On the 29th December 1854, at about 9 o’clock in the evening, Mr John Moffat threw down and leveled a “certain rail” belonging to the Alnwick Abbey toll gate situated on the Alnwick and Eglingham turnpike road. Documents from the Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection allow us to follow this case through the courts, and can help us to unpick Moffat’s localised actions and national motives. It is thought these documents were kept as Mr William Dickson, a generational partner in the firm, had been heavily involved in the establishment and maintenance of Alnwick’s turnpike road.
Turnpike Roads and Trusts
The establishment of turnpike roads had been first encouraged by central government during the eighteenth century. To use these roads travellers were required to pay a set toll at the turnpike gate. The term “turnpike” derived from the spiked barriers placed on these toll booth gates. The levied toll would then be re-invested into the road’s maintenance and repair. This system of re-investment created a better road network; allowing for the more efficient movement of goods and the furtherance of industry.
Turnpike roads were managed by “turnpike trusts” consisting of local business owners and industrialists. To create a turnpike road the trust would request permission from central government. Once permission had been granted the trust was free to set a toll. They would then retain control over the road for 21 years, although this time could be extended by Parliament. By the passing of the last turnpike act in 1836 there had been 942 acts for new turnpike trusts across England and Wales, and turnpike roads covered roughly ⅕ of the total road network.
A series of toll booth adverts placed in the Newcastle Courant referring to the letting of turnpike toll gates and master positions. The gates referred to here would have been similar to the one Moffat leveled in 1854. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT
The turnpike toll gate Moffat damaged had been established after a meeting between the Alnwick turnpike trustees in 1826. This was evidenced in court by Joseph Archer, whom produced the trustees’ minute book obtained from the office of their clerk A. Lambert Esq. Archer also produced various other pieces of evidence to prove the gate’s legality. This included a minute book entry referring to the letting of the Toll Master position to William Patterson and a copy of the Newcastle Courant containing the original letting advert.
Queen vs Moffat
The aforementioned evidence was used against Moffat at the Northumberland Adjoined Epiphany Sessions, held on the 22nd July 1855, where Moffat faced two accusations. The first being that he had leveled the toll gate in a “malicious manner,” and the second that his actions had prevented subsequent travellers from paying the due toll.
William Patterson had only been the Alnwick gate toll master since the 13th May 1854. Prior to this he had been living in the area with his wife Margaret and their four young children.
Agreement to let the Alnwick turnpike toll to William Patterson. Also note Mr Dickson’s name included amongst the trustees, further evidence of his close involvement with the case. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT.
Yet, despite being in the position only a short while, he admitted to the court that he did;
“not collect the tolls myself generally but I authorise my daughter Alice Patterson to do so in my absence and she had principally collected them since the tenth of June last.”
Alice was his eldest child, born around 1838, and the principle witness to Moffat’s damage. She testified that Moffat had rode into Alnwick with his brother Arthur and refused to pay the designated toll. He had told Alice she could tell her father to put him before the magistrates, but that the toll was unlawful and he therefore would not pay. Upon trying to leave Alnwick hours later the Moffat brothers found themselves locked within the city. Mr Patterson still hadn’t returned to the toll gate, and Alice refused to grant them exit without receiving the outstanding payments. The men refused once more and, as also witnessed by Miss Isabella Williamson, John got down from his horse and began to level the offending gate in the following manner:
“He then started to pull down the rails between the Gate and the Gate House. These rails were in line with the gate across the road and are to prevent any one passing without paying the toll. He broke a piece off the top of one of the rails and she (Alice) told him she would rather open the gate then watch him break it.”
Alice Patterson’s witness statement, accompanied by a small sketch of the turnpike gate. REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT.
Turnpike Riots
Mr Moffat’s defence, both at the time of the act and in court, had been that the “the gate was not legal.” This opinion fed into a larger national feeling, with over a century of toll riots having occurred across England and Wales targeted at the swift spread of turnpike gates.
During the 1720s and 1730s some inhabitants of Kingswood near Bristol resented the payment of newly set tolls, which they perceived as being unfair on coal traffic. They subsequently tore down the newly erected turnpike gates and eventually won the exemption of coal traffic in the area. But, with local farmers yet to be pacified, the Bristol riots continued across the latter half of the century. In 1753 riots began in the West Riding of Yorkshire, again because coal traffic had been forced to pay heavy toll duties which had a ripple effect upon the area’s textile production.
Yet, with respect to the timing of Moffat’s stand, the most recent turnpike riots had been the “Rebecca and her Daughters” movement in rural Wales. Between 1839 and 1843 men disguised themselves as women to pull down toll gates in their areas. They referred to themselves as Rebecca’s daughters in reference to a biblical passage about the need to “possess the gates of those who hate them.”
Hence, although industrialists and entrepreneurs may have viewed turnpike gates and trusts as a positive development, small holders or independent artisans saw them as an unnecessary blight on their income and business dealings. Occupational information about the Moffat brothers places them into this latter category, with John being named as a Beanley-based farmer in Alice’s testimony and Arthur Moffat having worked as a farmer in Eglingham on the Turnpike road. It is therefore likely that John would have empathised with the concerns of his national counterparts regarding the heavy payment of tolls, and this allows us a potential insight into Moffat’s belief that the gate was unlawful.
Punishment
Irrespective of Moffat’s motivation or inspiration he was found guilty before the court of committing a misdemeanour. Whilst the collection’s documents do not specify the court’s punishment there is a letter between Mr Dickson and a clerk working for the Duke of Northumberland which ambiguously suggests an out-of-court agreement was drawn up between Moffat and the trust.
Ultimately the event does not seem to have inspired further opposition against the toll gate and, as the Duke of Northumberland assured Mr Dickson in correspondence, there was no intention to close the toll booth in the wake of the court case and the turnpike road operated as usual.
The story of how the Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection came to be acquired by Northumberland Archives is almost as rich and compelling as its 200 year contents. Often described as a ‘time capsule’ due to the detail it can offer us about Northumberland’s social, political and economic story, this value had been left largely unexplored until its recent acquisition by the Northumberland Archives.
Personal papers relating to the Thorp family held within the collection
The Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection is the culmination of work from a 200 year old Alnwick legal practice. Items within the collection can be dated beyond the practice’s establishment in the 18th century right through to the death of its last partner, Mr Reginald Thorp, in 2003. It is the only legal collection in the care of Northumberland Archives to have this level of historical volume and scope.
Notable names peppered the clientele of Dickson, Archer and Thorp; including Grace Darling and her family, The Duke of Northumberland, the Armstrong family and the Liddell (Ravensworth) family. The wills and testimonies of these individuals can be found within the collection, nestled alongside those of ‘ordinary’ locals. This mixed bag enables us to paint a captivating picture of Northumberland using the collection’s marriage, death and criminal records, as well its contemporary stamp duties and manorial papers. The collection also follows the furtherance of industry in Northumberland, by containing records relaying to notable companies such as the Amble Timber and Saw Mill Company and the Hardy’s Fishing Company of Alnwick and Warkworth Harbour.
Liddell family papers found within the collection
A Hidden Treasure
However, although the collection possesses massive local and national significance, its secrets had lain mostly untouched for the vast majority of the 20th century. With the collection kept privately within Dickson, Archer and Thorp’s three-story office in Narrowgate, Alnwick.
The office was described by those who entered as ‘Dickensian,’ on account of the floor to ceiling papers and legal materials. These papers, decades old, were neatly labelled and bundled together creating a treasure trove for the enthusiastic researcher.
A first-floor bookcase in the Dickson, Archer and Thorp office
The second-floor landing in the Dickson, Archer and Thorp office
Northumberland Archives staff were first able to explore this exciting world during the 1970s when Mr Thorp approached them to assess the collection. This initial work was carried out over a ten year period, stretching through the 70’s and 80’s. But the collection’s sheer scope and scale made creating a complete inventory an almost impossible task. Archives staff were hindered further due to a lack of artificial light within the building, meaning they could only work during the summer months. Due to these obstacles less than 10% of the whole collection was actually catalogued during this period, but its historical importance had already become glowingly apparent to archivists.
Public Auction and Benefactors
Upon the aforementioned Mr Thorp’s death the collection became the property of his heirs, whom decided to pass it on through auction. In 2005 a public auction threatened the integrity of the collection by potentially dividing it piecemeal. Some papers fell into private hands whilst others, such as some of the practice’s own business records, were secured for Northumberland Archives through the generosity of a private benefactors.
Auction pamphlet, circa 1878, found within the collection
The bulk of the collection remained in situ at the Narrowgate office, before being purchased by a postal historian who subsequently offered a significant part of the collection to Northumberland Archives. The collection was, at this time, independently assessed as being ‘the most significant collection relating to the history of Northumberland remaining in private hands.’
From Barn to Archive
From 2005 onwards the then owner kept the collection in a barn on his property, whilst passing between 10 – 15% onto interested parties across the world. Some of these items were eventually deposited with Northumberland Archives by public spirited purchasers. The items is his care that were eventually offered to Northumberland Archives comprised approximately 240 large banker boxes, 20 smaller boxes and a selection of plans.
This period in the collection’s journey indicated two things; firstly there was a growing, global interest in the collection and secondly there was a serious need to preserve its authentic integrity as a whole or risk its dissemination across the world.
A bundle of papers from the collection
In 2015 Northumberland Archives was approached and asked if we would be interested in purchasing the remaining collection for the sum of £150,000. In light of the collection’s historic and cultural significance the sum was declared reasonable and the decision to proceed with the purchase was made. The eventual acquisition was made possible through internal fundraising as well as grants and charitable funding from a range of grant giving bodies including The Heritage Lottery Fund, Lord Crewe Charity, Friends of National Libraries and the V&A Purchase Fund.
The acquisition was formalised in 2017, with a week set aside for archival staff to box and roughly list this immense collection. Finally the collection’s journey had brought it to be stored in perpetuity by Northumberland Archives, allowing it to be valued by all members of the public.
A handbill referring to the Craster Harbour dispute found within the collection
The Future
The future will see the beginnings of in-depth research into the collection; facilitated by a process of comprehensive cataloging. This work will be largely conducted by volunteers, with funding from the Heritage Lottery Fund allowing the Northumberland Archives to engage a Volunteer Co-ordinator. You can follow this project, and the secrets it uncovers, through this blog or the Archives’ other social media platforms.
A couple years ago I took the family to Blanchland to watch the Tour of the Reservoir, but in my usual fashion, got the time wrong so we had time to kill. We visited the churchyard to have a look around and noticed this headstone with the following wording:-
Erected in memory of Robert Snowball of Belmont aged 26 who was cruelly murdered at that place on 1st January 1880.
Headstone
Jane Barron aged 27, a servant was indicted for the wilful murder of Robert Snowball at Edmondbyers. Mr Edge & Mr Granger appeared to prosecute and Mr E Ridley & Mr Mulvain defended. The prisoner appeared quite composed when asked her plea she replied “Not guilty”.
Mr Edge opened the case at considerable length reciting all the facts. The first question the jury should consider was how the murder was done. He thought the jury would come to the conclusion that it was done with the hammer that was found standing against the wall & that some person has struck him from behind and afterwards striking him on the face. The next question was by whom, as the evidence against the prisoner was circumstantial. It might be suggested that the person who committed this murder was some tramp who was passing. It appears that there was a footpath across the fell close to the house, but what was the motive – Robbery? However, nothing was stolen. Then it was said could it have been done by one of the neighbours? It was said that he was on good terms with both of his neighbours!
Thoughts were turned to someone else going there to commit murder, but surley they would take a murder weapon and not rely on finding something there to commit the crime. The conclusion was made that the prisoner committed the crime.
Let’s look at the facts of the case and not rely on the conversation that took place between the prisoner and the deceased at dinner and tea time. The prisoner went out shortly after the deceased left the house and was away for about 10 minutes. During this time the father of the deceased heard a thud or fall from the direction of the loft where the deceased was found. According to the prisoner she found blood coming from the loft into the byre when she went milking at 6.30; therefore the decease must have been killed sometime between 5.30 & 6.30. Mr Ridley surveyed the buildings and found a gate which gave free access to the loft which would allow someone to gain access; without being seen from the house. There is no back door to the house and the view from the window at the back is obscured by a haystack.
John Snowball was called to give evidence. He was the father of the deceased. At the house, lived my sons John & Robert Snowball, myself and the prisoner. On the 1st of Jan. my son John was away to Haltwhistle. My nearest neighbours are Thomas Murray at Sandyford and the other neighbours are about 2 miles away at Peddon’s Hope. There is a footpath comes by Belmount House, which leads to Edmundbyers. That footpath is about 20 yards from the door. On the 1st Jan. the deceased, myself and the prisoner had dinner. After dinner my son said he had got to know the truth about the lad and she did not seem pleased and held her head. She did not say anything to him.
After tea my son said he thought he would go along to Sandyford. The door to the byre was closed. My son went out about 5.30. He had a cap on his head. The prisoner was in the kitchen. The prisoner reached up to the mantlepiece and pulled something down. As she closed the door between the porch and the kitchen she took a serious look at me. I heard a rattling which I thought was the lanterns. It was about quarter of an hour after my son had gone out. While she was out I heard a heavy fall after 8 – 10 minutes after the prisoner went out. She returned and sat down and put her head between her hands.
She went out to milk about 6.30. The cows were kept in the byre under the loft. She was out there about half an hour. When she returned she asked me if I had seen the blood coming down into the byre. I said it will be from the sheep I cut up in the loft the day before. I went to bed at about 10 o’clock the prisoner did not go out between seven and the time I went to bed. The prisoner used to feed the pigs in the east end of the building at about 8 o’clock every night. I said that Robert was long in returning she said nothing.
The next morning I came down the stairs about quarter after six. Not long after I came down the stairs the prisoner came in from milking. She said do you know where Robert is. I said “No”. She said he has been lying in it all night in the old house loft; I believe he is died. I said “Lord have mercy upon us” and I told her to hold the lantern and we went in the loft. When I got to the loft it was closed. I opened it and went in I found the deceased lying on his back with his head to the east and his feet to the west one foot in a box the other on the floor. I didn’t notice any blood when I first went in except from his mouth. The prisoner said nothing whilst in the loft. After my son left the house on the night in question I heard no other noise except the thud. That night there were three dogs shut up in the stable and they generally barked when strangers were about, but they were quiet all night.
At tea the deceased said he would go to Sandyford. The prisoner went out ten minutes or a quarter of an hour after the deceased. I was sitting when she went out and she gave a very ernest look, a look which I have never noticed before. When she came back she sat by the fireside. She set her elbows upon her knees and put her head upon her hands. Her face was highly coloured. She told me that blood was coming in the byre. I thought there was nothing extraordinary about the fact at the time. I left her sitting up and went to bed.
After she came back from milking she told me about my son. When I saw the deceased I was not aware of the injury to the back of the head until the doctor pointed it out. The hammer produced is a hammer used for the purpose of breaking stones and constantly stood in the loft. Re-examined by Mr Edge – A sheep was killed in the loft on the 30th Dec. and cut up the 31st. There was no mutton in the loft on the 1st Jan. It was removed to the house on 31st Dec.
Joseph Murray, a farmer at Manor House near Ramshaw, I was staying at Sandyford at the time. On Friday 2nd Jan. I went to Belmount Farm about 8.30 in the morning. I saw Jane Barron there and said. “Oh hunny what a bad job”. She said “Yes”. She also said that the old man had gone to Stobbs and the deceased was in the loft. She took me to the loft and I said he may have broken a blood vessel and she said “Yes”. I went to Blanchland and brought Dr Montgomery back to the farm. When we got there John Snowball the old man and Mr Stobbs were also there. Stobbs took the watch out of the deceased’s pocket. On turning the deceased over I noticed his head injury. On looking around the loft I saw the hammer. When I picked it up I noticed dry blood on it. I saw a cap and a rusty candlestick piece of candle was on the shelf having an appearance of having fallen. I did not draw Dr Montgomery’s attention to the hammer because I was not certain whether the hammer had been used to kill a pig. I have been to the farm before and have never noticed any unpleasantness in the family.
Mr Snowball swore that the cap produced was the cap his son wore. It was very seldom that a tramp or vagrant came to the farm. I have only seen one tramp this winter. He was a man out of work going down to Edmundbyers. Very few people came along the road.
Henry Stobbs – Farmer at Peddon’s Hope. He had been away and had to pass Belmount farm about 8.30. He did not notice anyone near. The next morning old Snowball came for him to go to the farm. He saw the deceased lying on the floor. The cap produced was there. Witness took the watch and chain from the deceased plus 10s 6d and a purse. There was no sign of a struggle. Close to the cupboard there was a candle lying bruised at the wick and against the wall there was also an unfinished gun case with blood on it.
Bell Ann Murray wife of Thomas Murray of Sandyford – On the morning of Friday 2nd Jan. at about 7.30, the prisoner came to her door and said she had found Robert dead in the old house. She said that she has sat up till 3 o’clock in the morning and he did not come home. The next morning she went to milk and after she milked went into the house to see if he was there. She found him lying on his back blood coming from his mouth. She then asked the old man where Robert was and he said he did not know and they both went onto the old house and he said “God help us its Robert” Witness went over to Belmount Farm and was present when the body was taken upstairs. She asked Jane Barron to give some assistance, but she said nothing.
Wm. Montgomery surgeon said on the 3rd Jan. last I was called to see the body of Robert Snowball in the loft. The head of the body was lying rather to the east side of the window. I examined the body and it was cold and rigid. There was no blood on the hands. I noticed that blood had come from the mouth. On examining the body I found a large wound on the skull. I probed three fingers into the wound. The bones were separated. I made a post mortem examination and found the skull to be fractured to such an extent to cause death. I saw the hammer, which fitted the wound on the skull. Deceased would fall immediately he received the injury. The teeth in the fore part of the mouth had all gone. The palate bone was broken. The injuries were such as might have been caused by the hammer. I could not say the position of the man would be standing when struck. There was a wound on the front which might have been caused by the side of the hammer. Blood might flow from the body for 12 hours after death. I did not think it was an accident when I saw the wound. I sent a telegram to the Police at Stanhope to say that the deceased had met his death by an accident. I found out however I had made a mistake.
Andrew Ferguson a Police Constable stationed at Ramshaw. On 2nd Jan. I was taken to the loft at Belmount. On 4th I went back to the farm and examined the loft especially a closet at the south west corner. I found a gun case and piece of candle produced. I found a candlestick and cup as well. On 6th I searched Jane Barron’s room and found a dress. I showed it to her and asked how she accounted for the blood stains. She said she could not. I also found a hood and the prisoner accounted for the stain on it by blood coming through the boards while milking. On 8th I visited the loft again and found the boards on the loft floor were close. There had been blood running between the boards. The position of the board I examined and put the knife through was such that if any person passed under it and blood was running through they would be stained. I got Jane Barron’s hood and dress from her bedroom.
Richard Liddle Inspector – Durham Constabulary said on 6th Jan. he went to Belmount and searched the prisoner’s box. I found an apron and handkerchief upon which were blood stains which the prisoner could not account for. I examined the cow byre partition the same night and found three marks of blood on one of the boards. The board was at the end of the partition between where the cows stand and where the hay is kept. On 22nd Jan. I went back again to the cow byre and found some marks of blood on the partition. On the 4th board from the top I found only a small speck of blood. I did not find any considerable marks of blood. I found where the blood had gone through, a place beside a post. The whole of the flooring was taken up and examined and the only place where blood had gone through was inside the partition in the hay stall. The blood had got between the boards where the cows were but had not penetrated so as to drip. I was in the kitchen when the experiment was made in the loft.
John Thorburn Superintendent of Police at Stanhope said on 6th Jan. I took the prisoner into custody at 11:00 o’clock at night in the kitchen at Belmount. I took her to Stanhope the following morning and charged her with murder. She never spoke when charged. After I charged her she said she was innocent
Summing up Mr Edge addressed the jury and urged them that all the evidence though circumstantial pointed to the prisoner as the person who murdered Robert Snowball. She was the only person living on the premises who could have done it and it could not be shown that anyone else had any motive to commit such a deed. Mr Ridley in his defence said he was at a loss to know why Jane Barron had been brought before the Court as he could not see any grounds for her being placed in such a position as she was that day. He then criticised the testimony of old John Snowball pointing out he contradicted himself each time he was called on and asked the jury to doubt his accuracy of his statements. The statement of the prisoner on the other hand was completely in accord with the evidence of the other witnesses. Her conduct throughout was that of an innocent girl and that the murder had been committed by someone else. He asked the jury to return a verdict in favour of his client.
His lordship began to sum up he said that the evidence against the prisoner was not conclusive then they should return a verdict of not guilty. On the other hand if they came to the conclusion that she followed the man out & went onto the room after him and being in the room struck him on the head killing him they could find no other verdict than guilty.
At 7.20 the jury retired and were absent only 7 minutes. The Clerk asked the foreman for their verdict he answered “Yes” – Not Guilty (Applause, which was at once suppressed)
The prisoner then left the dock once outside she was warmly received by her friends. A cab was waiting to convey her to the railway station. Mr Page the Station Master placed Barron and her friends in the second class waiting room. On leaving she chatted and talked and answered any questions. She took her seat on a third class carriage and remained standing at the window until the whistle was blown.
A few years later another newspaper article appeared about her – After being acquitted Jane went to live with her father in the borders of Northumberland. At the May hiring’s in Newcastle she was engaged by a farmer in the North Tyne where she had been previously engaged. Since then she had conducted herself in an extraordinary way walking about her bedroom at night and frightening the whole household with her ravings The farmer paid her a half years wages and dismissed her. Since then she has become violent and has been admitted to a lunatic asylum. This part of the story is incorrect as Jane Barron sued the owner of the ‘Consett Guardian’ for printing this libel – She was still employed and had never been in an Asylum!
Rumours were a bound that old Snowball confessed to the murder on his death bed, but this was never confirmed. The murderer was never found!
