FEIGHTIN’ OVER T'KNOTTLA FLATTS
by TERRY SPENCER B.A. (Hons), Ph D
Situated on
the southern bank of the River Aire, to the north side of Aire Street, lies
Knottingley Flatts. Today, the Flatts occupy only a small portion of the
original layout which comprised the greater part of Knottingley Ings,
which in consequence of seasonal flooding were rich in alluvial soil and
therefore ideal for cultivation.
By the mid
eleventh century the Flatts, as the name indicates, formed the oldest
element in the system of common land ownership which characterised the
agricultural system of manorial organisation. (1)
By the
thirteenth century however, further population settlement had occurred in
the ‘greens’ areas of the vill and an extensive open field system had
been developed at the south side of the manor of Knottingley, leaving the
central area of the Flatts clear and allowing wider access to the
riverside and the Marsh at the opposite side. It was at this time that the
maritime activity began to develop apace with landing places and jetties
promoting the construction of storehouses and dwellings. Throughout
succeeding centuries such encroachments occurred at either end of the High
Street so that by the early nineteenth century the Flatts had become
confined to the approximate dimensions of the present time.
Two of the
most significant encroachments defining the size of the modern Flatts were
the establishment of the manorial demesne around and to the west of the
area occupied by the chapel of St. Botolph during the late Anglo-Saxon
period and the much later establishment of the shipyard in the Pickhill
Island area and the huge storehouse built on the orders of King Henry VIII
at the eastern end of the modern Flatts in the late medieval period. (2)
The major encroachments whilst official ones, encouraged the growth of
numerous smaller ones. Thus, although nominal control of the site was
vested in the lords of the manor and by suzerainty the Crown, the land was
held in commonality and was theoretically the peoples’. (3)
Following the
transition of the Flatts from agricultural to public land the watering of
beasts and pasturage on Brotherton Marsh became commonplace, occurring on
a daily and seasonal basis. In addition, as the river channel was deepened
to facilitate the transport and despatch of waterborne cargoes, ferry’s
replaced the original fords. The public land also provided a drying space
for residents of Aire Street, an exercise which had by the nineteenth
century acquired the status of customary right. (4)
The potential
conflict of interest is revealed by the survey of 1594 arising from the
action initiated by the Duchy of Lancaster against John Brown and William
Battle who it was alleged had encroached upon "the
waste of the Manor known as the High Street... ...under
the River Aire by erecting a house of stone thereon."
The same
survey also showed an additional encroachment on the site of the Flatts by
William Longwood. (5)
In 1628,
Charles I, in dispute with Parliament and strapped for cash, divided into
four parts "all
that land known as the Manor of Knottingley" and sold off
each sub-division, thereby in effect, creating four lordships, each with a
proprietorial interest in the Flatts.
The principal
use of the Flatts by the general public was in conjunction with the annual
festival to commemorate St. Botolph to whom the local chapel was dedicated
and whose saint’s day was observed on the 17th June. By the
early nineteenth century the festival had developed into a weeklong
celebration held each July and known colloquially as the ‘Feast’. At
this time the Feast had begun to attract an increasing number of showmen,
stallholders, itinerant vendors and entertainers as natives of the town,
exiled for various reasons used the celebrations of the Feast to return
home and renew acquaintance with family and simultaneously local mariners
sought to return from sea voyages in time to participate in the festival.
(6) With the application of steam power to various rides and amusements
the space required to house the Feast increased, the site becoming
increasingly congested by the presence of mechanical attractions and the
merrymakers they attracted.
The date when
the Feast was first held on the Flatts is not known but certainly by 1848
the event had begun to command so much space that it was proving to be a
temporary inconvenience to those inhabitants requiring regular access to
the Flatts. In June of that year a resolution was passed by the Select
Vestry "That
the annual feast shall be in future held on Racca Green." (7)
The
banishment from the Flatts appears to have been ineffectual for the Feast
was restored to the Flatts.
It was at
this time that attention became focused on the Feast as a potential source
of revenue. In January 1849, the Select Vestry decreed "that
the [Parish] Constable demand of the show-folks rent for setting up their
shews (sic) on the flatts (sic) to the amount of £1-0-0 per night."
(8)
The extent to
which the decision represents an attempt to cash in on what was regarded
as an increasingly lucrative event or was merely a punitive exercise
designed to drive the show people from the site is conjectural. At all
events a regular toll does not appear to have been levied for it was not
until July 1867 that it was further proposed to "…charge
stalls, puppet shows, Hobby-Horses and all similar erections a rent for
permission to fix them on the Flatts during the Feast & Co." (9)
At that time
the Surveyor of Highways was detailed to collect tolls and apply them in
aid of the local Highway Rate. The proposal was not implemented that year
however, due to there being insufficient time to organise a system of
collection and provide adequate notice to the showmen and the public that
a facility which had hitherto been free was now to be paid for.
That the
ratepaying element of the Knottingley public favoured the proposal is
beyond doubt. At a Town’s Meeting held on Friday 8th August
1867, William Worfolk’s proposal "that
a rent be charged to persons for stalls, theatres, Hobby-Horses and all
similar erections for permission to set them on the Flatts and that no
entertainment or stall & Co. be permitted to remain longer than one
week" obtained
unanimous approval. The fact that such dues were earmarked to subsidise
the rates may have been a powerful influence. (10) In the light of
subsequent events it is somewhat ironic that William Worfolk in the
capacity of Surveyor of Highways that year, should be the proposer of the
motion to levy tolls on the use of the Flatts at the behest of the Select
Vestry.
Despite
popular support the plan failed to be enforced. Ancient constraints with
the force of law appear to be the reason for nothing further is heard of
the proposal until May 1879 when Joseph Senior offered to travel to Selby
at his own expense in order to consult Messrs Weddal & Parker,
solicitors on behalf of the Vestry, concerning the Flatts. (11) The offer
was gratefully accepted, being described as "…the
best plan to be adopted at the present."
The outcome
of Senior’s consultation seem to have been unfavourable, however, for at
a subsequent Vestry meeting it was stated "…with
reference to the Flatts and movements of the Lords of the Manor…. a
placard be issued that by order of the Vestry all persons visiting the
feast will be allowed to set up their stalls, shows and other temporary
erections free during the feast week and they be requested not to pay
anybody whatever who demands a toll during that time for the present
year." (12)
Reading
between the lines it is apparent that the Vestry desired to charge for the
use of the Flatts, and indeed, as the final phrase, "for the present
year", indicates, were hopeful of doing so at some future date.
However, legal opinion that the Flatts were held in common right,
precluded levying a toll for use of the site.
While the
majority of the Vestrymen reluctantly adhered to this policy it had been
challenged by one of their number – William Worfolk. Worfolk, a
shipbuilder and smallholder, had been resident at Knottingley since 1843,
becoming a member of the Select Vestry in 1858 and holding a number of
public offices between 1862 and his death in July 1886. (13)
Worfolk gave
evidence to the Royal Commission on unseaworthy ships in 1873, the only
representative of the town to do so. (14) In that year Worfolk also
purchased one half of the town’s manorial rights, although half that
holding was disposed of following mounting financial difficulties during
the following decade. (15)
A forceful,
contentious man, Worfolk was no stranger to controversy nor litigation. In
his role of Parish Constable in 1875-75, Worfolk brought an action against
Knottingley farmer, George Joliffe, seeking damages of £100 for alleged
slander by claiming that Worfolk had sworn a false oath claiming
non-payment of rates by Joliffe. Worfolk won the case but was awarded the
contemptuous sum of one farthing compensation in what was described as the
most trivial legal case brought before a London court. (16) Earlier,
Worfolk had been involved in a legal action against two local printers and
publishers of a local newspaper who it is claimed, had made defamatory
statements concerning his conduct as a Trustee at the time of the
construction of Knottingley Town Hall in 1864, the matter being settled
out of court. (17) Again, in 1877, Worfolk was at the forefront of
controversy, refusing to pay tolls on the Weeland Road Turnpike and
successfully leading public resistance and agitation for the abolition of
the tolls. (18)
Worfolk
responded to the public notice issued by the Vestry advocating non-payment
for use of the Flatts by issuing one of his own:
"The
Flatts
I have
seen a bill posted in the Town with the names of seventeen Townsmen
appended, purporting to be the ‘Select Vestry’; such a body does not
legally exist, as the Select Vestry was abolished when the Township became
part of the Pontefract Union [1862] Some of these are names of the very
persons who for years have been trying to establish and levy a Toll upon
all persons who set up Temporary Erections upon the Flatts. I was present
at the so-called Vestry Meeting, and it was admitted that neither
Overseers, Waywardens or Surveyors could collect any Toll; and so ‘Dog
in the Manger like’, they resolved to advise nobody to pay. The Lords of
the Manor have the right of so doing (which is bought and paid for) and
the will insist upon maintaining their rights in this matter.
Wm.Worfolk
Knottingley, July 26th, 1879
Hepworth, Printer, Knottingley.
As a
Vestryman for many years, Worfolk’s denunciation of the legal standing
of the Select Vestry, although technically correct, must have been
composed tongue in cheek, especially as he continued to be a Vestryman,
being appointed as Parish Constable for a second time in 1881. (19)
The matter
did not end in deadlock however, for Worfolk, with a keen eye for detail
and some little experience of the law, successfully sought the permission
of the Attorney General, Sir John Holker, to bring a prosecution against
Charles Fawbert, printer and proprietor of the Castleford Gazette. Fawbert
had printed the handbills issued on behalf of the Select Vestry at
Knottingley Feast, denying Worfolk’s right to levy tolls. Worfolk
claimed that the bills were offensive, depriving him of money which was
rightfully his. The case however, hinged upon a technicality. Under the
Acts 32 & 33 Victoria, cap 34, sec 2, the issue of a public document
required the name of the printer upon it. Worfolk contended that Fawbert
had contravened the Statute by omitting his name. Fawbert, whilst pleading
guilty, questioned whether the offence came under the terms of the Acts
since there was no intention to give offence. Fawbert also claimed that
the omission was an unsupervised error which had occurred in consequence
of his being away from home at the time the bills were printed and that
the smallest fine possible should be imposed. The offence was subject to a
fine of up to £5 but Fawbert was merely fined one penny for each of the
nine bills issued, plus costs. Again, a Pyrrhic victory for Worfolk. (20)
The issue of
the right to levy tolls continued unresolved for many years thereafter. In
1881, George Greenhow and John Skipworth Bentley proposed at the annual
Town’s Meeting that "the
Flatts be let to persons wishing to occupy them."
Worfolk,
supported by a fellow tradesman, Mr. Wetherill, countered with an
amendment "that
the Flatts be not let."
The matter
being put to the vote by a show of hands, the Chairman, Mark Stainsby,
ruled the amendment carried. (21) Whether Worfolk saw the irony in
asserting his right to levy tolls for the use of the Flatts whilst
simultaneously advocating prohibition on their use is conjectural. At the
time of William Worfolk’s death in 1886, the matter remained unresolved,
the issue being contested by Thomas Worfolk, son of the deceased for more
than twenty years thereafter. (22) During that period both parties in the
dispute made sporadic attempts to collect rents from users of the Flatts.
Worfolk and son collected some tolls at intervals from 1875, at the time
of the Feast and on other occasions, albeit not every year, nor from all
occupiers of space. Worfolk’s stated intent being a token assertion of
his right to do so. (23) In 1883 the Select Vestry, ignoring a public vote
against charging for use of the Flatts, taken at a Town’s Meeting in
1881, (24) instructed George Greenhow, the current Waywarden, to make a
variable charge in proportion to the space occupied by individual showmen.
Greenhow was followed around the fairground by William Worfolk who advised
the booth proprietors not to pay. Meeting with a determined refusal from a
stallholder selling hot peas, Greenhow overturned the stall and in the
process allegedly scalded two children. A court case ensued which was,
however, dismissed by the local justices. (25)
By the early
1890s the Select Vestry was obtaining between £30 and £50 per annum in
rents from the Flatts and in 1895, desiring a more structured layout with
stricter supervision and management of the site, the newly established
Urban District Council passed a resolution to take formal possession of
the Flatts. All persons having any rights in the site were invited to make
known their claim. A claim by Thomas Worfolk, lodged on behalf of the
Lords of the Manor was defined as being ‘perfectly visionary’ and
dismissed out of hand. Shortly thereafter it was declared that no one had
any rights in respect of the land and in July 1895 the Council passed a
resolution to take formal possession of the Flatts. Accordingly, a group
of councillors visited the Flatts to claim title to the site, giving
notice of quittance to one Mitchell who had a stall there. Orders were
given for the immediate fencing-in of the land to prevent trespass. On the
9th July, notices were issued by the Council requesting
applications from stallholders, circus and theatre proprietors and showmen
intending to visit the Flatts for the forthcoming festival. (26)
The crude
fence of upended railway sleepers with pea piping laid across the tops and
chains fastened by nuts and bolts at the access corners, was erected on
the 19th July 1895 and remained undisturbed until 1907 when
Worfolk broke the barrier and committed various acts of trespass. (27)
Worfolk was
no stranger to the clearance of obstacles from the Flatts. As early as
1875, on the instructions of his father, he and a workman had cut down and
removed posts erected by nearby residents for use in drying washing. (28)
With the
advent of steam driven vehicles and fairground amusements a water tank had
been erected upon the Flatts to supply the engines of the showmen. Having
removed the nuts and bolts to lower the chains and facilitate access to
the site, Worfolk next inspected the water tank, asking why the supply had
been disconnected and stating it would be required by the showmen. The
following day, the 26th July, Worfolk confronted the K.U.D.C
Surveyor, Mr. Ingle and the Sewerage Works Manager, Mr. Southwell, and
repeated his demand. Worfolk was informed that the showmen must first pay
tolls to the Council and a workman was left to prevent further trespass on
the site.
Worfolk
successfully collected tolls every year between 1895-1907 but was
prevented from so doing at the time of the Feast in the latter years.
However, in October, Worfolk again released the chains to provide access
for Mr. Dennis, the proprietor of a small circus from whom he received
payment. As a result, early in November, timbers were laid at the spot
previously chained off and a workman left on the site temporarily to
prevent their removal.
In
consequence of Worfolk’s action the council brought an action against
him which was heard in the High Court of Chancery. At the hearing on
Monday and Tuesday, 3rd – 4th November 1908,
evidence of a contradictory nature was given for both sides. Thomas Ingle,
K.U.D.C. Surveyor, Walter Swaine, Town Clerk and others testified to the
collection of tolls by the Select Vestry and K.U.D.C. All agreed that the
Flatts had been the venue for the fair for at least upward of half a
century but acknowledged under cross examination, common usage of the site
for access to Brotherton Marsh by means of the public ferry and also for
the purpose of grazing cattle and additionally, as a landing place for
river traffic. Regarding the latter, however, it was stated that since the
mid nineteenth century when the bulk of waterborne traffic transferred to
the canal, the river had gradually silted up and it was no longer possible
for cargoes to be landed from the Flatts.
Worfolk, for
his part, claimed he had an intimate knowledge of the Flatts, since 1852,
having gone to a day school there. (29) Worfolk cited from personal
knowledge born of experience free use of the site for domestic and
personal use. Regarding tolls, Worfolk reiterated the claims of the Lords
of The Manor to levy the same and stated that his father had once sued a
man named Barnes for non-payment but had failed to recover the dues as
Barnes had claimed he had never been on the Flatts. Informed that another
Lord of the Manor, Mr. William Jackson, had declined to assert any title
to the Flatts, Worfolk said he didn’t regard Jackson as a manorial lord
and also admitted that he had not paid any of the tolls he had previously
collected to any other of the Lords of the Manor.
The weakness
of Worfolk’s case was his inability to produce any documentation giving
proof of title but he underlined the Lords’ authority in respect of the
site by pointing out that when in 1864 a newly formed company desired to
erect a town hall on the Flatts the company sought the permission of the
then holder of the manorial rights, a Mr. Warley, who refused consent on
the grounds that it was not desirable to erect buildings on the Flatts.
(30)
The Council,
also aware of the tenuous nature of its title, emphasised its claim by
stressing uninterrupted access for twelve years. The point was a crucial
one for in giving his judgement Mr. Justice Parker found in favour of the
Council due to their having taken formal possession of the land, fencing
it in and thus ensuring a possessory title by twelve years occupation of
the site. Not only was Worfolk unable to prove title but had exercised
only sporadic ownership. His claim was therefore denied. The Judge refused
the Council’s application for damages but ruled that Worfolk should pay
the costs of legal action. (31)
At the
subsequent K.U.D.C. meeting the Chairman, Cr. J. Jackson, made reference
to the ‘regrettable’ action concerning the Flatts and expressed the
hope that any hard feelings would henceforth be buried. It was decided
however, to record the judgement in the Council minutes. Mr. Thomas
Worfolk voted against. (32)
Just over
half a century later the question of ownership of the Flatts arose again.
In 1961, the council passed a motion that ".503 of an acre presently held as a public open space be
appropriated" ..in order to
enable flats to be erected upon the Flatts. (33) The decision to develop
the site was confirmed at a meeting of the council early in July. In
response to a query from Cr. W. O’Brien concerning the ownership of the
land Cr. P. Gross stated that some 60 years earlier the Flatts had been
purchased from the Lord of the Manor. (34) Public announcement of the
proposed development of the site caused outrage amongst a proportion of
the older Knottingley residents and resulted in a feature based on
correspondence and comment being published in the local paper. A statement
was issued by the Town Clerk, Mr. H. B. Probert, outlining the previous
history of the Flatts which showed Cr. Gross to be in error concerning the
facts. The report also featured a scathing statement from Cr. O’Brien that
he had relied on the veracity of Cr. Gross’ statement and that "…this
had proved to be wrong – not for the first time."
In the light
of correction, O’Brien therefore considered a Town’s Meeting to be
appropriate. (35) Subsequently, a meeting was arranged "to
canvas public opinion" in order that "the
question of who owns the Flatts be fully ventilated." (36)
Attendance at
the Town’s meeting was somewhat sparse. Opening the meeting Cr. W.B.
Piper, the K.U.D.C. Chairman said objections to the proposed development
of the Flatts had been invited as early as 1959 and only one objection
received – from a man who had long used the space to park his car.
Councillor O’Brien
won the hearts of the assembly by saying that the issue was clearly not
just one of development but that there were underlying considerations of
sentiment. Amidst cheers he stated that negotiations with the contractors
should be stopped and the Flatts converted into a pleasure ground complete
with boating facilities for the benefit of the townspeople. (37)
The meeting
concluded with a straight vote as to whether the Flatts should be left as
an open space. Of the 91 people present 55 voted in favour of leaving the
land undeveloped, 4 voted in favour of development of the site and 32
people abstained. (38) The development scheme was subsequently abandoned;
(39) ostensibly in accordance with public demand but a further influential
and unstated reason was the awareness that the original estimate of cost
had become obsolete even before preliminary negotiations concerning the
housing development had commenced. (40)
The Flatts
continued to provide a venue for circus and fairs for several years
thereafter before being landscaped in 1972. (41)
Dr. Terry Spencer
Reproduced with the kind permission of Dr. Terry Spencer
Feightin'
Over T' Knottla' Flatts is copyright ©Terry Spencer 2003
|
