Fishing

BERWICK ADVERTISER, 16TH SEPTEMBER 1921

by

ANOTHER FIRE AT JOHNSON & DARLING’S BREWERY

Maltings, Stores and Kiln Gutted.

Heavy Damage

Within three months from the last outbreak the Tweed Brewery, Berwick, was again the scene of a startling fire on Tuesday morning. The blaze was the biggest, and most appalling that has been seen in Berwick for many a long day, while the damage wrought in such a short space of time was well-nigh staggering. Even a rough estimate of the damage to buildings and material destroyed cannot be given, but there is a likelihood of this being well over £12,000. It is expected that Insurance will cover the heavy loss, and it is not anticipated that the work of the Brewery will be greatly interfered with.

It was on June 17th that the rafters of the malting barley kiln took fire and it is a strange that last Monday, the night after the work of repairing the damaged kiln was completed, fire should again reduce to cinders the labour spent upon it. A little window frame, with the sizing coat of paint and putty still fresh upon it, set in the gaunt wall of the now partly gutted kiln, is a pathetic witness to how the work of mortal man can be undone in a night. As a matter of fact several of Mr R. Sidey’s plasterer’s men had not removed their tools from the building where they had been at work that afternoon before, and these have been lost in the fire. There is no night watchman on the premises, this not being considered necessary with the residences of directors in the firm in the vicinity and adjoining, but when the last of the workmen left on Monday night everything appeared to be all right and nothing out of the way was observed up to a late hour. The cause of the fire is therefore unknown, though it is suggested that the fusing of one of the electric wires which run through the building caused the outbreak. The Inspector from the Insurance Company however, who examined the premises on Wednesday, came to the conclusion that it was highly improbable that the fire had been started by one of the electric wires. There was no fire in the kiln to throw a spark, but the kiln had been whitewashed and got ready for malting to start this week.

There can be no doubt that the fire must have been smouldering for some considerable time before it was observed, for when Mr Thos. Darling was aroused at 2.45 by Mr Younger the flames were through the roof of the malt barn and were shooting for nearly twenty feet into the air. The fire originated in the malt barn without a doubt, and the portion of the building and the kiln were the first to be destroyed.

THE EXTENT OF THE DAMAGE

When day broke the fire was still raging furiously, but the buildings at the malting were little more than gaunt smoke-blackened and flamed-scared walls. The lower concrete floor, or first floor of the building, held, though upon it were tons of smouldering debris, which blazed up at intervals in spite of all the water poured upon it. The bulk of the floor, however, fell on Wednesday night and now lies smouldering in the ground floor. All through the day on Tuesday the first floor of the maltings smouldered and blazed up, and though all immediate danger was then past, fire-hose had to be kept playing on it.

The heavy rain which fell on Tuesday night damped down the smouldering mass but did not succeed in putting it out. A look through the gutted building on Wednesday morning revealed a truly appalling sight. Where large stocks of barley, hops and other brewing materials had been stored was a pitted mass of smouldering debris, with twisted and broken angle irons and bare sticking through. \the screening machinery and other plant used in the malting were entirely destroyed.

Section of the O.S. Map Second Edition, Berwick-upon-Tweed, 1852 showing the Tweed Brewery. Reference: BA-U10-04

The experience gained in this fire will have to be carefully weighed. Had it taken place in the High Street the steam fire engine could have been got to work, there being plenty of water, but in the Palace and no doubt other parts of the town the use of the steam fire engine is impossible. We cannot expect Berwick to maintain a fire prevention equipment like Glasgow or London. We know therefore that under the most favourable conditions, it will be half-an-hour before the Brigade turns out, that their best efforts are bound to be below the standard of city firemen, and that in many cases there will not be sufficient water to put out a big blaze. If there had to be a fire, a better night could not have been chosen for it than Monday. With a gale or a strong wind from the sea the damage must have been very much more serious. Are we going to continue to run the risk of this? If not, there seem to be two lines of defence- Either to increase the pressure of water all over the town, which would be very expensive, or to arrange that the storage of inflammable goods takes place only under approved conditions, which should include patrolling by night watchmen. Otherwise the safety of large blocks of the town may be at stake. One small improvement that could be made straight away is to connect up the telephone with the Superintendent and members of the Brigade, so that the alarm reaches them in their houses immediately, whether they are waking or sleeping. Again, the Brigade and equipment might, with advantage, be inspected annually by an independent expert, and a report presented to the Town Council. The police are inspected annually; why not he Fire Brigade?

THE CLOSE OF THE SALMON SEASON

The season which closed on September 14th is one of the most disappointing there has been. Not that it has been failure, but that at one time it promised to be a record success and then at the beginning of July the fish seemed to disappear in a body. Up till then exceptional catches were obtained both at the netting stations on the river and at the fixed nets on the coast north and south of the river-mouth. The first grilse was caught on April 27th, being earlier than last year, but the yield since then has been poor in number and quality. The great catches of the season were in trout and salmon. The prices realised for Tweed salmon have been good. Most other things have at any rate doubled in price; but this has not been so with salmon, which have therefore been relatively cheap, and certainly, on the whole, considerably lower than last year.

Pictured, in 1956, are sisters Grace and Annie Meston, employees at the former premises of Ralph Holmes & Sons in Bridge Street, Berwick. The salmon was caught at the North Bells Fishery, and weighed in at 38¼ pounds. Reference: BRO 1944-1-1341-3

The most disquieting feature is that for quite a number of years now the fish have fallen away in the latter months of the season. There have been various explanations of this year’s shortage. One of them is that the fish have been driven away by porpoises and dolphins. From the salmon caught it is easily seen that the porpoises have been busy, but they have been no more numerous than they have been in the past, though, of course, the shortage of herring has been put down to the high temperature of the water allowing the sharks to come north. But even if porpoises or sharks explained this year’s shortage that would only be a temporary cause. It is the constant shortage in the later months of the season which is the serious problem. What is more likely to be the correct explanation is that we used to be able to rely on getting floods, say about Tweedmouth Feast time and the Fair, which thoroughly cleaned out the river. These have been wanting in recent years. We have has rises in the river, after rain, but not sufficient in volume to make a clean sweep. They just serve to bring down the accumulated pollution of the river to the river-mouth, nut they do not scatter it out to the sea. The result is that the foul water drives off the fish and they disappear from the neighbourhood entirely. We have had heavy rain lately, and there is osem sign of the fish returning to the river-mouth, which seems to support the theory. On the other hand, it may be simply that they have had their usual tip that the close season is at hand.

The necessity for flooding the river is what makes the abstraction of the Talla water so serious. Most of that water is flood water, and if it were all returned to the river at regular intervals the necessary scouring would not result. We have turned the tweed into a sewer and a sewer needs flushing. To do what is needed, the reservoir’s contribution should be let out once or twice in the season at a gush, when the river is high without it. This unfortunately the reservoir authorities are not prepared to do, but until we can arrange for flushing we may have to do without the fish.

Berwick Advertiser, 4 March 1921

by

SALMON PLENTIFUL

With a continuance of the remarkably fine weather conditions, the good catches of salmon on Tweed fishings have been well maintained during the ten days that have elapsed since the operations were commenced for the season, making the 1921 opening the most favourable in recent years. Whether this luck continues throughout the season is yet to be determined, but it is certain that the fish are in the river in a greater abundance than they have been for years. The catches have been pretty equally distributed over the fisheries, an equally good return coming from the higher reaches as from the fisheries at the river-mouth. Even Crab Water, where fishing is as a rule poor at this time of year, has had good catches, landing over thirty salmon in one day. The fish are all young salmon, not large in size, but of excellent quality and appearance. Trout are not quite so plentiful. The price quoted for salmon this week is 2s 5d per lb, having fallen during the week from 3s on the opening days. No prices are quoted for trout. 

Pictured above is the former Crabwater fishery at the corner of Berwick Pier. On the opening of the salmon net fishing season in 1921, Crabwater had an exceptionally good start with catches up on previous years. REF: BRO 1944-1-5-1

During the past quarter of a century there have been few such auspicious openings. In 1895 the weather conditions were not favourable, as the Tweed between Chain Bridge and Carham for about 16 miles was frozen over, making fishing impossible in the upper reaches, though the fishermen endeavoured to break up the ice with hammers. When, however, the ice broke up and the river-mouth was cleared, the catches were good, and the price was 1s 6d per pound – as low a figure as had been reached for many years. For the next ten years the openings were generally poor, and although the weather conditions were open, the catches were scanty. In 1905, in a spell of fine open weather, there was a very good opening, and with a good load of fish in the river, as many as 100 salmon were landed in one area at the opening tide. Although prices had averaged from 2s to 2s 2d per lb for the previous ten years, this run of luck reduced the prices to 1s 11d.  

With an improving foreign market, the demand for fish is keen, though supplies asked for from the Continent are not so great as in pre-war days, when a large export trade was done from Tweed with Paris and Boulogne. 

HINTS FOR THE HOME

Piano keys which have turned yellow can be whitened by the following method. Rub the keys with lemon juice, and while still damp polish with a cloth dipped in whiting or prepared chalk. Don’t let this get between the keys. 

If a fire is needed in the bedroom, the time taken in lighting if often sufficient to do away with the good it gives. Gas fumes are bad for a sleeping person, but an electric radiator can be switched on in a second and turned off directly the need for it has disappeared. 

Brass lids of fruit bottles often get stuck. Drop a little salad oil between the bottle and the lid with the aid of a feather, and then place the bottle about 18 inches from the fire. After the heat has caused the oil to run round the edge of the lid, a slight tap will release the lid. 

Custard will curdle if you cook it too long or at too high temperature. A boiled custard should be cooked until it coats at the back of the spoon, and the water should not boil but be kept hot. A baked custard is tried with a knife, and if the knife comes out clean the custard is cooked, even if it is not brown. 

MARCH HIRING

Belford

There was quite a good attendance at the annual hiring market for farm servants at Belford on Wednesday, and with good weather prevailing, those present spent a more pleasant day than has been the rule in recent years, when rough weather often made the day a miserable one. Few engagements were made, most of those present either having already engaged at present rates or hanging off until later markets. In spite of the difference of opinion of farmers as to whether women workers should be paid by hour or the week, the latter arrangement not being considered satisfactory, the demand for women workers was in excess of the supply. Only a few engagements were made, however, at the present weekly rate. 

Wooler

There was a much larger gathering at Wooler Hiring Market on Thursday than for some years past, so large indeed that the supply seemed greater than the demand. Business was very slow, and in general nothing more than the minimum wage for men and women was asked for or offered. The majority of the agreements entered into with women were for 30s a week, the old custom of the daily wage being adhered to. There was a large attendance of farmers from Glendale and district. The difficulty of fixing up was not so much a question of wages as of adequate housing accommodation, many large families of workers not getting a chance. Representatives of the Workers’ Union were busy among the crowd in High Street in front of the Black Bull, and a meeting of workers was held in the Archbold Hall in the afternoon.

An early 20th century photograph of Wooler Mart, where in 1921 large numbers gathered for the ‘hiring’s.’ REF: BRO 2134-10

The weather was dull and cold, with a blustery wind that made standing about disagreeable. The larger part of the workers from the district arrived in Wooler with the early train, but many in the immediate neighbourhood cycled into the town during the forenoon. By midday the crowd had thinned considerably. No shows or roundabouts this year, only a few stalls near the Market Cross, and one or two “cheapjacks” endeavouring to dispose of their wares to the attentive but irresponsive crowd. 

Craster Fishermen in Dispute with Landowner

by

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. 11th 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 17th 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 19th 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 8th 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, 31st 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 22nd 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 6th 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.

+ More