Any comments, errors or omissions
gratefully received The
Editor
HTML Transcription ©
F.Coakley , 2017
J. K. QUALTROUGH
IN the Island, as in Britain, the ever-increasing pace of technological change in recent years has caused the disappearance of many of the once-flourishing rural industries. Most of these enterprises had long histories, and the sites on which their operations were pursued often have records of continuous "industrial" occupation for upwards of two centuries — perhaps none longer than that of the corn mills.
The word "industrial" conjures up in most people's minds a picture of dirty, grimy, back-to-back terrace houses surrounding a cotton factory or a steel works; a place which we consider necessary for the national good, providing that we do not have to live and work there. It is true that this type of industry is absent from our Island scene — a fact for which I think we are all grateful — yet it is not true to say that our Island has never had a heavy industry, for surely the water corn mill was one of the first heavy industries that man invented. In the first water mill — the craft of grinding corn by the hand mill or quern was superseded by what we now know as machine production. This was the origin of a movement which culminated in the Industrial Revolution and the virtual elimination of the crafts as a source of essential goods and services. The miller must be an expert, but for the first time we have the man who gets his results by pushing levers and adjusting controls _— the first tentative pioneer in the direction of what many people today rather fearfully contemplate as the " push-button" world.
The millwrights who designed and built watermills and windmills for 2,000 years, working on the practical basis of observation, experience, and trial and error, not only laid the foundations of hydraulics and aerodynamics, they also made great strides in mechanical engineering. They learned how to collect energy at one point, transmit it to another, up or down and around corners, and there put it to work with a variety of motions, speeds and forces. In this way they developed most of the basic principles of power transmission and utilisation, and invented prototypes of many of the mechanical devices still employed in these arts.1
The almost complete absence of Manx records relating to that period of our history prior to the sixteenth century makes it nearly impossible to be certain about the evolution of our Manx watermills. Reference has to be made, therefore, to the English records if any insight is to be obtained into this era of our history. In doing this it must be realised that an assumption is being made that conditions prevailing here and in England would be somewhat comparable.
It was certainly true, both here and in England, that individual liberty and freedom of action as we know these terms to mean today, were very limited. It is perhaps in the grinding of corn that this lack of freedom of action manifests itself most clearly. The obligation of the tenant to grind his corn at the manorial mill was but one obligation that was common to the Island and England. " This obligation of the tenant to grind his corn at the manorial mill was a mixed blessing: the distance the corn had to be carried, the delay in grinding due to shortage of water or accumulation of work, and the toll demanded by the miller, all served to make the system unpopular."2
At the end of the eleventh century every village and almost every manor had one or more mills where all kinds of grain could be ground. The Domesday Book (1080-1086) records over 5,000 mills. One suggestion offered to explain the reason for this remarkable number of mills, particularly in southern and central England, is to be found in A History of Bedfordshire:
" Abundant use was made of water power, almost every considerable manor having its mill, and it may here be remarked that the much larger number of mills... immediately after the Conquest, can be accounted for on several grounds. In the feudal times, the manorial mill was a source of income to the lord of the manor, as all peasants were under obligation to take their corn thither to be ground, and transport was also a serious question. Hence there was a mill wherever there was water enough to work one, and mills existed in localities in which at present there is never, or very rarely, water enough for such purposes. The diminution of the woodland and the modern system of drainage have both contributed to effect this change"3
The first known reference to a watermill in England dates from the year A.D 762,4 and is to be found in a charter granted by Ethelbert of Kent to the owners of a monastic mill near Dover. It is usually presumed that most of the mills mentioned in the Domesday Survey were watermills, for the windmill was a comparatively late invention and it does not seem to have appeared in Western Europe before the second half of the twelfth century. The earliest accepted reference to a windmill in England is found to be that contained in the Chronicles of Joycelyn de Brakelond concerning a windmill built in 1191 by Dean Herbert on his glebe lands at Bury St. Edmunds.5 This infringed the manorial rights of the Abbey, and Dean Herbert was forced to demolish his windmill. The fact that Dean Herbert had to demolish his mill is significant, for it shows the absolute power of the manorial lord —a power which he frequently invoked if a mill was built which interfered with one of his own, even if the mill had been built by a man of some social standing, as in the case of Dean Herbert.
All the authorities on the history of milling, like Bennett and Elton and Curwen, are of the opinion that the early manorial mills in England were all of the horizontal-shaft, Roman construction.6 The circumstances of the Island, where in the Manorial Roll of the Isle of Man (1511-1515) thirty-two mills are recorded, would appear to conform more closely with Hillier's expressed view 7 that probably a number of the early mills were of the Norse type, and that these were later superseded by the "Roman" mill.
These early mills were the property of the manorial lord, or had been so until he found it worth his while to accept a yearly rent for them, either from an individual tenant, or less frequently from his men as a whole.
Thus the mill during the course of time became a valuable part of the manorial lord's income, and it was frequently mentioned as a separate (and considerable) item when the value of a manor was being assessed.8 Since the mill was of such financial importance, it was necessary for the lord to see that its business was ample, and that it was not threatened by any rivals.
This was achieved mainly by an insistence that the "unfree" must bring their corn to the manorial mill to be ground. This duty was constantly stated, and the English Court Rolls show men being fined for attempting to avoid their obligations.
Despite all the manorial injunctions, men were constantly failing to bring their corn to the lord's mill, and in due time found themselves accused in the Manor Court. Here they usually received short shrift and were fined, sometimes for grinding at another's mill, sometimes for grinding at home with a small hand-mill.
Many tried to avoid their liability — at times successfully — by pleading that they held the lord's licence to grind wherever they liked, but this was not a privilege freely given. If men were caught on the way to a rival mill, the custom of the manor was often such that, if the offence was other than the first, the lord was entitled to seize the man's horse, while his miller took whatever corn or flour the poor man was carrying.
The validity of such a custom seems to have been recognised in an action before the itinerant justices of Cirencester in 1302.9 Here the plaintiff admitted he was on his way to another mill and already off the manor when his horse and corn were confiscated by the Abbot, who kept his horse and passed on the corn to his miller. The plaintiff based his claim only on the fact that the seizure took place off the manor, and does not dispute the recognised custom of seizure itself.
Some lords recognised that it was often not wantonness but necessity that made men go elsewhere. They would arrive at the mill only to find the miller overwhelmed with work, or with his mill out of repair, or his head of water weak, or the wind feeble and variable. With the best will in the world (and the miller was notoriously not overburdened with goodwill) much of the corn must wait many days before it could be ground. But at home the family could not wait, and so, the peasant went to the next mill, or ground furtively at home with a hand-mill.
An order at the Ramsey manor in the South of England stated, "If they (the peasants) cannot on the first day grind the whole of the corn, the mill must grind as much as may keep their household in bread for that day; and if the peasant cannot grind there that day, then he may take his corn elsewhere at his will... From August till Michaelmas, each man may grind where he will, if he be unable to grind at my lord's mill on the day whereon he has sent the corn. Moreover, if it chance that my lord's mill be broken or his mill dam burst, so that the tenant cannot grind there, then, as in the former case, he may take it elsewhere at his will."'10
The greatest difficulty that faced the lord, however, was how to deal with the secret milling that went on in the peasant's own home. The hand-mill (or quern) was an object of great antiquity, and its operation was extremely simple and was known to all. One of these small machines set up in the house, if it remained undiscovered, could cope with the limited amount of grain many holdings provided. The lord tried to prevent them and wherever possible fined those found in possession of hand-mills.
An interesting case at Cirencester, in 1300, shows the seizure being made. The bailiff of the Abbot was accused of entering several houses and of seizing the millstones and taking them to the Abbey. The bailiff admitted that as bailiff of the manor, he had gone to certain houses with a white rod in his hand, in the name of his bailwick as was the custom, and had ordered the "nuisance to be abated." When the men had utterly refused to obey, he had gone again at the Abbot's command and removed the stones. The justices upheld the Abbot's right, and it cost the men of Cirencester the large sum of 100 marks — approximately £67 — to make peace with him.
A note in the cartulary (register of ecclesiastical charters) states that the Abbot could seize the mills, but ought not to destroy them. In the famous quarrel between the monks. of St. Albans and their tenants (retold in Froude's Short Studies Annals of an English Abbey) after the Abbot had successfully carried off the hand-mills he used the stones from them to pave the floor of his private parlour.
Every Lord took his profit in kind from all those coming to the mill. Everyone had to contribute a certain proportion of his grain, which was known as "multure". In England no clear figure can be given to express this proportion. The Statuta Pistorum (Statutes of the Realm, 1202-3) assessed it at the 1/20th or 1/24th part of the grain, but details given in other documents show it to have averaged something like a 1/16th part. Now it should be remembered that the price of corn varied considerably, so that the value of the multure also varied very considerably. People were not charged a fixed price for the mill's service, but found themselves forced to yield up something considerably more precious in times of shortage than after a good harvest. Hence, no doubt, many of the charges of extortion so commonly levelled against the miller.
It is not possible to be certain just how milling here and in England compared prior to the sixteenth century. A later comparison is to be found in Train's History of the Isle of Man,11 where he states: "At a time when corn continued to be ground, generally by the hand, in querns in Scotland, water mills appear to have been used extensively for the same purpose in the Isle of Man."
In the Island, by law only those mills licensed by the Lord and paying his dues were allowed to function. It would appear that prior to 1636 the Lord's dues had been allowed to lapse in many cases and new mills had been built without a licence being issued by the Lord. To rectify this situation and thus increase his revenue, Earl James (Stanlagh Mooar) made an order in 1636 12 in which he required an enquiry to be made into " What ancient Milns of the Lord's have, in time of memory, been decayed and let down, and also what new Milns have, within like time of memory, been erected, .. . for which the Lord hath not had any Fine, or valuable increase of Rent..." Earl James' remedy of the situation was also found in this order, ". . . that order may be given for re-edifying of the Lord's Milns, and demolishing of that said late erected Milns; and thereby his Lordship's Prerogative and his Profit of Multure and Toll may be preserved."
It is thought that as Grist, Soaken, Toll and Mulcture of all corn growing in the Island originally belonged to the Lord of Man by prerogative handed down from the ancient Kings of Mann, the Kings of Mann had had their own mills erected at convenient places for grinding. This state of affairs continued for some considerable time after the grant of the Island to the House of Stanley by Henry IV.13
Originally these mills were leased out on certain yearly rents, fines and other reservations and were allowed to descend from ancestor to heir, and in the process of time became fees of inheritance but still subject to the yearly Lord's Rents. Every landowner in the Island was assigned to be tenant to a particular mill and could not legally have his corn ground elsewhere.
If a bound tenant failed to grind and to yield his grist at the tenant's mill to which he was bound, then the owner or head miller of that mill could go to any other mill where he found such tenant and take the mulcture due thereon with his own kishan, a wooden measure holding eight quarts, and also present the misguided tenant to the court.
It is perhaps worth pointing out that when a bound tenant was presented by the millers to the court, his name was entered in a yearly list of all those tenants presented in the Manorial Rolls. After the order of Earl James in 1636 the lists of tenants presented and the fines payable by them were constantly being recorded. However, in the first Manorial Roll and the years prior to 1636 there does not appear to have been any tenants presented.
As in England, the miller's mulcture was an unending object of farmers' suspicions. It was perhaps because of this that the Manx millers were obliged to take an oath every year to deal justly with their customers. However, this did not allay the doubts of the farmers, bred by long tradition of the shady practices performed by the miller. Indeed, a number of cases in our court records suggest that there was sometimes ample reason for this suspicion.
It may be of interest to speculate as to the reason why William Qualtrough refused to take his oath in 1700. William was the miller at Kentraugh and was fined 2/6d. for his troubles.14 There may have been some just and ample reason to account for his course of action, like his mill being out of repair, or perhaps he was motivated by good and kindly thoughts towards his customers. Much as I would like to defend him for the sake of our common name if nothing else, I must strongly suspect — though can never admit to it — that it was not out of regard for his tenants, but rather out of self-interest that he acted the way he did, particularly when we discover that in the same year he was fined a further 2/- for not grinding his tenants' corn sufficiently.
If the miller neglected his job and the corn was badly ground, producing lumpy half-ground meal or groblagh, he would be presented and fined. The millers in the parish of Malew seem to have been guilty of this offence on several occasions, perhaps because they had more milling to do than most, as a result of the larger number of inhabitants in that area.
It was an ancient custom that the tenants bound to any ancient tenant mill were obliged to help to repair the mill stream or damhead, and had to give a proportion of straw towards the thatching.15They also had to bring home the mill stones by land to the mill, provided they were within the sheading, or else to be brought by sea at the millers' own expense to the next port to the mill within the sheading so that the tenants could more conveniently carry them to the mill.
This duty of repairing the mills was not looked upon with enthusiasm by the farmers, as you can well imagine, particularly when long periods elapsed between repairs. David Craine tells us16of the inhabitants of Andreas who, in 1669, were called upon by the miller of Lhen Mooar to assist in the transport of a new mill stone from Ramsey. Only twenty-two people gave help. One hundred and twelve refused on the grounds that they were either not tenants of the mill or that it was not a custom to help in these circumstances, and one hundred and twelve were fined.
A problem which had to be constantly faced by the miller was how to make his water wheel drive at a constant speed when the flow of water to it was irregular. This problem and that of trying to make the wheel more efficient puzzled the millwrights for centuries. Many distinguished millwrights and men of science throughout western Europe gave these problems a great deal of thought, and it was not until the middle of the eighteenth century that these problems were finally resolved by John Smeaton in England.
David Jones had this to say of Manx milling technology:17"In mill-wrighting, Man (I.O.M.) was in no sense a technical backwater, and although the trade was almost entirely in the hands of local millwrights and foundries, they were fully informed on developments elsewhere and ready to adapt them where appropriate."
Indeed, Manx millwrights were not only well informed of developments elsewhere, they were sometimes amongst the foremost leaders in this field. A Mr. George Quayle in 1791 submitted a paper and models on the problems of the efficiency of waterwheels to the Royal Society of Arts in London.18 The Society thought his paper of sufficient merit to award him their silver medal.
A great number of millstones were quarried in one piece from Derbyshire out of peak stone or mill stone grit. A fair sized millstone was about 4½ feet in diameter and eight or more inches thick when new, the larger stones were some 7 feet in diameter and its cost was considerable. South Wales was also a source of a similar type of stone. The early English millers, and I have no doubt Manx millers too, shared the Roman preference for stone from ANDURNACH on the Rhine, known as blue or cullinstone —cullin being a corruption of Cologne. French buhr (or burr) from LA FERTE-SOUS-JOUARRE and BERGERAC, came to be preferred in the eighteenth century. These stones were even exported in quantity to the United States.19An irregular network of quartz cavities running through this type of stone kept its grinding surfaces sharp as the stones wore down. For economy's sake, and ease of transport, small blocks of buhr stones were cemented together with plaster of paris and bound with an iron band to make a millstone, the buhr being used only for the thickness to which the stone would be worn in grinding.
The dress given to the grinding surfaces was extremely important. A dull stone was said to " kill or destroy that lively quality of the grain that causes it to ferment and raise in the baking ".
The top and bottom stones were dressed identically. In the most common type of dress the surface of the stone was trued and divided into sections or quarters —and each section was cut by a master furrow and a number of subsidiary furrows. None of the master furrows pointed directly towards the dead centre of the stone.
A special hoist engaging in holes in the sides of the running stone was needed to lift it off for cleaning and dressing. It generally took two or three days to dress a pair of stones well. Even today we use a phrase which indicated the respect in which dressers. were held : "To show one's mettle" originally means "To show one's metall " — metal being the name for crushed stone. The phrase referred to the bits of stone which had become embedded in the dresser's left hand during the course of many years' work. To show them proved that the possessor was a man of experience and responsibility.
As our towns grew in importance and size, so did the ancient mills diminish in importance. This was partly because the towns with their new inhabitants were not tied mill tenants and of course in so many cases these town dwellers had no means of growing their own wheat, consequently they purchased flour instead. As a result, about the middle of the nineteenth century the production of good bakers' flour became important in order to supply the home market. There were flourishing mills at Douglas (the Nunnery), Ramsey (the Windmill), Laxey, Peel (Cooper's Mill and Glenfaba Mill) and Castletown. These mills had to face the competition of the large English mills, particularly those in the North-West of Britain at Liverpool and Barrow. The small Manx mills could not hope to compete on equal terms and survive without some special circumstances to counter this adverse balance. Another factor which contributed to the decline of the Manx Mills was the general falling off in cultivation of Manx wheat during this period.
One endeavour was made, however, to try and compete with the English mills. This was the venture at Laxey where Captain Richard Rowe, of the Great Laxey Mine, built in 1860 the Laxey Glen Mills. This was the first modern roller mill to be built on the Island, the original machinery being driven by water turbine power.
This mill, which is still in full production today, although the original buildings were destroyed in a fire in the 1920's, has survived the economic pressures and is one of the few survivors of a once flourishing trade in the Isle of Man.
The original water corn mill at Rhenwyllin was licensed for the use of the cottage, intack and abbeyland tenants of the Lord of Man, who resided in the Parish of Rushen. No rent for this mill appears on the 1511 Manorial Roll which would indicate that the mill commenced work on this site after 1511. possibly at some time during the middle of the sixteenth century. The quarterland tenants for Rushen did not use this mill, as they had their corn ground at the ancient mill at Kentraugh.
In 1795 the Rhenwyllin mill, then called MUILLYN BEG or TRIPS MILL,20 was sold to the Duke of Atholl. The reason for the Duke's purchase of this mill arose out of his interest in the new revenue which was beginning to flow as a result of mineral extraction. With the Bradda Head mines producing ore, a convenient smelting site had to be found. It appears that the Rhenwyllin site suited this purpose. Three years later in 1798, Feltham, when he made his tour of the Island, stated: 21"the lead-mines of Brada — ore is brought to PORT-IRON river (in boats), where there is a conveniency for cleansing it, it is then conveyed by land to the smelting house, near PORT LE MARY at BUN ROOR."
The mill when purchased by the Duke of Atholl had two dams, which supplied it with water. It is likely: that these two dams were later made into one larger one, of which little but the dam head remains to be seen today. The Deed of Sale of this mill is of interest in that it states that the mill, which was purchased from Messrs. Watterson and Gawne, was situated on ground near the "Old Smelting House". In fact, the Duke bought with the mill an additional parcel of land for the purpose of erecting a new smelting and refining house.
To compensate the owners of the surrounding property, and in particular Mr. Gawne who lived close by, from any inconvenience or damage caused by smoke, the Duke agreed that between the 12th April and the ist August each year no smelting would take place if the wind was inshore21— that is, blowing towards the houses surrounding the smelt.
The Duke was not only troubled with the irritation caused to surrounding owners of property by the smoke of this smelting house, he was also petitioned to in 1796 by his smelter for assistance—23
"The humble Address and Appreciation of Robt. Foster Smelter—
Humbly Sheweth
That your Petitioner has been employed in the Smelting Business upwards of two years in the Parish of Rushen which he cheerfully undergoes whilst it pleases the Almighty to grant him his Health — but it so happened sometime past that your Petitioner was afflicted with such excruciating Pains both in Bowels & Bones for a quarter of a year following owing to the pernicious smoake of the smelt Mill as rendered him incapable of pursuing his work being confined to his Bed & room the most part of the time.
That upon the re-establishment of your Petitioners Health he renewed his work as formerly but was again attacked with the same Disorder so violently that his Life was several times dispaired off & was prevented from Smelting for ten Weeks by which Losses of Time your Petitioner has suffered so very considerably in his circumstances besides the Expenses he has been at in paying Doctors Bills amounting to five Guineas & upwards as may be made to appear, that he is reduced to ward & Poverty Your Petitioner begs leave further to Observe that in Smelting places in other Countries the Smiths in Case of Sickness have the Doctors Bills generally paid for them by the Gentleman concerned in the Mines... ."
Whether assistance was forthcoming or not has not been determined, but what is clear is that the inconvenience by the smoke did not last for long. The need for this smelthouse soon disappeared with the rundown of Bradda Mines, and the mill was converted back to its original use, that of a water corn mill.
The mill continued to be used as a corn mill until the early part of this century when it was again converted. This time to a spinning mill. The building, which is still standing, was again to be used as a smelt, this time in the nineteen twenties, only to be converted to another use a few years later.
In 1947 the building and premises were purchased by the Port St. Mary Woollen Mills Limited. This company operated a successful export trade in woollen goods for a number of years, and machinery dating from this period is still to be found in the building — which is today disused. In the course of a technical survey of Manx mills in August 1964, sponsored by the Manx Museum, Mr. D. H. Jones was able to deduce the lay-out of the corn milling machinery and has planned the interior of this mill.
In 1828, a newspaper24 reported that "the Windmill in the neighbourhood of Castletown is nearing completion. It will be a most beneficial addition to the conveniences of that neighbourhood: many watermills, from occasional drought, being incapable of supplying the inhabitants with grinding, this will be ready at every returning breeze, — at least it is good to have two strings to our bow."
Despite the newspaper's attempts to eulogize this windmill, fate —in the guise of storms and human frailty — was to prevent the successful opening of the mill.
The Sun, in an article in September, 1828, tells us "... the spirited proprietors of the windmill . . . gave on Friday last an excellent dinner, in the new windmill, to the mechanics etc. who have been engaged in the work. A great number of gentlemen of Castletown also dined with them, and were much pleased with the good disposition and decorum that was evinced on that occasion by upwards of one hundred persons . . .
"After all the toasts had been drunk and a new song, composed in praise of the mill, had been sung the proprietors of the mill must have been well pleased with themselves. However, the cruel hand of fate was waiting for them. It transpires that on the Saturday prior to the mill being officially declared open it was decided to see if the mill was in proper working order. The new sails were hoisted and the arms began slowly to turn, causing the two pairs of French and two pairs of Greys mill-stones to be set in motion. All seemed well and in working order, so it was decided to secure the mili by having the break wheel operated. This break wheel prevented the top of the mill from rotating freely. Normally, if the wind veered the top of the mill would move around to take full advantage of the change in the direction of the wind. On that eventful Saturday evening the wind suddenly shifted, and before the break wheel could be released and thus allow the top of the mill to move, the sails back-filled and the sail arms were blown off and destroyed. In their fall they passed through the roof of the threshing mill which adjoined the windmill and, as a consequence, considerable damage was done. Misfortune was to strike the windmill again some months later as witnessed by the following contemporary newspaper account, "We regret announcing another accident at the Castletown Wind Mill, but which no human foresight could have contemplated or prevented. The terrible gale which so suddenly sprang up on Wednesday night last (August 1829), took the sails all a back, the excessive pressure on them cause the break-chain to snap, away went all the vanes (the outer part of each wing). This accident is particularly unfortunate just at this time, large quantities of grain being ready to keep her in constant employment ..."25
This Castletown mill was but one of many windmills which were built in the Island during the nineteenth century.
The Cornaa mill was an ancient mill, to which originally, all the parishioners of Maughold were bound. However, for the convenience of the Ramsey inhabitants, a mill was built at Ballure. Because of the shortage of water and of damage to this mill at Ballure, its usefulness was short lived.
The mills of Cornaa are one of the best documented mills on the Island, chiefly because of the records of disputes concerning them.
For example, we find that in 1610 Deemster Samsbury took an action against John Corlot of Maughold for saying "he had procured men to perjure themselves so that he might obtain a right to the mills." 26This action arose because Deemster Samsbury had been done out of his inheritance — the Cornaa Mills. In 1511 John Christian was the owner of the Cornaa Mills. This John Christian had been the water bailiff of the Island at one time, and he had one daughter, Joney, the mother of Deemster Samsbury. Now for some reason or other John Christian had to go to England on business. As his travels would take him some time, he left his servant, a Mr. Lewis Davids, in charge of the mills. Unfortunately for his family, Christian died whilst he was away, in London. However, by his will he left all his estates to his daughter, Joney, who at the time of her father's death was still a minor. Somehow or other a Mr. Townley, who was the constable of Peel, managed to acquire a lease of the mills. Lewis Davids appears to have been in collusion with Townley regarding this lease. Some years later, in 1613, when Samsbury had become Deemster, he was fortunate enough to have the family estates restored to him.
The next we know about these mills is in 1642, when Jane Samsbury, widow of the Deemster, sold them to Deemster Ewan Christian.27
Deemster Ewan settled the mills on his second son, William, perhaps better known as Illiam Dhone. I think most of us know about the fortunes and misfortunes which befell this man, and when IIliam Dhone was put to death in 1662 his family lost most of the family estates and they were not restored to the family until 1716 — when the Prince of Wales ordered the restoration of the Christian estates. )
This restoration was achieved chiefly by the efforts made by Ilham Dhone's eldest son George. However, to make the appeal to the Privy Council meant that George had to stay in England for some considerable time. Consequently, he left his second brother Ewan in charge of his Manx estates as his steward or agent.
It was about this time that the Ballure Mill, belonging to Cornaa, ceased to be used. As stated above, the mill at Ballure was erected chiefly for the convenience of the inhabitants of Ramsey.
It would appear that Ewan left to his own devices was a bit of a spendthrift, and in his brother's absence had amassed a considerable amount of personal debts. To pay off some of these debts he hit upon quite an ingenious scheme. This scheme may not have been of his own making. I think it is more than possible that pressure was brought to bear upon him by his cousin, Deemster Edward Christian of Milnetown. Deemster Edward and a Mr. Ewan Christian of Lewaigue, both with an eye to business, had recently built a new mill at Lewaigue. Now, of course, Deemster Edward had no customers for this new mill and Ewan had plenty of customers for his Cornaa mills, but no money: so that Ewan hoped to overcome his debts by selling the Ramsey tenants of the Cornaa mill to Deemster Edward. As you will realise, of course, Ewan had no authority to sell anything which belonged to his brother, let alone the tenants of an ancient mill who could not be sold separately from the mill itself. Both Deemster Edward and Ewan realised that this was not a valid sale, so the deed was never registered. However, Ewan was paid £10. I am sure you can imagine George's bewilderment and anger when he returned to the Island in 1673 to find a new mill at Port Mullen or Lewaigue, and his Ramsey tenants using this mill. You cannot blame the people of Ramsey, of course, for the journey to Lewaigue was much less troublesome than the journey to Cornaa. George took 71 actions for damages against the inhabitants of Ramsey (this was possibly the whole of the bound tenants in that town) for not grinding at his mill. This was an action he was entitled to take, since his mill was an ancient Lords' mill. This started a dispute between two branches of one of the most influential Manx families and it was not finally resolved until almost 100 years later.
The ownership of Cornaa mills later passed into the hands of the Gelling family who successfully carried on the milling business there until the mill finally closed down in 1951. The mill has now been converted into a dwelling-house and little trace remains of this once famous mill, although some of the fittings and original machinery used there are now to be found in the Manx Museum.
*1 Storck & Teague, Flour for Man's Bread, Minnesota Press, 1952.
*2 H. S. Bennett, Life on the English Manor, Cambridge University Press.
1937, Chapter VI.
*3 Victoria, County History of Bedfordshire, 1908, Volume II, page 73.
*4 Bennett & Elton, History of Corn Milling, Liverpool, 1898, Volume
I & I,
*5 Rex Wailes, The English Windmill, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd,.
London, 1954.
*6 Bennett & Elton, Op.cit., E. Cecil Curwen, The Problem of Early Water
Mills, Antiquity, Vol. 18, 1944.
*7 J, Hillier, Old Surrey Watermills, Skeffington & Son Ltd., London,
1951.
*8 H. S. Bennett, Op.Cit.
*9 H. S. Bennett, Op.Cit.
*10 H. S Bennet, Op.Cit *
*11 Joseph Train, F.S.A., Scot., An Historical and Statistical Account of
the Isle of Man, 1845.
*12 Statutes, Volume I — Ordinances AD1636.
*13 Atholl Papers 58(3rd)—4.
*14 Libri Assedationis. 1700 Rushen.
*15 Deemster Parr, Abstract of Manx Law.
*16 David Craine, M.A., C.P., Manannan's Isle. The Manx and national
Trust 1955
*17 David H. Jones, Manx Water-Mills, The Journal of the Manx Museum
*18 Bridge House Papers, 3603.
*19 Storck & Teague, Op.Cit.
*20 Deed S.S.S. May 1795-143, General Registry (Now in Manx Museum),
*21 John Feltham, A Tour Through the Isle of Man in 1797 and 1798, Manx
Society, Vol. VI.
*22 Deed S.S.S. Oct., 1795-57, General Registry (Now in Manx Museum).
*23 Manx Museum MSS MS 669A page 262.
*24 Advertiser, 1828,
*25 Man Sun. 1829.
*26 BH 4780C.
*27 AP 58-4, AP 58-5. AP 58(2nd)-5. AP 58(3rd)—4.
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Any comments, errors or omissions
gratefully received The
Editor |
||