Sunday, 31 December 2023

Living beside the Medlock in the shadow of those tall railway viaducts ……… Victoria Terrace and Coronation Square

 I doubt I would ever have known about a row of terraced houses beside the River Medlock in the heart of the city and certainly would not have begun looking at them in detail if Andy Robertson hadn’t sent over a series of pictures of the Bridge Inn on Fairfield Street.


The pub was doing the business by 1840, and continued into the 20th century, although it is now closed.

But what really caught my interest was Andy’s pictures of the River Medlock which briefly comes out into the daylight as it crosses under Fairfield Street before descending back into a tunnel.

And as you do I went looking for the story of this patch of land between the river and the pub, and was not disappointed.  

In 1848, there were twenty-four properties of which 14 appear to have been back to back houses along with another ten.

Some faced directly onto the river , and the rest were grouped around Coronation Square, which I suspect offers up a possible date for their construction which I am guessing must have been around 1837.  And this I think will be confirmed by the fact that the fourteen back to backs were called Victoria Terrace.


I will  go looking into the Rate Books to see how far back I can trace the houses, but for that I need the names of some of the residents, and sadly back in the middle decades of the 19th century, no one deemed them worth enough to be included in the directories.

And that in turn has made it difficult to unearth the relevant census returns for the period.

However by dint of a tedious trawl of the 1891 census for the Central Enumeration district for 1891 I struck lucky, and found all twenty four.

They were a mix of four, three and two roomed properties, and were home to 71 people.  There was evidence of overcrowding, with the eight members of the Younger family squeezed into four rooms, and Mr. Thomas Nagle sharing his three rooms with his cousin and three lodgers.


Most of the occupants were unskilled workers, ranging from labourers to  street peddlars, although amongst them there were also a tailoress, a shoemaker  an Assistant Mathematical Instrument Maker.

But most were engaged in precarious and heavy work with more than a few heading towards their sixties.  

One of these was Thomas Nagle who at 56, described himself as a Bricklayer’s labourer, although in his case he appears to have left the building trade behind, because in 1895 he is listed as a greengrocer trading from Coronation Square.

There is much more to do, including examining the ages of the residents and working out the balance of adults to children as well as where the 71 came from.


Some at least of the properties were being demolished by the early 20th century and there are two pictures from the Local Image Collection showing some of the houses.

All of which promises to offer up more of the lives of those who lived beside the Medlock in the shadow of those tall railway viaducts, just a step away from Fairfield Street

Location; Manchester

Pictures, detail of Victoria Terrace and Coronation Square, 1851, from Adshead’s map of Manchester, 1851, courtesy of courtesy of Digital Archives Association http://www.digitalarchives.co.uk/ , some of the properties in 1903, A. Bradburn, m11495, and in 1904, m11492, courtesy of Manchester Libraries, Information and Archives, Manchester City Council, http://images.manchester.gov.uk/index.php?session=pass Victoria Terrace and Coronation Square, 2020, from the collection of Andy Robertson

2 comments:

  1. Sorry Terry deleted the comments by accident ....... was that the Fairfield Street Bridge Inn it looks wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Andrew, I read this piece at the time you posted it and was drawn to it really. How strange that I've just identified where my Grandmother was living at 3
    months old in 1881. It was2 Mellors Buildings across the timber yard from The Bridge Inn .Shown clearly on large scale map 35 Alan Godfrey. So fascinating to read this again.

    ReplyDelete