 1861 it gives a list of staff for the drapers. At 93 it's a tea dealer, and 94 is a "shoe manufacturer" and his wife and staff . (I can't find listing for 1871. I do have problems with their searching methods though!)

It reminded of the film "Half a sixpence" where all the staff lived up in the attics!!

I hope I haven't caused too much confusion.

rosie.
Click to expand...
##

hi rosie..no confusion at all...all this info helps to form a picture of how life used to be back then...thank you for your help..its amazing how one photo can keep a thread going and we learn along the way...

lyn
 
Lyn, you commented about Bull Street being the division between the better part of Birmingham and the rough - where exactly was the better part?

I am curious because of the fact that William Hutton once lived in New Street, and at that time there was a gate from the Bull Ring into New Street to keep the lower orders out, High Street was also rather affluent. I know the Corporation Street site was dire so it seems to me that peripheral to that site it was much better. Is your comment from something you have read that accompanies the old photos?
 
I wondered if it had Lyn. it seems to me that Birmingham was not just divided into two, because Old Square was beautiful and wealthy, but just beyond that was The Gullett, Dalton Street, London Apprentice Street, and they were dire. Again New Street started off well, but off there was The Froggery which was damp and unpleasant and the Jewish community were forced to live there (by whom and why I don't know). Down beyond the Bull Ring again it was not very special, so it seems to me that Bull Street marking the divide is a bit of an odd statement. I have become quite fascinated by this Bull Street saga, and will post the last photo I have later today. I had never given it much thought before, Bull Street was where Rackhams started, where a sewing machine shop was near to a fish shop all open to the street and although to me smelt disgusting was really quite wonderful. John Collier was over the road and it was just a way up to Colmore Row. How all that's changed now, my perception is completely altered.
 
BullStreet_0001.jpg


This is another photo of Bull Street. My first thoughts were that it is of the Temple Row junction, but I am not sure. I think the fact that the road is fairly flat is the reason I thought that. The caption mentions that it could be on a Sunday because of the lack of people, and it describes it as The Bull Street junction. I think Bull Street had more than one and still does. Has anyone got a clue as to where it might be exactly. I was wondering if the boards in the foreground were the boards around the new Lewis's building, as it's about the right date, but I would be interested in knowing what other folk think.
 
NewhallStreet_0003.jpg


Now this is one of my favourites I have to say. Newhall Street in the 1890's - my own family would have lived somewhere down here, but probably not in anything so large and grand. Pity they did not leave it like this. The building with the steps leading up to the front door was the Dental Hospital.
 
Last edited:
Shortie
Post 55. I have it listed from when it was earlier put on the forum (and later lost) that it was Bull St.corporation st junction. this would agree with the two little islands in Corporation st, each with a lamp and two posts, that is shown on th e1889 OS map.
 
Oh thanks Mike - I did wonder whether it was, but the fact that the street is flat rather than sloping made me wonder - I remember that part of Bull Street to have a significant slope - as it does today, so is this looking towards Steelhouse Lane rather than towards High Street? I had not seen it earlier, obviously. I should have lo0oked on my map too, I don't have one as early as 1899, but I do have an early one.
 
I do not know exactly which direction, but, assuming this is right, the line of bollards in the centre is corporation st. It is only shown on the 1:500 OS map below

map_c_1889_junc__bull_st__corporation_st.jpg
 
Mike, I think I was viewing this wrongly - I was thinking that the road with the bollards on was Bull Street, but now I think I can see where this is - I think it is facing Central Hall, taken from Bull Street. Hard to say with certainty but I am sure that the buildings we can see are not the Cobden Hotel. Gets the grey matter moving, anyway!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top