Talk:Ashton-in-Makerfield
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to places in the UK. If you wish to contribute you can visit the project page where there are resources & guidelines, to do lists and discussions. | |
| This article has been rated "stub" on the Wikipedia Version 1.0 quality scale. | ||
|
On the project page you can find detailed guides on how to write about counties and settlements, as well as where to find statistics, references and other useful things. Additionally, the following has been identified as specific improvements this article needs:
|
||
St.Helens was home to two cotton mills in the 1800's. Ashton in Makerfield had one, so it was not the westerly extremity after all!
- Repy: (1) QUESTIONS: The town or the district of Ashton? When you say the 1800s do you mean the ist decade of the 19th century or the whole century? (This is important because the heyday of the Lancs cotton industry was later than 1800 - 1810). (2) CONTEXT: Even if this comment were correct for the district of Ashton throughout the 19th century, it doesn't alter the fact that two mills in a large district like St Helens is not very significant - coal and glass still completely dominated. (Indeed, textile mills may have existed in isolation even further west). Whereas for a much smaller place like Ashton one mill could be a major employer and contributor to the local economy. The general point about the western extremity of a concentrated, economically important cotton industry surely remains?
Yozzer66 17:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- There were two cotton mills in St.Helens in the 1820's, therefore the statement about Ashton having the most westerly cotton mill is wrong. St.Helens wasn't a large district in the 1820's, however, if it was, it would not alter the true fact that there were two cotton mills there and that they were further west than Ashton. You can't beat the truth, no matter how you tart it up!
Put something on the article for Bryn, that's what it's there for.
- The heyday of the Lancs cotton industry was 90 years or so AFTER the 1820s. In the time of 'King Cotton', how many mills did the district of Ashton have in comparison with its then much larger neighbour, St Helens? Also, no one would ever call St Helens a cotton town, as they would Wigan. The question remains then: was Ashton the western extremity of the concentrated Lancs cotton industry?
Yozzer66 11:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ashton was only the western extremity of the Lancs. cotton industry, if you exclude any cotton industry that has anything to do with Liverpool/Merseyside as we know it today but is, like it or not, part of Lancashire. If you wish to include the word 'concentrated', then we can write Wigan and Ashton out of the equation as the 'concentration' started to thin out west of Bolton.
- The fact that St.Helens DID have cotton mills means that it was a town, further west than Ashton in Makerfield, with cotton mills in it, and therefore the 'extremity' of the Lancashire cotton industry was beyond Ashton in Makerfield. However, Liverpool was the key place regarding the Cotton Industry, as it was from there that the Cotton Brokers supplied the rest of Lancashire with cotton via the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. Liverpool is further West than both. Who said that St.Helens WAS a cotton town, and who mentioned Wigan?
Due to the opening of the Leeds/Liverpool Canal, several textile and Cotton Mills opened in ORMSKIRK. Ormskirk is far more westerly than Ashton and St.Helens.
- Take a look at the ‘Wikipededia’ entry 'Mill town' and try to identify ANY mill towns to the west of Ashton in south Lancashire... Despite the presence of textile mills, Liverpool, St Helens and Ormskirk were not mill towns. To continue the argument, there were Staffordshire towns that had potteries that are not included in THE Potteries. It is all a matter of the degree of importance the industry had in shaping the character of the location. (Incidentally, to deny that Wigan was an important cotton mill town is ludicrous). In regard to Ashton, at the peak of the Lancashire cotton industry, just before the First World War, the town had at least two sizable mills - the Record Mill (Spinning) situated in York Road, and the Makerfield Mill (the 'Weaving Shed') in Windsor Road. This was hugely significant for a town the size of Ashton. Yozzer66 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- I wouldn't take anything written in Wikipedia as fact, as most of it is written by those who have made the mistake of believing all they have heard, not having seen the half of it!
Now then, Wigan 'was' a mill town. It says so in the article, because 'I' changed it to mill town, from mining town, which it was not. But compare Wigan with other mill towns further into the 'concentration'. Oldham 89 mills, Manchester 101 mills, Rochdale 63 mills, Bolton 56 mills, Wigan 21 mills. Then Preston 31 mills and Lancaster 8 mills. They laugh at Ashtons, and St.Helens' 2 mills apiece. So, I would tend to agree if it was said that 'Wigan was the south westerly extremity of the 'consentrated centre' of the Lancashire Cotton Mill Industry'. Like you say yourself, regarding towns in Staffordshire which are not included in the 'potteries' despite the fact that they may have had small pottery producing companies, Ashton, in the same context, cannot be included as a Lancashire cotton town. (Incidentally, far from denying the fact of Wigans importance as a mill town, I merely pointed to the 'concentration' of cotton mills thinning out further west of Bolton, as is proven by the figures shown above.)... (Jimmy H).
The article on 'Park Lane Unitarian Chapel', Bryn, has been transferred from Ashton in Makerfield article to it's rightful 'Bryn' article.
REPY: Until recent times Bryn was part of the district of Ashton-in-Makerfield. Nearly all the other 19th century chapels deleted form the article are in present-day Ashton. To omit, or brush over, the rich history of native Christian non-conformity from an article on Ashton would be ridiculous. Similarly, the history of coal mining in the area needs a substantial entry. Yozzer66 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Religious bigotry has no place in the encyclopedia. Personal opinions will be removed.
-
- REPLY: Where is the bigotry? It is a statement of fact that, historically, Christian Non-conformists found religious relics to be an anathema. Attempts at air brushing the rich non-conformist history of the Ashton area from history could be viewed as either ignorance, lay Catholic sectarianism or traditional Anglo-Catholic arrogance. Which is it? And why hide behind anonymity? Sign your contributions!
Yozzer66 11:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Is a Cross not a relic?
-
- What has that got to do with anything? Describing, and seeking to explain, the religious differences of our ancestors is not the same as taking sides in the here and now. My contribution was not polemic but history.
Yozzer66 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
There has never been a 'St.Helens Coalfield'. Any mining near to St.Helens was taken from the Lancashire Coalfield.
- REPLY: In point of fact, the Lancashire coalfield was sub-divided, as indeed the county of Lancashire was.
Yozzer66 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Please provide 'official', not local, proof of a St.Helens Coalfield, ie: Official documentation rather than writings by local historians. I was employed in coal mining, at management level, for over thirty five years and only in later years was there a change in title from St.Helens Area, to North West Area, that is 'area' of the Lancashire Coalfield.
- This is a pedantic point but I will accept your description 'St Helens Area'. Your other point ignores the difference between an administrative label and a geological and geographical description. There has never been only one Lancashire Coalfield geologically and geographically speaking.
Yozzer66 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. However, Windy Arbour Colliery wasn't an Ashton colliery but was classed as in Winstanley, Lancashire. (source: National Register of Archives, Museum of Science and Industry, Manchester.)
To Whom It May Concern : Those who would like to re-write history by re-introducing the old boundaries of Lancashire are perfectly entiled to their views. However, to place these views (without substantial qualification) in an encyclopedic article on Ashton is inappropriate. Yozzer66 14:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
The Lancashire boundaries were never changed. A change of Governing Authority (local council) does not alter country, town or county boundaries. The Government who altered the 'Administrative' boundaries stated this at the time.
- 'Note that the LGA 1972 did not do anything to the historic Counties of Britain. It only abolished the administrative counties and county boroughs. The Government was (and still is) happy to confirm that the Counties themselves were unaffected...'
"The new county boundaries are solely for the purpose of defining areas of ... local government. They are administrative areas, and will not alter the traditional boundaries of Counties, nor is it intended that the loyalties of people living in them will change." Source:(DoE Statement, 1st April 1974). ....... (ABCounties)
-
- REPLY: What do you mean? In 1974 new counties called 'metropolitian counties' came into being. You may not have agreed with this superseding of the traditional counties in many of England's major urban conurbations but it did happen. You can't simply wish it away.
Yozzer66 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Have you read the 'Official' Government Statement which explains how Administrative Boundaries can be altered without actually affecting the traditional County Boundaries?
-
- Wishful thinking on your part, I think.
Yozzer66 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Lancashire boundaries remain unchanged according to the Duchy of Lancaster. I tend to agree.
To Whom It May Concern : SENELEY GREEN was in existance in the mid sixteenth century, (actually, long before that). The founding of Ashton in Makerfield Grammar School took place in Seneley Green at that time. It was founded using a capital sum bequeathed by Robert Byrchall, in 1589, and a plot of land granted by Sir Thomas Gerard. There is nothing 'new' about it.
