Page:Showell's Dictionary of Birmingham.djvu/65

Rh Dining Halls—Our grandfathers were content lo lake their bread and cheese by the cosy fireside of a publichouse kitchen; this was followed b}sundry publicans reserving a better room, in which a joint was served up for their "topping customers." One who got into trouble and lost his license, conceived the idea of opposing his successor, and started dining-rooms, sending out for beer as it was required, but not to his old shop. This innovation took, and when the railways began bringing in their streams of strangers, these dining-rooms paid well (as several of the old ones do still). The next step was the opening of a large room in Slaney Street (June 8, 1863), and another in Cambridge Street, with the imposing title of "Dining Halls," wherein all who were hungry could be fed at wholesale prices—provided they had the necessary cash. Our people, however, are not sufficiently gregarious to relish this kind of feeding in flocks, barrackroom fashion, and though the provisions were good and cheap, the herding together of all sorts spoilt the speculation, and Dining Halls closed when "Restaurants" opened.—See "Luncheon Bars."

Diocese.—Birmingham is in the diocese of Worcester, and in the Archdeaconry of Coventry.

Directories.—The oldest Birmingham Directory known was printed in 1770, but there had been one advertised a few years earlier, and every now and then after this date one or other of our few printers ventured to issue what they called a directory, but the procuring a complete list of all and every occupation carried on in Birmingham appears to have been a feat beyond their powers, even sixty years back. As far as they did go, however, the old directories are not uninteresting, as they give us glimpses of trade mutations and changes compared with the present time that appear strange now even to our oldest inhabitants. Place for instance the directory of 1824 by the side of White's directory for 1874 (one of the most valuable and carefully compiled works of the kind yet issued). In the former we find the names of 4,980 tradesmen, the different businesses under which they are allotted numbering only 141; in 1874 the trades and professions named tot up to 745, under which appears no less than 33,462 names. In 1824, if we are to believe the directory, there were no factors here, no fancy repositories, no gardeners or florists, no pearl button makers, no furniture brokers or pawnbrokers(!), no newsagents, and, strange to say, no printer. Photographers and electro-platers were unknown, though fifty years after showed 68 of the one, and 77 of the latter. On the other hand, in 1824, there were 78 auger, awlblade and gimlet makers, against 19 in 1874; 14 bellows makers, against 5; 36 buckle and 810 button makers, against 10 and 265; 52 edge tool makers and 176 locksmiths, against 18 of each in 1874; hinge-makers were reduced from 53 to 23; gilt toy makers, from 265 to 15. (Considering the immense quantity of gilt trifles now sent out yearly, we can only account for these figures by supposing the producers to have been entered under various other headings). Among the trades that have vanished altogether, are steelyard makers, of whom there were 19 in 1824; saw-makers, of whom there were 26; tool-makers, of whom there were 79, and similorers, whatever they might have been. Makers of the time-honoured snuffers numbered 46 in 1824, and there were even half-a-dozen manufacturers left at work in 1874. The introduction of gas-lighting only found employ, in the first-named year, for three gasfitters; in 1874, there were close upon 100. Pewterers and manufacturers of articles in Britannia metal numbered 75 in 1824, against 19 in 1874, wire-drawers in the same period coming down from 237 to 56. The Directories of the past ten years have degenerated into mere bulky tomes,