Archives

Guilty or Innocent? The Trespassing Shepherd

20/08/2018 by Northumberland Archives

BE IT REMEMBERED that on the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy Six, at Alnwick …. Thomas Brown of Alnwick Moor …. Shepherd is Convicted before the undersigned, Two of Her Majesty’s Justices of the Peace for the said County, for that he the said Thomas Brown on the ninth day of September 1876 at the Township of Alnwick in the parish of Alnmouth in the County aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully commit Trespass by being on the day time upon certain land then situate in the occupation by one ‘Potts’ of Cook Hill Morpeth in the said County in the search of Game to wit Grouse contrary to the Form of the Statute in such case made and provided. And we adjudge the said Thomas Brown for his said offence to forfeit and pay the sum of nine shillings and six pence to be paid and applied according to Law, and also to pay Henry Embleton Trotter of Alnwick in the said County, the Informer, the sum of ten shillings and six pence for his cost in this behalf; And if the said several sums be not paid forthwith, We adjudge the said Thomas Brown to be imprisoned in the House of Correction at Morpeth, in the said County and there to be kept to hard labour for the space of fourteen days. Unless the said several sums shall be paid sooner.

Alnwick, 4th November 1876

Thomas Brown (Appellant) and Henry Embleton Trotter (Respondent) faced each other at the Northumberland Epiphany Quarter Sessions, 1877 . Mr Brown was appealing against an accusation of trespass made by Mr Trotter. The alleged trespass took place on the heath of Alnwick Moor; an area which had been divided under enclosure Acts dated 2 March 1854. The Freemen of Alnwick possessed eatage (the right to use the grassland for pasturage) on Alnwick Moor. They had let this portion of the moor (where the trespass allegedly occurred) to Mr Trotter. Mr Trotter also leased game from his Grace the Duke of Northumberland, as evidenced by a stamped and sealed lease dated 13^th July 1876. This game was to be managed by Mr Trotter and reserved for the Dukes’ private hunting. Alnwick Moor also adjoined the Dukes’ personal park, where another large group of game was also preserved. Consequently, game belonging to the Duke frequently came over the Duke’s Wall onto the heath moor (possessed and managed by the Freemen of Alnwick).

Mr Trotter had employed Mr Brown and his father to act as shepherds. They were instructed to care for the moor and given accommodation on the allotments. But Mr Trotter argued that their treatment of that portion of the moor was motivated by greed, and that they had abused their position by illegally hunting. In court Mr Trotter, a Gentleman of Alnwick , claimed Brown had illegally trespassed and hunted the Duke’s game. He was supported in his claims by a string of witness testimonies.

In the initial trial Henry Embleton Trotter attested to:

“[finding] the Defendant on Alnwick Moor between Reedside Road and Turnpike. I am leasee of Game. He had a dog and gun and ranging the ground. I cautioned him a fortnight before. He said he had a right to carry a gun. He fired a shot after I left him. I watched him for an hour and half with a glass – grouse on the place. I know he is the shepherd’s son. No sheep were where I found him and the dog ranging.”

Mr Trotter claimed he had seen Mr Brown stalking (passing between parcels of land with no obvious permission to do so.) Mr Brown claimed he was carrying out his duty as a shepherd; to carry a gun and protect the land. Mr Dix, who represented Mr Brown in the original trial, addressed the magistrates stating there was no actual case to answer, as Mr Trotter had not actually seen Mr Brown fire his gun and had actually only observed him passing between parcels of land. This, Mr Dix stated, was not a crime. He claimed his client carried a gun as two sheep had been lost to stray dogs during the previous month. He also emphasized how willing and compliant Mr Brown had been when searched for illegal game – a search which proved to be fruitless.

The bench of Justices consisted of the following individuals:

J Craster Esq
S F Widdrington Esq
T Clutherbuck Esq
J R Carr Ellison Esq

Despite Mr Dix’s strong case this gathering of men believed, for whatever reason, that the evidence against Mr Brown was quite sufficient to justify a conviction. However, the defendant had 3 days to serve a Notice of Appeal following the Justices Meeting. The case had been heard on a Saturday; thus meaning Sunday was the 1^st day, Monday the 2^nd & Tuesday the 3^rd. But the Respondent did not get the Notice until the 4^th day (Wednesday morning) when it was picked up in the Archway near the outer door of his house. If the Notice had been put under the door anytime before 10.30 pm o’clock on the Tuesday the respondent said he would have seen it; for he had “set a friend of his to the outer door at that time and no Notice was seen in the Archway at where it had been pushed under the gate next the street.”

The notice stated:

To Henry Emblazon Trotter of Alnwick in the County of Northumberland Gentleman.

Take notice that, I , the undersigned Thomas Brown of Alnwick Moor, in the County of Northumberland, Shepherd, do intend to enter and prosecute an appeal at the next General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace to be holden not less than 12 days after the 7^th day of October instant at Newcastle upon Tyne, in and for the County of Northumberland against a certain conviction or order bearing the date the said 7^th day of October instant and made by John Craster and S F Widdrington Esquires Her Majestys Justices of the Peace for the said County of Northumberland.

Mr Brown chose to appeal these false accusations and, as it would appear from related documentation, he had a strong case to do so. We can only hope he was found innocent of false charges.

We would like to thank the volunteer who carefully transcribed these documents and allowed this blog to be produced.

William Wailes – Visionary, Creator and Artist

10/11/202308/05/2018 by Northumberland Archives

William Wailes was one of England’s most accomplished and visionary stained glass manufacturers. A key partner in the internationally renowned firm Wailes and Strang, William used his artistic flair to promote philanthropy, decadent design and religious adulation.

A William Wailes design for a stained glass window, *DN/E/8/2/2/173*

German Glass

William was born in Newcastle Upon Tyne in 1808, the youngest son of Thomas Wailes. He had at least three siblings; George, Margaret and Elizabeth Anne. In the early 1830s, whilst still a youth, William traveled to Germany to develop his skills in glass production. Glass production was a meticulous art to master, and contemporaries often commented upon Wailes’ dedication to his chosen trade and the long hours he sacrificed to producing unique and precise designs. Upon returning to the North East he gradually established his own business in manufacturing and designing glass, by creating his earliest designs in a low-budget kiln.

Wailes advertised his abilities through various regional and national newspapers, mixing European techniques with competitive pricing. His hard work eventually paid off and his company soon became renowned for their unique ability to harness the bright colour pigments in glass (a difficult feat in the mid 1800s). Soon his work was being incorporated into religious architecture across the world. These intricate designs can still be enjoyed in many places today including India, Newcastle and Low Fell.

The detail of a Wailes – Strang design, *DN/E/8/2/2/137*

The success of his firm led to the employment (at any one time) of between 60 to 100 persons. William had a good reputation as an employer and, when one of his employees died in 1852, journalists at the funeral commented upon the bond between Wailes-Strang workers. William also enjoyed a good personal reputation, becoming Overseer of the Poor in 1848 for the Parish of Newcastle and patroning pupils from the Institution of the Deaf and Dumb.

Keeping the Business Personal

In January 1834 William married his wife, Janet Elizabeth Carr, at Alnwick. The couple had at least four children; Margaret Janet born in 1834, Anne Kirwood born in 1836, William Thomas Wailes born in 1838 and John Carr Wailes born in 1841. Whilst their youngest son, John, died at the tender age of nine their other children all survived to adulthood.

The Wailes and Strang families were closely interwoven, both personally and professionally. Margaret (William’s eldest daughter) married Thomas Rankin Strang, a partner in her father’s firm and a celebrated stain-glass manufacturer. Together they would have one son, William Wailes Strang, who would continue the family’s glass making legacy. The Wailes’ own son, William Thomas, married Jane Ward and together they had two daughters Frances Margaret and Ann Elizabeth.

In 1861 William and Janet were living in South Dene Towers, Gateshead. Their household at this time was substantial; comprising of their daughter Margaret, their son-in-law Thomas Strang, their grandson William, the ageing Wailes sisters Elizabeth and Margaret, three domestic servants, a visiting widow called Isabella Le Berkeley and a Sarah A Pashley. Their neighbours at this time were the Peasel’s who had made their fortune from banking. Also living nearby, in a row called “Wailes’ Gardens,” were a dozen or so gardeners. These men most likely worked for William on his new vision – redesigning Saltwell Estate in Gateshead.

William’s creative legacy still lives on in some of Gateshead’s street names

Saltwell Park

William’s creative vision led to him purchasing the site in the 1860s and building of a decorative mansion (known as Saltwell Towers). The building, gothically styled, is still greatly imposing with its soaring towers and numerous windows. In 1861, shortly after purchasing the site, William is listed as owning ten acres and employing three men, fourteen boys and two women to care for his land. These individuals were most likely employed to help William realise his vision of cultivated gardens. Ten years later, in 1871, William owned 235 acres of land across the region.

However, almost twenty years after purchasing Saltwell Estate, William ran into financial difficulties and was forced to sell his dream to the Gateshead Corporation whom opened the gardens up as a public park. In the heart-breaking deal William was allowed to remain resident in the towers until his death in 1881.

The Will of Women

When William Wailes died in 1881 his will outlined how his personal estate, estimated in local papers to have been worth £25,403 3s 5d, should be divided between his family. This original document has been found amongst papers within the Dickson, Archer and Thorp collection and its date, late January, suggests it was hastily written on his death bed. The majority of William’s surviving blood relations were female, and it fell to them to both divide and claim his assets. These included his two daughters, two granddaughters, widowed daughter-in-law and two sisters.

An extract from the will of William Wailes. *REF: NRO 11343/B/DAT*

He had appointed his daughter Anne Kirwood, his friend John Gibson and his son-in-law Thomas Rankin Strang to be his executors and trustees. He left a watch, belonging to his previously deceased son William Thomas, to his only grandson William Wailes Strang. He left his recently widowed daughter-in-law £20 for mourning, but instructed that her daughters should remain in the care of their aunt Anne Kirwood. Anne was to therefore act as the girls’ live-in mother and trustee until they reached the age of 21. William also bequeathed to his trustees and executors any money still owed to him by the Gateshead Corporation for the sale of Saltwell Park, and assigned yearly allowances to various family members. He also bequeathed gifts to the institution of the Deaf and Dumb.

The signature of William Wailes Strang, DN/E/8/2/2/137

William may have been gone but his legacy continued through his gifts of philanthropy and his grandson’s development of the family glass making business. William was an exceptional force admired for being hard-working, charitable and upstanding – the ultimate Victorian gentleman.

We would like to thank the volunteer who carefully transcribed the last will and testimony of William Wailes, without which this blog would not be possible.

Tied to the land – serfs from manorial history

07/04/2017 by Northumberland Archives

Through our manorial research we often come across references to serfdom, the ancient custom where people were owned by the lord of the manor. Though a complicated picture unfree people at this time largely fell into two types – villeins or bondsmen, who were unfree tenants that had some rights of inheritance over their home and land, and serfs, who were personally unfree. Some had far fewer rights and freedoms than others, and these are often hard to define as manorial structure differed from manor to manor.

After the Black Death the remaining workforce was in demand, and both groups were able to acquire better rights. This meant that in most places these sorts of ties to the land and the lord died out. However serfs could still be found in the 14^th and 15^th century in Woodhorn, Seaton, Hurst, Newbiggin and the barony of Mitford. These people formed the backbone of the manorial system, but leave very little trace in the historical record. However in the course of our research for our Manor Authority files (see this previous blog for how this is done) we sometimes find their names given, a fantastic insight into ordinary people’s lives in the medieval period. We will be looking at examples we have come across that help explain the lives of unfree serfs and bondsmen in Northumberland’s manors, and show what services to the lord of the manor were expected of them.

Some serfs were made and some were born. Roger Maudut claimed Ralph le Lorimer as his ‘nief’. This is a term for a type of serf, from old French, and is often

+ More