Early Life and Family

Daniel Harrison was born and lived nearly all his life in Fulwood. His parents were Thomas (1820-1897) and Martha. Thomas was the son of Daniel Harrison of Fulwood, a farmer, and Martha was the daughter of Thomas Eyre a saw handle maker.

The Harrison family was recorded in the 1851 census as living on Crimicar Lane. Thomas was described as a Tinker, that is someone who mends metal objects. Daniel was eight years old and there were three daughters: Ann (5 years), Mary (3 years) and Martha (8 months). Living next door was Thomas Eyre who was a saw handle maker. The Harrisons lived next to Martha’s family and in due course Daniel learned saw handle making from his grandfather.

Daniel married Isabella Hibbs in 1866 and in 1871 they were established on Sleigh Lea. Ten years later they were living in Clough House which was on Clough Lane near the point where the lane crosses the river Porter before turning right and climbing steeply towards Fulwood Lane. The house no longer exists. In 1891 they were with Daniel’s parents on Crimicar Lane.

Daniel and Isabella did not have any children. His father, Thomas, died in 1896 and Isabella in 1895 and so in 1901, we find Martha and Daniel living together on Slay Leigh opposite the farm. Martha died in 1905 and in 1911 Daniel is on his own in the cottage on Sleigh Leigh. Now 68 years old, he described himself as a farm labourer but whether this was full time or occasional, odd-job, employment can’t be determined form the simple entry in a census. In 1931 Daniel died at the workhouse at Fir vale. He is buried along with his parents and wife in Fulwood graveyard.

This brief biography, containing little more than details of his birth, marriage and death isn’t of itself very interesting. But Daniel Harrison has left a history in the local and national papers that allows us to glimpse his character.

A Case of Domestic Violence?

The first, and it will not be the last, encounter with Harrison is at the Court held in Sheffield Town Hall in January 1884. Harrison accused 49 year old Henry Howden of assault and Howden accused Harrison of the same offence. Howden lived at Fulwood Mill House along with Agnes, his wife who was 19 years younger than her husband. Three years previously, Howden was recorded as a Clerk, a farmer of 14 acres and a miller. The story told by William Clegg, Howden’s solicitor, and by Mr Binns representing Harrison and recorded by the Sheffield Telegraph, was that Harrison was Howden’s groom (although he was described as a Saw Handle maker) and was cleaning harness in the stable when a domestic dispute erupted. Howden was ‘unmercifully thrashing his wife’ and Harrison asked him to desist only to be met with verbal abuse from Howden who called him a ‘lounging thief’. Harrison then tried to separate them but was dealt a blow by Howden. Harrison ‘asked him to recall his words’ only to receive a second blow. Howden claimed he had gone into the stable to ask his wife for the key to the dairy and attacked her when she did not hand it over immediately. Harrison’s version of events was corroborated by his wife, which is not overly surprising.

Howden’s version was that he did not attack his wife although he was ‘attempting to secure the key’ which suggests some form of physical contact. He claimed he had many injuries caused by Harrison, including to his jaw and bruises about his arms and shoulders. He then embarked on a character assassination by asserting that Harrison stole many things and claimed that he wanted to dismiss Harrison but he ‘would not go quietly’. The magistrate, Mr Skelton Cole, dismissed both claims.

From this story we can infer either that Harrison has a sense of honour that required him to interfere in a violent domestic argument or that he was an unreliable and dishonest employee. Perhaps Howden was a suspicious husband; it was not explained why Agnes was in the stable with Harrison. This occasion would not be the only one where William Clegg and Daniel Harrison were in the same court at the same time.

A Bird in Hand?

Another side to Daniel’s character is revealed by a further court appearance at the end of the year (1884). This time he was in the dock accused of trespass in pursuit of game which the Independent reported in a short paragraph that noted he had been summoned previously for a similar charge and that this time he was fined 10 shillings with 13 shillings in costs. In 1901 he was at Sandygate where the Sheffield Gun Club raised pigeons. During a shoot, Harrison, a man named Hinchliffe and others stood in the adjacent field sniping at birds that got away. Hinchliffe said Harrison was doing this so that the club members might recover the bird although he did admit that they had a retriever who had already collected two birds. This time he was fined only 3s 6d which suggests that taking pigeons from working class people was considered a lesser crime that taking game birds.

Daniel’s next appearance in the newspaper was eight years later when on September 26th 1892,  the Independent reported that on the previous Saturday, he was in the Three Merry Lads with Benjamin Lomas who was a road mender and lived near Daniel and Samuel Woodhouse a general labourer who lived at Lodge Moor near the Sportsman. The three were joined by David Wragg who had with him a shotgun. By 11 o’clock Wragg and Lomas were the worse for wear and when Wragg attempted to get up, the gun which was in his pocket went off causing Lomas a serious injury to his foot. Lomas, reported the Telegraph, had not met Wragg before that evening so had no quarrel with him and so was convinced the gun went off accidentally.There’s no record of a prosecution.

We can add to the initial pen portrait above that Harrison frequently went poaching and seemed to take some satisfaction in disrupting the field sports of others. This characteristic was amply demonstrated in a court case that was heard in the High Court at London.

Harrison – v. – The Duke of Rutland

The outline of the events that led to the hearing were that since 1885 Harrison had sought to interfere with grouse shooting on the moors beyond Fulwood. The land around Houndkirk was owned by the Duke of Rutland whilst the land around the dams at Redmires belonged to Duke of Devonshire. Harrison’s tactic was to walk up and down highways such as the road over Houndkirk or the bridleways and footpaths that criss-crossed the moorlands creating as much disturbance as possible. On one occasion he had opened and closed an umbrella noisily and had also waved a handkerchief at the birds. Of course, matters were somewhat more complicated: Harrison had been employed by a Mr Morrison who had held the shooting rights some years before. Harrison had also been convicted of trespassing in search of game in a previous case brought by the game keepers who were on the moors on the days that will be described shortly.

Contact with the Gamekeepers

The particular circumstance that led to the hearing happened in early October 1891 on the roads and paths described in the Independent thus: “Everybody knows the moors which lie on the left of the main road going from Ringinglowe to Hathersage. Near the toll-bar at Ringinglowe there is a road leading diagonally towards Fox House called the Ankerk [sic] road, and some distance along this a bridle path, turning to the right, will bring the pedestrian out again on to the Hathersage road[1]”. With three constables looking on, three game keepers set on Harrison and assaulted him and compelled him to retrace his steps. Later that same day he was “walking along the highway (Houndkirk) at a place called Sheephill” (named on the OS map at the point where the Plantation leaves the Houndkirk Road) when the same gamekeepers assaulted him again. Two days later the game keepers took hold of him forcing him to the ground and whilst two held his limbs, the third sat on his chest. He was thus restrained for 15 minutes. In court Harrison claimed damaged for false imprisonment.

The first hearing was at Dronfield Magistrates’ Court in November 1891[2] when Harrison accused the three keepers of assault. Harrison stated that he was on the roads ‘for his pleasure’ and when challenged by the magistrates that he was there ‘to see how gentlemen treated an Act of Parliament as so much waste paper.’ Later he said that he went to the location to ‘see what the rich could do and the poor could not’ and told the magistrates that he would ‘try to stop it [the shooting] while ever they shoot on the highway.’ A defence witness said that the only violence he saw was Harrison struggling when the keepers put their hands on him. The magistrates dismissed the case as being trivial and the keepers were justified in their actions.

Who was bank-rolling Harrison?

At this point it is worth asking questions about how Harrison was able to finance this case. As we shall see, the case went first to the High Court where it was heard by the Lord Chief Justice and then to the Court of Appeal to be heard by the Master of the Rolls. G. H. B. Ward (Instigator of the Sheffield Clarion Ramblers and associated with the creation of the Pennine Way) suspected that he had a wealthy backer.[3] A suspicion that was current at the time of the hearings.[4]

To The High Court

At the High Court the scope of the case was widened as ‘the case of Harrison v. The Duke of Rutland and Others.’[5] As well as claiming damages for the assault and imprisonment, Harrison wanted an injunction whilst the Duke sought an injunction preventing Harrison from interfering with the shoot.

Harrison was supported by George Fox Broomhead who in 1891 was living in Clough House and working as a stone waller. The newspaper reports do not record Broomhead’s evidence or give any indication that he was present when Harrison was attacked. Nor do we know the nature of the relationship between the two men which could have ranged from intimate friends to mere acquaintances. We do know Harrison was 10 years older than Broomhead and the latter occupied the house that the former had occupied in 1881.

Sir Henry James who represented the Duke and others said that it was only lawful to be on a highway ‘for legitimate purposes of passing from place to place’ and certainly not to interfere with lawful sport but the Chief Justice knocked this notion back immediately, saying

The public have an indefeasible right to the highway. It must not be taken that the owner of the adjoining land may send men to hold down for an indefinite period anybody who is passing along the road.

That the game keepers were guilty of assault was not challenged and the Duke paid 5s into the court as compensation. This was a derisory amount paid simply to prevent any contest as whether or not assault had been committed.

Later it was said in court that Lord Edward Manvers, one of the ‘others’, had declared that a person travelling on a highway when there was a shoot might be hit and if this happened it would be the traveller’s fault. The Lord Chief Justice in his summing up said that all but one gentleman in the case had behaved as gentlemen, with the exception of Manvers and when Manvers attempted to interrupt the judge, he was given very short shrift. Continuing, the judge said that should Manvers have shot Harrison in these circumstances he would certainly have been guilty of manslaughter and perhaps murder. At the end of the summing up Manvers was allowed to say that his words were to frighten Harrison and he had no intention of shooting him a statement that produced laughter from those in court. The Lord Chief Justice went on to say that people engaging in field sports must exercise their rights so as not to interfere persons passing along the highway.

The jury determined that the five shillings was sufficient compensation thus signalling that they had found for the defendants. However, the defendents had not been granted the injunction they sought and the Lord Chief Justice had clearly stated the rights of individual of a highway took precedence of those of the owners of adjacent land. So Harrison had succeeded in exposing ‘how gentlemen treated an Act of Parliament as so much waste paper’ and been vindicated in this at least.

The Court of Appeal

A more rational man might have let the matter rest. But Harrison and his supporters took the case to the where it was the most senior judge of Great Britain who heard the case. Again Harrison was heard and the Master of the Rolls asked him why he had not taken legal proceedings. Harrison said that he did go to solicitor in Sheffield, and he said that it would be of no use, because no conviction could be got against the duke in the neighbourhood.[6]

The Master then asked about the ‘imprisonment’ when Harrison had been held on the ground, “you told one of the keepers when on the ground ‘sing me a song. (Laughter.) Why did you do that?’” This was, said Harrison, ‘because he wished to keep his temper.’ This interaction had been recorded at Dronfield so the courts must have known of this hearing.

Sir Henry James, a barrister and MP who appeared for the Duke and other defendants, introduced a new concept that was not mentioned in any of the reports of the High Court hearing. The plaintiff had only a right of easement to pass along the highway, the soil of which was the property of the adjoining owner, the Duke of Rutland. Thus, the plaintiff had no right to do more than pass and repass along the read: for instance, he could not kneel down on the road to say his prayers without committing a trespass. If he stopped on the highway, that become a trespass ab initio, and the defendants were justified in using no more force than was necessary to remove the plaintiff. The Master said he “doubted if any of her Majesty’s Mohammedan subjects would be guilty of a trespass if he knelt down on a public highway to say his prayers before sundown,” a comment that produced laughter.

In December 1892 the Master of the Rolls delivered the court’s judgement. Because Harrison had been on the highway for the purpose of obstructing the Duke and his friends from exercising their right of shooting, he was a trespasser on the Duke’s soil as Sir Henry had claimed. Referring to the request for an injunction against Harrison, the Master of the Rolls then said that he objected to the notion of counter claim (a procedure used in the Court of Chancery) being used in any common law action. The two other judges hearing the appeal thought that the court should state that the plaintiff had been guilty of trespass as the claim for an injunction had been dropped during the hearing.

Harrison vs the Duke of Rutland – the aftermath

The case has been quoted many times. Tom Stephenson retold the story and connected it to the one that will be told below with the phrase ‘Harrison still battled on.’ The website ‘Naturenet’ in a section about the law gives the case as its first example.[7] The website ‘ShootingUK’ which describes itself as an umbrella site for the Shooting Times and other related magazines cited the case in advice about the use of footpaths published as a blog in 2019, noting that ‘though that case is more than 125 years old, it is still good law.’[8]

A Rent Strike

Daniel Harrison had grown up in Crimicar Cottage and was living there with his parents and wife in 1891. Two years later, M J Ellison, agent for the Duke of Norfolk, sought to evict the Harrisons because they had not been paying the rent. Daniel had taken over the tenancy from his father in 1885 with the rent set at £2 10s and Ellison said eviction was being sought because the rent had not been paid for 18 months. There was some confusion over the nature of the tenancy with Harrison saying that his grandfather had offered to buy the freehold for £50 and that his father had also intended to buy the freehold but the sale had never been completed. He also claimed the cottage had been occupied by his family for 200 years though this seems somewhat far-fetched.

William Clegg, by now and alderman, concluded the place had never been bought. Clegg then commented that £2 10s was a low rent for the cottage and an acre of land which brought a typically outraged response from Harrison: “Who made the acre of land and who built the cottage?” He had already challenged the Duke’s claim on the land.

Clegg ordered the Harrisons to leave three weeks hence.

A Lively Day on Hallam Moors.

By 1894, Harrison had turned his attention to the shoots that took place on the Hallam Moors. This was land that the Duke of Norfolk had recently purchased since when, Harrison claimed, the keepers had been instructed to stop people using a path that came up Oaken Clough from Hollow Meadows and then followed the culvert that drains into the top dam at Redmires by the dam wall. William Robert Wake, the registrar of the County Court, had the shooting rights in this part of the moors. Harrison alleged that Wake had assaulted him. The initial trial was held at Sheffield Town Hall in October with Wake being represented by Arnold Mair Wilson and Harrison conducting his own case.[9]

The case started with an ill-tempered exchange between Harrison and the magistrate because Harrison saw Wake sitting at the solicitors’ table and thought he should be in the defendant’s box. The magistrate said any part of the court was suitable and declined the request while inviting Harrison to stand outside the witness box if he so wished, an offer that was refused. In the following summary, any reported speech is as it was told by Harrison to the magistrate.

The story followed a similar pattern: Harrison had been attacked and dragged by keepers but this time the head keeper who knew Harrison of old came on the scene and having appraised the situation said to Harrison, “Come along with me and let’s be all right.” As they were going back to where the keepers had restrained Harrison, Wake appeared and demanded that the Head Keeper “bring that man over here.” The head keeper reassured Harrison with, “Come along Dan, you and me is all right.” But then (and this is Harrison’s version) four keepers came on the scene and Wake told them to get him into a cabin close by and then they could ‘do anything to him; kill him if he won’t go, break his skull if he resists. I will stand between you and all danger.” This last statement being made in the context of any possible criminal proceedings that would arise from such an attack. He was confined for about 30 minutes.

Wilson then began the questioning and at one point invited Harrison to agree that he had no right to on the moor. Harrison agreed. Wilson then asked: “This is the private property of the Duke of Norfolk?”

“It was public property before you were born” Harrison retorted, “or a thousand years before.”

In the end, the magistrate declared that because of the question of whether or not there is a right of way over the ground where the attack took place, he could not hear the case.

So can we see Harrison as driven by a belief that the Moors should be open to all or a man with a psychological need to put himself into danger? Whatever drove him to these actions, keepers were not averse to violence which was condoned and encouraged by ‘gentlemen’ and which in the previous case was tacitly supported by the courts.

Early in 1895, the high court in Sheffield granted an injunction that prevented Harrison from going on the moor or interfering with Wake’s sports. Harrison did not attend court on this occasion and costs were awarded against him. In 1897 William Wilson of Beauchief hall was granted a similar injunction when he took over the rights to the shooting. These injunctions were perpetual but maybe they slipped Harrison’s mind in 1907 when he was in court again charged with breaching the injunction by being on the Hallam Moors. Harrison was lucky. He escaped prison as the judge suspended the ‘order for attachment’ that would have incarcerated him for one month

Poaching on the Moors

Harrison was caught poaching up at Redmires by PC Gillott who told the court in October 1908 that he had seen Harrison with two other men, each with a dog, enter the plantation belonging to William Wilson of Beauchief Abbey. Harrison told Gillott that he had as much right to the rabbits and hares as the prosecutor. During the case Mr Muir Wilson said that Harrison had been a constant source of annoyance to William Wilson who had taken out the perpetual injunction. When the magistrate objected to these remarks, the ‘volcanic’ Mr Muir Wilson created a ‘piquant’ scene. “I don’t know why I am subject to these interruptions, Sir. It is astonishing how some magistrates lose their heads in court. What on earth are you talking about, it is a very improper interruption.” The magistrate fined Harrison £1 and costs.

A last dispute

Even as late as 1920, Harrison, by now a septuagenarian, was ready for dispute and argument. This time the quarrel was with John and Emily Maxfield who were lodging in one room of the cottage on Slayleigh Lane that Harrison had occupied since at least 1910. Harrison claimed Mrs Maxfield had assaulted him after he had removed the key to the room. Both parties were bound over.

Harrison – a summary

So how should we view Harrison? He was certainly not a Victorian animal rights campaigner as he was not averse to taking animals ‘for the pot.’ He was a man with a sense of the injustice of the enclosures of land earlier in the century and this may be the most likely explanation for his behaviour on the moors. His self-confidence enabled him to represent himself in court and he was not cowed by the wigs and robes of the highest courts. But this self-confidence and a sense of the rightness of his opinions prevented him from considering different points of view.

[1] Sheffield Independent 05 August 1892. Ankerk is now known as Houndkirk

[2] Derbyshire Times and Chesterfield Herald 18 November 1891

[3] Stephenson, T., Forbidden Land: The Struggle for Access to Mountain and Moorland Manchester Uni Press 1989. Stephenson was also instrumental in the creation of the Pennine Way.

[4] Illustrated Sporting and Dramatic News 13 August 1892. The report finished by declaring that the outcome would ‘satisfy most people, except the plaintiff and those who may have helped him in the matter’

[5] Sheffield Independent 04 August 1892

[6] Sheffield Independent 11 November 1892

[7] https://naturenet.net/law/common.html accessed March 2020

[8] www.shootinguk.co.uk accessed March 2020

[9] Sheffield Evening Telegraph 1 October 1894