PDA

View Full Version : The peasants are revolting



Banquo's Ghost
03-10-2007, 11:26
Poor old Devonshire is having a bit of trouble (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2344773.ece) with the tenantry.

Time was, His Grace could shoot the Great Unwashed for less or even better, hunt the fellows with dogs and then wipe the blood on his daughter's faces before tea. Then they would mutter a lot in their beer, rise in fury, steal some flintlocks and under the fey leadership of a romantic who got arrested three weeks before anything happened, betray each other, get massacred a bit and be home for supper and potato water.

The good old days.

Anyway, does anyone think Devonshire should give up his rights (assuming the old fool James didn't actually sign them over twice, which is entirely likely)? It'd be a bit of a blow - I fish that stream occasionally myself, and then maybe the rebels would come after my family's rights.

Anglers invoke King James in battle to fish Duke of Devonshire's river


By David McKittrick, Ireland Correspondent
Published: 10 March 2007

It could be shrugged off as an argument over fish, but in fact it is a classic dispute over ancient rights and local pleasures, over privileges and prerogatives, which stretches back centuries into the Celtic mist.

A few unemployed southern Irish anglers are taking on a scion of Britain's high nobility in the person of the 12th Duke of Devonshire, Peregrine Andrew Morny Cavendish, friend of the Prince of Wales and inheritor of fabulous wealth. And some prize salmon are at stake.

The resonances echo down the centuries: James I makes an appearance in the legal dispute, as does Magna Carta, Henry VIII and Sir Walter Raleigh. So, in more modern times, do Fred Astaire and Tiger Woods.

The origins of the tussle go back a long, long way. It centres on properties and rights that the Devonshires have held for 400 years or so. Among many other assets the family owns Lismore castle in Waterford and fishing rights on the river Blackwater in Cork.

For a time in the 16th century, the castle belonged to Sir Walter Raleigh, but it has been in the possession of the Cavendishes for centuries since. The salmon fishing rights were also established centuries ago, and they have been unsuccessfully challenged many times since.

In a dispute over the fishing rights a few years ago, some locals deliberately went fishing on the river without permission, and were subsequently convicted of trespassing. An appeal has been lodged.

A case concerning the rights was heard in the House of Lords comparatively recently - that is, in 1882 - and was won by the Cavendishes. King James I apparently made a grant in 1613, starting the whole thing off.

But Oliver Casey, a councillor in Youghal Town Council, has unearthed in the dusty archives a document marked Folio 1648 which, he says, quite clearly indicates that the King gave the rights to the mayor in 1609.

This, he argues, is the most ancient of all grants and should prevail. In any case, Mr Casey adds: "I can't understand how a person could own waters like this. I think the Duke should relinquish his rights."

The Duke, however, is adamant that the 1613 patent awarded to the Earl of Cork, one of his ancestors, is the operative document. Mr Casey speaks wistfully of a legal challenge but says the council does not have the funds to mount one.

The Duke spends some time at the castle, although he lives in Derbyshire where his art collection includes works by Canaletto, Gainsborough, Renoir, Raphael and Rembrandt.

He said in a recent interview: "Naturally, this huge castle belonging to an English Duke isn't really ideal for a republic. I'm confident that the relationship with the local community is good, although we're absentee which is not ideal. Twenty or 30 years ago it was more difficult."

At its annual conference in Dublin last month Sinn Fein specified that the Duke's fishing rights should be abolished, demanding that property owned by "British aristocratic landlords" should be seized by compulsory purchase orders.

Locally however, those involved in challenging the rights are adamant that the Devonshires are a popular family and that no element of anti-British feeling comes into the issue.

"There's no ill-feeling against him or anything like that," Mr Casey insists. "I'm sure he's a nice guy. It's just the fishing rights." Others in the district tell the same story.

When Prince Charles and the then Camilla Parker Bowles visited Waterford to stay with the Cavendishes a few years ago, they were welcomed and indeed greeted with applause. Previous visitors have included the dancer Fred Astaire, whose sister Adele lived at the castle after marrying Lord Charles Cavendish, and the golfer Tiger Woods.

King Henry V
03-10-2007, 12:36
I think the Duke quite clearly has the legal rights for fishing in the river. Though King James did appear to have granted the rights to the mayor before he granted them to the Duke, I doubt that he gave them to the entire town, rather only the mayor personally would have had rights, in which case only his descendants would be able to claim the right to fish in the river. However, I do think Devonshire should make a good will gesture by say allowing a limited number people to fish there for a certain period during the year, so that relationships do not sour and fire-brands such as Sinn Fein are allowed to get a hold.

P.S. I think's hightime Hollywood make an action film about this event, with Mel Gibson or Colin Farrell. Like Braveheart, but with fish.

Slyspy
03-10-2007, 14:36
I hate the term "compulsory purchase".

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2007, 14:53
well he could allow limited fishing by the locals but that would be rather like being their lord (which he is, like it or lump it.)

So this is really a clash of Republic vs Aristocracy. Is the Duke a private citizen or a Lord in Ireland?

Slyspy
03-10-2007, 15:10
A private citizen with extensive land holdings I would assume.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-10-2007, 15:53
In which case it's his river, with which he can do as he so pleases.

KukriKhan
03-11-2007, 13:06
In which case it's his river, with which he can do as he so pleases.

Two things about that. (Disclaimer: I profess high ignorance of Irish law):

1) A land owner, in many jurisdictions, can lay claim to the riverbed, but not the liquid flowing over it or the stuff swimming in it, which are seen as public property.

2) Does a license granted in the 1600s by a former sovereign still have relevancy since the new republic?

Husar
03-11-2007, 17:21
1) A land owner, in many jurisdictions, can lay claim to the riverbed, but not the liquid flowing over it or the stuff swimming in it, which are seen as public property.
In that case he could just not allow them to set foot onto his land so they'd have to swim and make sure they don't touch the riverbed while chasing the fish.~;)

Fisherking
03-11-2007, 17:56
Tell me, is it trespassing to take a boat down the river? I know in the US waterways are deemed public property. Did the Republic make any of the same provisions?

Clearly this is something that will have to be settled in court or with legislation. As much as I favour individual rights I am not sure I would uphold the Duke's right to all the fish in the river. I would say that those recourses belong to everyone equally.

Banquo's Ghost
03-11-2007, 17:59
Two things about that. (Disclaimer: I profess high ignorance of Irish law):

1) A land owner, in many jurisdictions, can lay claim to the riverbed, but not the liquid flowing over it or the stuff swimming in it, which are seen as public property.

This is about the fishing rights. The right to take fish is usually (but not always) tied to the land rights.


2) Does a license granted in the 1600s by a former sovereign still have relevancy since the new republic?

The Republic inherited the statutes and legal obligations prior to its establishment - in the main. Land and associated rights would have continued unbroken - thank goodness, or I'd be living in a council house. :wink3:

I think this would have been true in most former colonies - did landowners in the United States forfeit their lands when you gained independence? (Aside from attainder or treason). It was only after serious revolutions that land was lost - for example, we had our French holdings taken away in the Revolution, only getting them back from that nice emperor for a bit of service.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-11-2007, 19:29
Sorry, does that last bit mean that Irish nobles who fought for the French got their pre-revolution holdings back? I don't understand the reference.

KukriKhan
03-11-2007, 21:52
I think this would have been true in most former colonies - did landowners in the United States forfeit their lands when you gained independence? (Aside from attainder or treason).

A good question, with an "it depends" answer. It depends on what land, previously held by what landowner, and how acquired.

IIRC, in the original 13 colonies, formerly Brit holdings could be continued by resident landowners who professed US citizenship. Other holdings (by absentee landowners, including Crown lands) were made public property and auctioned.

Land to the west, up to the Mississippi River (half way into the continent) was acquired by treaty, conquest, and "eminent domain" (in other words: legislation and war).

We bought the Louisiana Purchase from France, and Alaska from Russia.

The soutwest, from Texas to the coast, was won from Mexico via spoils of war. There are still land holdings in New Mexico (I was surprised to find) still held by descendents of the original families from Mexico who were granted title by 1700s Mexican government grants. Those folks have been US citizens for generations, of course.

That's just a thumbnail view, and a serious land student could likely dispute some of my observations, but I think they're generally correct.

In all cases though, naturally-flowing water has always been seen as public property. Wells, dug by individuals on their own property = "their" water, unless it's shown to be tapping into a public resource (like an underground aquifer that supplies other water sources). This is all in flux over the past 20 years or so, and into the near future, as potable water sources, and their use (public/private, city/country) get debated.


In that case he could just not allow them to set foot onto his land so they'd have to swim and make sure they don't touch the riverbed while chasing the fish

Hey, a new sports opportunity: Parachute fishing! Brilliant!

Banquo's Ghost
03-11-2007, 22:03
Sorry, does that last bit mean that Irish nobles who fought for the French got their pre-revolution holdings back? I don't understand the reference.

Sorry for the lack of clarity. The Emperor Napoleon occasionally saw fit to restore or grant new holdings to men who fought for him - in much the same way as kings have always done.

I was trying to make the point that it is usually in significant upheavals like revolutions that also tear up legal structures that lands are redistributed, rather than a change of sovereignty.

Kukri, thank you for the information - fascinating. I was convinced that some of the British nobility kept their land holdings as absentees, so I'm interested to learn otherwise.

Can anyone fish a river then, with or without a license? Who grants the license if there is such a provision?

KukriKhan
03-11-2007, 22:39
I was convinced that some of the British nobility kept their land holdings as absentees, so I'm interested to learn otherwise.

Uh-oh, if I've changed a previously-held view of yours, I'd better make sure I'm correct. I'll work on sourcing that assertion.

edit to add Treaty of Paris 1783 (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/paris.htm) , particularly Articles 5 and 6. It endorses the quit of Crown Lands, and acknowledges that some lands of Brit loyalists had been seized, then auctioned/resold. Those individual States that had sanctioned such seizures are bound to provide restitution for the loss.

So: some Brit land holders might have regained title to their former US holdings, on a state-by-state, and case-by-case, basis. So, we're both right.

Don'cha love when that happens? :)

Fisherking
03-11-2007, 23:16
William Johnson's family lost their holdings because they were seen as Torys...long story and they were likely driven to it by the Continentals…He was the first Baronet of New York…he was from Meath, formerly an O'Séan form one of the branches of the O'Neil's. I think the current Baronet lives in London. I think that family was the only ones in residence during the Revelation.

As to fishing licences they are issued by the States, and can be purchased in a wide verity of locations.In most locations you need a licence if you are over 16 years of age. Federal lands have their own rules but require no licence.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-12-2007, 00:12
Sorry for the lack of clarity. The Emperor Napoleon occasionally saw fit to restore or grant new holdings to men who fought for him - in much the same way as kings have always done.

I was trying to make the point that it is usually in significant upheavals like revolutions that also tear up legal structures that lands are redistributed, rather than a change of sovereignty.

Kukri, thank you for the information - fascinating. I was convinced that some of the British nobility kept their land holdings as absentees, so I'm interested to learn otherwise.

Can anyone fish a river then, with or without a license? Who grants the license if there is such a provision?

Oh the point was clear, it was just the reference I didn't get, well even then I got the gist. I'm beggining to wonder just how big your ancestors were though.

Hosakawa Tito
03-12-2007, 00:28
A loaded salmon at five paces should do the trick.

Fishy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJQp-q1Y1s)