Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by David Cranstone

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 precipitated a crisis in the increasingly old- fashioned Crowley works; the coming-of-age of Crowley Millington in 1816 may also have facilitated overdue changes. In 1816 the works at Winlaton village was largely closed, and soup kitchens were opened in Winlaton and Swalwell to feed laid-off workers.°* High Forge and Bishop’s Mill may well have been given up at this time, and within the main works the foundry was probably closed and many workshops became derelict. The iron- working community became radicalised, and were believed to have made arms at the works for use during the protests against the Peterloo Massacre in 1819; if this was true, either the tight Crowley works discipline had broken down, or the local management were quietly sympathetic.» This active and sometimes violent radical tradition continued until at least the Chartist movement of 1839-42. In 16802 the plan attached to a new lease?’ (Figure 3) was clearly updated from the 1750 plan; it attempted to distinguish between pre-1750 buildings and post-1750 additions, but unfortunately the latter were identified from a very literal reading of the 1750 map without regard to its schedule or rather dia- grammatic nature. In fact, the only building within the Holme Close area which can be confidently accepted as new is the ‘large anchor shop’ (‘k’ on plan) immediately north of the Grand Warehouse (certainly new since c. 1714, probably since 1750). A water channel along the west side of the Forge is so shown for the first time; this can be ccepted as new since c. 1714, but was prob- ably merely omitted in 1750, and was proba- bly the race for the finery waterwheel(s). However, the Stankleys Garden area had been substantially remodelled, with a new range of workshops along its south-west side beside the northern channel, and a cooperage and timber store in the north-west end replacing the former charcoal store); the 1750 cooperage further east was now a carpenters’ shop, adjoined by new cartwright’s and spade ree-maker’s workshops. Goods from, and iron for, Winlaton Mill were now carried by waggonway to a warehouse on the other side of the Derwent at Derwenthaugh; a sailed keel is shown here, whereas several (beauti- fully drawn) keels shown further upstream are depicted as oared but not sailed.

Figure 3 The end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 precipitated a crisis in the increasingly old- fashioned Crowley works; the coming-of-age of Crowley Millington in 1816 may also have facilitated overdue changes. In 1816 the works at Winlaton village was largely closed, and soup kitchens were opened in Winlaton and Swalwell to feed laid-off workers.°* High Forge and Bishop’s Mill may well have been given up at this time, and within the main works the foundry was probably closed and many workshops became derelict. The iron- working community became radicalised, and were believed to have made arms at the works for use during the protests against the Peterloo Massacre in 1819; if this was true, either the tight Crowley works discipline had broken down, or the local management were quietly sympathetic.» This active and sometimes violent radical tradition continued until at least the Chartist movement of 1839-42. In 16802 the plan attached to a new lease?’ (Figure 3) was clearly updated from the 1750 plan; it attempted to distinguish between pre-1750 buildings and post-1750 additions, but unfortunately the latter were identified from a very literal reading of the 1750 map without regard to its schedule or rather dia- grammatic nature. In fact, the only building within the Holme Close area which can be confidently accepted as new is the ‘large anchor shop’ (‘k’ on plan) immediately north of the Grand Warehouse (certainly new since c. 1714, probably since 1750). A water channel along the west side of the Forge is so shown for the first time; this can be ccepted as new since c. 1714, but was prob- ably merely omitted in 1750, and was proba- bly the race for the finery waterwheel(s). However, the Stankleys Garden area had been substantially remodelled, with a new range of workshops along its south-west side beside the northern channel, and a cooperage and timber store in the north-west end replacing the former charcoal store); the 1750 cooperage further east was now a carpenters’ shop, adjoined by new cartwright’s and spade ree-maker’s workshops. Goods from, and iron for, Winlaton Mill were now carried by waggonway to a warehouse on the other side of the Derwent at Derwenthaugh; a sailed keel is shown here, whereas several (beauti- fully drawn) keels shown further upstream are depicted as oared but not sailed.

Related Figures (7)

Figure 1. Swalwell ironworks, c. 1714 (TWAS: DX 104/1, 13; reproduced by permission of Tyne and Wear Archives Service ).
Figure 1. Swalwell ironworks, c. 1714 (TWAS: DX 104/1, 13; reproduced by permission of Tyne and Wear Archives Service ).
In 1830, Crowley Millington & Co. were one of only thirteen companies in Britain approved to purchase Hoop-L iron (the pre- mium grade of Swedish iron for cementation steel-making),** and in 1834 cementation and steel-casting were ‘one of the greatest props, if not the greatest, that remains to us in these ruinous times’.°? One factor in the revival of the steel business was action against counter- feiters of the Crowley brand mark on shear steel, especially in the American market. This indicates that the company were still The Forge had been extended to the north- east, its original eastern wheelrace replaced by a single wider wheelpit, and the western race infilled or covered-in; a small projection on Figure 4. The works in 1834, with (incorrect) boundaries of Holme Close (DRO: D/BolG 37 (vii) ).
In 1830, Crowley Millington & Co. were one of only thirteen companies in Britain approved to purchase Hoop-L iron (the pre- mium grade of Swedish iron for cementation steel-making),** and in 1834 cementation and steel-casting were ‘one of the greatest props, if not the greatest, that remains to us in these ruinous times’.°? One factor in the revival of the steel business was action against counter- feiters of the Crowley brand mark on shear steel, especially in the American market. This indicates that the company were still The Forge had been extended to the north- east, its original eastern wheelrace replaced by a single wider wheelpit, and the western race infilled or covered-in; a small projection on Figure 4. The works in 1834, with (incorrect) boundaries of Holme Close (DRO: D/BolG 37 (vii) ).
Millington & Co.’s last general manager.” However, in November 1862 Graham & Graham, trading ‘under the firm of Crowley, Millington and Co.’, were bankrupted by a sudden pressure from ‘the representatives of Crowley Millington & Co.’(!). Clearly the partnership still existed, and had some claim on the business.’ Figure 5. OS Ist edition survey (OS 1:2500 Co. Durham Sheet 6.2; surveyed 1856, published 1858 ).
Millington & Co.’s last general manager.” However, in November 1862 Graham & Graham, trading ‘under the firm of Crowley, Millington and Co.’, were bankrupted by a sudden pressure from ‘the representatives of Crowley Millington & Co.’(!). Clearly the partnership still existed, and had some claim on the business.’ Figure 5. OS Ist edition survey (OS 1:2500 Co. Durham Sheet 6.2; surveyed 1856, published 1858 ).
Figure 6. The works in 1870, reflecting Graham & Graham’s reconstruc- tion in 1858-62 (DULSC: Gibson Volumes: Maps and Plans 1). Most of the structures mentioned in the sale notice can be matched on the plan prepared for a sale in 1870°° (Figure 6), and since neither the plan nor the accompanying sale notice (see below) indicate any substan- tial alterations since 1863, this can (with some caution) be accepted as representing the WOrks as reconstructed by Graham & Graham. Most of the workshops in and around The Square had been demolished, as had the range he south-west side of Stankleys Gard where new coke ovens presumably served crucible steelworks and the foundry cupo perhaps reduced to a single storey; the shel its west end now housed the new crucible st plant, the central part had been conver plus other heavy forging machines), the k dock had been unroofed, and the east end ( The two cementation furnaces remained, bu he Grand Warehouse had been gutted and into a machine shop (probably the ‘turnery’, on > ee he excavated Wharf Building) was now an iron warehouse. The ‘patent forge’ north of Grand Warehouse was probably the st he eel forge with the steam hammer, the two iron forges in the sale notice being the excava Forge Building and the ‘forge’ north of rolling mill (‘balling furnace’ by this date normally meant a reheating furnace). The rolling mill building may have been roo and usable, only the internal foundations and intended plant being incomplete. Most of ed he fed ne earlier buildings in the southern part of ne works survived, though with alterations and changes of function. However, the western anchor shop had been converted to an engine house, and to the west of this the new foundry had been built on the former coal yard. The smiths’ shops beside the main race now had a
Figure 6. The works in 1870, reflecting Graham & Graham’s reconstruc- tion in 1858-62 (DULSC: Gibson Volumes: Maps and Plans 1). Most of the structures mentioned in the sale notice can be matched on the plan prepared for a sale in 1870°° (Figure 6), and since neither the plan nor the accompanying sale notice (see below) indicate any substan- tial alterations since 1863, this can (with some caution) be accepted as representing the WOrks as reconstructed by Graham & Graham. Most of the workshops in and around The Square had been demolished, as had the range he south-west side of Stankleys Gard where new coke ovens presumably served crucible steelworks and the foundry cupo perhaps reduced to a single storey; the shel its west end now housed the new crucible st plant, the central part had been conver plus other heavy forging machines), the k dock had been unroofed, and the east end ( The two cementation furnaces remained, bu he Grand Warehouse had been gutted and into a machine shop (probably the ‘turnery’, on > ee he excavated Wharf Building) was now an iron warehouse. The ‘patent forge’ north of Grand Warehouse was probably the st he eel forge with the steam hammer, the two iron forges in the sale notice being the excava Forge Building and the ‘forge’ north of rolling mill (‘balling furnace’ by this date normally meant a reheating furnace). The rolling mill building may have been roo and usable, only the internal foundations and intended plant being incomplete. Most of ed he fed ne earlier buildings in the southern part of ne works survived, though with alterations and changes of function. However, the western anchor shop had been converted to an engine house, and to the west of this the new foundry had been built on the former coal yard. The smiths’ shops beside the main race now had a
Figure 7. OS 2nd edition survey (OS 1:2500 sheet Co. Durham Sheet 6.2: revised 1895, published 1897). However, the reference to a crucible shop, separate from the melting-houses with their ordinary furnaces, is confusing. The associa- tion of crucible shop with a seemingly adjacent machine shops fits the layout of the Grand Warehouse area on the 1870 plan, rather than anything visible on the 1901 plans, and on careful reading the early 1890s description refers only to crucible-making at this point. It therefore seems likely that when the description was written the Grand Ware- house (or rather its shell) was still occupied by Ridley & Co.; a new crucible melting shop had been constructed next to the foundry, but the old crucible-making and machine shops were still in use. This would also fit with the geographical progression of the description. The ‘forges’ in the description were presum- ably the excavated Forge Building, the rolling mill building (steel forge’ in 1901) and the building on the north side of this. The pattern shop cannot be located; geographical logic would put it in or near the rolling mill build- ing, though the excavated Wharf Building (not otherwise mentioned in the description)
Figure 7. OS 2nd edition survey (OS 1:2500 sheet Co. Durham Sheet 6.2: revised 1895, published 1897). However, the reference to a crucible shop, separate from the melting-houses with their ordinary furnaces, is confusing. The associa- tion of crucible shop with a seemingly adjacent machine shops fits the layout of the Grand Warehouse area on the 1870 plan, rather than anything visible on the 1901 plans, and on careful reading the early 1890s description refers only to crucible-making at this point. It therefore seems likely that when the description was written the Grand Ware- house (or rather its shell) was still occupied by Ridley & Co.; a new crucible melting shop had been constructed next to the foundry, but the old crucible-making and machine shops were still in use. This would also fit with the geographical progression of the description. The ‘forges’ in the description were presum- ably the excavated Forge Building, the rolling mill building (steel forge’ in 1901) and the building on the north side of this. The pattern shop cannot be located; geographical logic would put it in or near the rolling mill build- ing, though the excavated Wharf Building (not otherwise mentioned in the description)
is an alternative possibility. Neither would be very convenient for the foundry. Figure 8. Ridley & Co.'s steelworks and Grace & Co.'s paper mills, 1901 (DRO: DICG 7/1664). and dialogue with the archaeological and archaeo-metallurgical record (again a Swalwell and Winlaton Mill in particular); the limited pre-development excavation a Swalwell has shown the site’s potential despite the rather unpromising surface appearance and the quality of below-ground surviva at Winlaton Mill may be exceptional.!® This applies as much to the remarkable managerial, economic, and social organisation of the early Crowley empire,'* barely mentioned in this report, as to the physical nature of the works and the processes.
is an alternative possibility. Neither would be very convenient for the foundry. Figure 8. Ridley & Co.'s steelworks and Grace & Co.'s paper mills, 1901 (DRO: DICG 7/1664). and dialogue with the archaeological and archaeo-metallurgical record (again a Swalwell and Winlaton Mill in particular); the limited pre-development excavation a Swalwell has shown the site’s potential despite the rather unpromising surface appearance and the quality of below-ground surviva at Winlaton Mill may be exceptional.!® This applies as much to the remarkable managerial, economic, and social organisation of the early Crowley empire,'* barely mentioned in this report, as to the physical nature of the works and the processes.
Related topics:
EngineeringArchaeologyIndustrial Archaeology
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved