Craster Fishermen in Dispute with Landowner

For many years the small village of Craster lay further inland than it does today. An online search found an article written by a family member called Mary Craster which reveals that in 1723 the village consisted of twelve houses and was close to Craster Tower, the home of the Craster family. The article records ‘…. there was nothing by the sea apart from the little cove where the fishing boats were beached’.

Over the ensuing years, a new Craster village was established on the south side of the cove with the fishermen and their families living in cottages built and owned by the Craster family who were the ‘lords of the manor’. At this time, there were no cottages on the north side of the cove as that land was owned by Lord Tankerville.

It was at this stage that things changed for the fishermen with ‘acknowledgements to the lord of the manor’ for use of the cove (now known as Craster Haven) having to be made to the Craster family. These ‘acknowledgements’ consisted of a yearly cash fee for each boat that used the haven and for beaching the fishing boats above the high water mark, i.e. on land owned by the Craster family.

The cash fee that a fisherman had to pay was thirty two shillings (one pound sixty pence) if the boat was entirely his and if the boat was shared between two fishermen then the fee was shared, i.e. sixteen shillings (eighty pence) each. In addition, every year each fisherman had also had to give an ‘acknowledgement’ to the Craster family consisting of ‘six haddock fish and one lobster.’

This was accepted for many years until four fishermen refused to make any further ‘acknowledgements’ to the ‘lord of the manor’, a Thomas Wood Craster.

These four men, John Archbold; Ralph Smailes; Thomas Smailes and William Simpson challenged this ‘archaic feudal system’ by not making any payment after Martinmas Day 1844 (i.e. 11^th November 1844). Their main reason for doing so was that they now lived in cottages which had recently been built on the north side of the cove, i.e. on Lord Tankerville’s land, and as such had no tie to Mr Craster and in their view were no longer bound to Mr Craster’s acknowledgement system. Another of their reasons was that under common law and use by custom, anyone, not only fishermen, had the right to cross over Mr Craster’s land to access the cove and thereafter the sea. This was disputed by Mr Craster who, as time went by, threatened the four fishermen with legal action and possible eviction from their cottages, (how could he evict them as they lived in cottages on Lord Tankerville’s land?).

In John Archbold’s case, he received a letter dated the 17^th January 1853 from Mr Craster’s agent, a Mr Bolam, claiming £5 – 12 shillings (£5 – 60 pence) as arrears of “rent due for the liberty of landing boats at Craster Haven up to November 1852”. He received a second letter dated the 19^th January 1853, this time in Mr Craster’s own handwriting which was a notice “not to trespass on Mr Craster’s property in Craster Haven, advise such trespass would be deemed as wilful”. A third letter dated the 8^th February 1853, this time from Mr Craster’s solicitor, a Mr Fenwick, that “if the £5 – 12 shillings was not paid & the trespass discontinued, proceedings would be commenced”.

It would appear that what was to occur in the near future was a result of John Archbold ignoring the letters. The relationship between Archbold and Craster was obviously broken down and Craster confronted Archbold at the haven and told him that he was forbidden to use the cove to launch his boat and that a writ would be forthcoming. The writ was served on John Archbold soon after. It seems that Thomas Wood Craster wanted to make an example of John Archbold in order to subdue the other three fishermen.

Amongst the archives of Alnwick solicitors, Dickson Archer and Thorp are bundles of papers representing the evidence gathered for the forthcoming legal battle. Included in the bundles is a transcript of the court case which was held in 1854.

The case was heard in the Nisi Prius Court (a hearing of civil cases before a judge and jury), part of the Northumberland Summer Assizes on Monday, 31^st July 1854 with Judge Baron Platt presiding over the court. Representing Mr Craster (the plaintiff) were Mr Watson, Q.C.; the Hon. Mr Liddell and Mr Unthank. The defendant, John Archbold, was represented by Mr Manisty.

Mr Unthank commenced the proceedings by describing Craster Haven and how, on the north side, a rill (a little stream) separated the ‘Manor of Craster from that of Dunstan, of which Lord Tankerville is the Lord.’ He went to say that that the majority of the fishermen lived in cottages built and owned by Mr Craster but that a number of cottages had been built on the north side of the haven, i.e. on Lord Tankerville’s land and these were occupied by fishermen including John Archbold. He confirmed to the court that fishermen from the south side did indeed pay an annual fee and ‘acknowledgements’ for using the haven and beaching their boats above the high water mark. He stated that when some fishermen moved their home to the north side, they continued to pay both the annual fee and ‘acknowledgements’ but then a number of fishermen, including Archbold, refused to pay.

A number of witnesses were then called to support the plaintiff, Mr Craster. One of the witnesses was Mr Craster’s agent, Mr Bolam, who produced account books that recorded all payments, including the annual boat landing fee and ‘acknowledgements’ made by the fishermen to Mr Craster. Included in the list of names was the defendant, John Archbold, who had continued for a period of time to pay both the annual boat fee and ‘acknowledgements’ after he moved to his cottage on Lord Tankerville’s land. Amongst the other witnesses for the plaintiff was a fisherman called John Grey who stated that he had lived at Craster for fifty years and that he had witnessed the defendant’s boat lying above the high water mark on Mr Craster’s land on numerous occasions after the defendant had refused to make further payments. William Smailes was called to give evidence and under oath he stated that he was a fisherman and that for a number of years he had lived at Dunstan (on Lord Tankerville’s land) and that he had paid both the annual boat landing fee and ‘acknowledgements’  Other witnesses for the plaintiff made similar statements adding that the only boats that did not make any payments to Mr Craster were the herring boats that ‘had free licence to enter the bay as Mr Craster wished to encourage the curing establishment in the village’ and also small boats bringing goods to Craster and taking cured fish away.

Mr Manisty, for the defendant, stood and addressed the court by first stating that the outcome of the case was not only important for his client but also important for the rights of fishermen all over the kingdom. He went on to say that his client had a right to enter the bay and land his boat between high and low water mark.

At this, Mr Unthank stood and stated that his client accepted this point but argued that the defendant had no right to bring his boat onto the bank above the high water mark without paying an acknowledgement to Mr Craster, the Lord of the Manor.

Mr Manisty replied that his client firstly ‘had a prescriptive right to do so by usage’ and secondly ‘at common law, as a fisherman, he had a right of way for his boat on and over the bank on the shore above the high water mark.’ He then stated that the fishermen living in cottages owned by Mr Craster paid a comparatively small rent for their homes and as they ‘enjoyed the privilege of laying their boats up on Mr Craster’s land, should pay for their boats, but, it did not follow that the fishermen of other places, who did not want to lay up on Mr Craster’s land, should be called upon to pay for drawing their boats ashore’. He then quoted the opinions of judges in similar cases in the kingdom ‘that fishermen had a broad common law right to land their boats along the entire coast irrespective even of the Crown, and, if so, then the Crown could not confer rights on Lords of the Manor which it did itself not possess. He went on to argue several points under common law rights and rights of usage.

Defence witnesses were then called. William Cuthbertson, a fisherman of North Sunderland, stated that he had seen boats go ashore at the haven and that he himself had hauled his boat up above the high water mark. When cross examined, he admitted that he done so but only for safety due to stormy seas. George Stephenson, a fisherman from Boulmer, said that once he had hauled his boat ashore one night and took it away the next morning without having to pay anything to Mr Craster. Other defence witnesses related similar accounts, the last witness was Henry Swinburne from Newcastle upon Tyne who stated ‘of having been at Craster and taken his boat above the high water mark’.

In reply for the plaintiff, Mr Watson said that the testimony for the defence had no bearing on this case and in respect of the statement made by the last witness (Henry Swinburne) ‘it was preposterous that exemption could flow from such a trespass which had not been perceived. As to common law right, there might be a right to come to the high water mark but for the defendant to draw his boat beyond the high water mark onto the land of the plaintiff, was clearly a trespass’. He ended by saying ‘the defendant not having been called (to give evidence) as evidencing the conviction of his learned friend that he had a bad case’

At that, Mr Watson sat down and with no further response from the defence, the learned Judge began his summing up. He pointed out that the evidence, ‘both documentary and oral, as establishing the case of the plaintiff, which in fact had not really been denied on the part of the defendant.’ He went on to rule against Mr Manisty on the common law right but in doing so, he left it to the Counsel for the defence to move for a non-suit (failure to establish a valid case) if he thought that he could establish that his ruling was wrong.

The jury retired to discuss the evidence and on returning into the court they announced that they had found in favour of the plaintiff. Judge Baron Platt asked the jury if they had considered if the bank above the high water mark, where the trespass had occurred, to be part of the sea shore. He clarified his question by asking if the shore was between the low and high water marks of ordinary tides or did it reach to the high water mark of spring tides. The jury requested a second look at plans that had previously been submitted to the court and after some consultation, they expressed their opinion that the ‘spot in question was a part of the shore.’

The official verdict was then given to the court, it was in favour of the plaintiff, Mr Craster, and he was awarded 40 shillings (two pounds) in damages. They confirmed that the Counsel for the defence could move for a non-suit if was felt that Mr Archbold had a common law right.

Mr Manisty, on behalf of his client, did indeed file for a non-suit and the archives of Dickson Archer and Thorp show that a legal hearing was held on the 22^nd January 1855 at the Court of Queen’s Bench, Westminster Hall, London. Presiding over the court were three senior Judges, Lord John Campbell (the Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench); Mr Justice William Wightman and Mr Justice John Crompton.  Mr Unthank once again represented the plaintiff, Mr Craster, and Mr Manisty again represented the defendant, John Archbold.

The proceedings commenced with Mr Unthank stating his reasons why the verdict in favour of his client should not be overruled and therefore negating the need for a re-trial. He was asked several questions by the Judges concerning common law rights and rights of use.

It was then the turn of Mr Manisty to give his reasons in favour of his client as to why there should be a re-trial. Like Mr Unthank, Mr Manisty was asked numerous questions by the Judges.

Finally, after several hours of questions and answers and legal arguments from both sides, the panel of Judges announced that they had reached a verdict. They found in favour of the defendant, John Archbold, but with a proviso that he had to pay costs.

A search of records, including newspapers of the day, failed to find any detail of a re-trial. This was no doubt down to the Queen’s Bench Judges stating that Archbold had to pay costs.

However, when searching through the Dickson Archer and Thorp archives, documents were found which shows that the dispute was resolved with a compromise agreement between Mr Craster and Lord Tankerville.

An indenture dated the 6^th November 1855 was drawn up and accepted by both parties ‘that all tenants being fishermen of the said Charles Lord Ossulston resident in the Township of Dunstan shall be at liberty to use the private land of Thom. Wood Craster situated between high water mark at ordinary tides and the present road leading from Craster to Dunstan.’ The compromise also stated that it was ‘agreed that the said tenants resident on the lands of the said Charles Lord Ossulston being fishermen shall have the same right of user of the said land in the said Manor of Craster so situated as aforesaid as the fishermen residing in the Township of Craster now have in carrying their trade or employment as fishermen.’

As part of this compromise, the fishermen that were tenants of Lord Ossulston had to adhere to the rules and regulations of the use of the haven. Failure to do so would result in those involved losing their right to use the haven free of cost.

Finally, the indenture stipulated that the only cost to the fishermen from Dunstan (i.e. the north side of Craster Haven) would be ten shillings (fifty pence) per year if they used Mr Craster’s capstan to haul their boat out of the water and above the high water mark.

 

 

We would like to extend our thanks to the volunteer who researched, transcribed and produced this blog post.