Living by one of Scotland’s best Salmon rivers impacted the people that lived close from long before the early modern period.
There is anecdotal evidence from parish records that common people fished the rivers. On 30th March 1656 the parishioners of Essil were told “Saturday at twelve houres off the right till Monday about one o’clock in the morning” were told not to fish to keep the Sabbath. However the rights to the fishing lay with the Laird and would have been controlled. Robert Loggie that went to Canada in about 1780 was allegedly a salmon fisherman although it could simply have been that he was familiar with Salmon fishing on the Spey.
There was also salmon fishing that took place at sea – this would have been for those with the ability and means to be able to fish at sea probably from Garmouth. The catch would have been sold and there are references to the sale of sea salmon in the Duke of Gordon’s papers.
Sustainability of the river and its stock were also of concern. The records of the Parliaments of Scotland show that in 1669 the question had to be taken in hand in an “Act anent the fishing in the rivers of Dea, Don, Spey, Findorne, Ithan etc” (1):
“Our soverane lord and estates of parliament, considering that the taking and slaying of salmond fishes with nets, cruves or otherwayes, was altogether prohibited and forbidden by the antient laws and acts of parliament of this kingdome, from the latter Mary day till the feist of St Andrews in winter and that under the pains and penalties contained in the severall acts made theranent, which wer always inviolably observed, untill of late that some heretors of salmond fishings, pretending that they did obtaine warrand or commission from the last parliament, and be vertew therof, have changed and altered the dyets and tyme of fishing by slaying and takeing of salmond constantlie untill the last of September ilk yeer, and from thence forbearing untill the second of February therafter, which late practise is fund, by experience, to be very prejudiciall and destructive to the interest of fishing, in so much that the most parte of the fishes that are taken after the said latter Marie day are unclean fish and full of rowans, and so therby the fry of the fish and expectation of fishing for the ensueing yeer is very much prejudged, as also the saids unclean fishes spoiles others that are packit with them, and brings the mercat very low when they are sent abroad; for remeid wherof, our said soverane lord, and estates forsaid, does statute and ordaine that, from hence forward, it shall be lawfull only to slay salmond fishes in the rivers or waters of Dea, Don, Spey, Findorne, Ithan, Connon, Bewlie, Ness and Devorne untill the eight of September in ilk yeer, and from thence all slaying and takeing of them is forbidden untill the first of January therafter, and that under the pains and penalties mentioned in the former acts of parliament made theranent, which are heirby ratified, approven and confirmed in the haill heids, articles and conditions therof.“
On the main part of the Spey, fishing was not carried out using Coble and Net (a cobble is small boat) as was common on other rivers such as the Tay. However in Garmouth at the mouth of river it is much wider and slower, the Coble and Net method was used, as witnessed by their burning by Alasdair Mac Colla in 1645. In fact it was likely that boat that was used was more like a Currach that is very similar to a coracle and used as far downstream as Dipple. The currach is not very common on the East coast of Scotland being found mostly on the West coast. They are described in the Scottish and Supplement, much later, by John Jamieson (1841) as:
“made of a hide, in the shape, and about the size of a small brewing kettle, broader above than below, with ribs or hoops of wood in the inside, and a cross-stick for the man to sit on; who, with a paddle in his hand…These currachs were so light, that the men carried them on their backs home from Speymouth.”
A more detailed description can be found in Scottish court records (1780):
“The currach contained only one man in working it, whereas the floats require two men and oars; and the man in the currach paddled with a shovel, one end of the rope being fixed to the raft, and the other tied to the man’s knee in the currach, which he let loose when there was any danger, the currach going before the raft.”
Further downstream a system of fish traps was constructed in the river or beside the river in channels. There was clearly a dispute in terms of the use of the river. Navigability would have been a problem, this became an issue when timber began to be floated down the river. In 1836 (2) there is reference to earlier judgement of 1724 where they were ordained to remove all “cruives, yairs, dykes, or braes, within any part of the said water of Spey.” and “that from time immemorial, upon that part of the river, the method of fishing by streams and cairns complained of, had been constantly practised”.
Cruive on the Beauly River similar to those used on the Spey.
The description of the two methods of cruives and yairs are well documented in the Scots Magazine Volume 93, 1824
“The oldest of which we have any account was called a croe, or cruive, and consisted of a dike, or mound of earth, stone, or wood, running across the river, from bank to bank, and having certain boxes or traps, formed generally of close spars or wattled work, placed at intervals, for detaining and entangling the fish in their passage up and down the river. A species of this engine, and in many respects resembling the cruive, but used only within the influence of the tide, was termed a yair and both forms were completely calculated for preventing the transit of the fish, and utterly inconsistent with the propagation of the species, as well as destructive to the brood, not of the salmon only, but of all kinds of fish frequenting the river.”
The massive way in which fish were trapped lends itself to arguments of the removal of such methods in 1724 and even the need for strict control of the season in the 1669 Act. However the Duke of Gordon had the judgement reversed in 1778 and the practice continued.
There are numerous references to the business and importance of salmon fishing to the area and the arguments that ensued about salmon fishing on the Spey:
1590 December 14 (GD44/35/1/1)
Extract declaration by George, earl of Huntly, that if any trouble is caused by his servants to Alexander Seton of Urquhart, his cousin, or his servants, in peaceable labouring of said Alexander’s salmon fishing on the water of Innerspey, it has been done without granter’s knowledge or command, whereby said George binds himself never to trouble said Alexander therein, he and his servants being allowed to possess the same as peacefully as any of his predecessors, priors of Pluscarden, had done before.
1688 September 21 (GD44/35/1/1)
Letter from James Calder of Merton (Muirton), Germoch, to Major Gordon.
Sends a servant with a coupar to inspect the duke of Gordon’s fish.
1706 June 28 (GD44/35/1/1)
Letter from Alexander, 5th earl of Moray, Castle Stuart, to George, 1st duke of Gordon.
Complains that recipient has ordered his people to encroach further by setting up a tug net fishing to prejudice of all other proprietors of the fishings of Spey; this should be stopped; otherwise a lawsuit must ensue.
1715 March 26 (GD44/35/1/1)
Bond by James Hosack, elder, in Ordifish, Donald Smith in Coldhame, Andrew Hosack there, Andrew Fraser, elder in Ordifish, James Inglish there, James Hosack, younger, there, Andrew Hosach there, William Loggie in Fochabers, James Hutchon there, Andrew Hosack there, John Robertson there and John Cowie, there, allsalmon fishers to the marquess of Huntly, to go, on 24 hours advertisement, to burn mouth of Druie above Kincardine in Strathspey, and assist in bringing down the Spey his lordship’s timber to Gordon Castle for 10s scots each as daily wages, and to take down from the sawmill at Gordon Castle to water mouth below Buckie, the sawn timber to be landed and stacked without ie, outwith floodmark, for payment of 20s scots for each float of timber, the float of dales at 15 and 12 feet in length consisting of 90 dales, and each float of a lesser size consisting of sixscore dales, the marquess furnishing them with staples and ropes to secure the floats.
1715 March 31. GD44/43/6
Francesca Ryder, probably widow of George Ryder, Livorno, to James Bisset, merchant in Aberdeen.
Arrival of salmon sent by Lord Huntly to the Great Duke of Florence.
1716 July 11
Copy fish debenture for 25 and a half barrels of salmon, each barrel 42 gallons English wine measure, sent in the Dragon galley from Aberdeen to Leghorn.
1721 July 24.
Provost Patrick Bannerman, Aberdeen, to Alexander, duke of Gordon.
Is informed that recipient is to sell his salmon at Livorno; the Middleton galley, 150 tons, is to take in goods in Aberdeen for the Straits or Livorno at £3 stg per ton or 10s per barrel of salmon; this is cheap and the galley one of the best ships or galleys they have; solicits the order; thinks there will be few buyers that year so that the heritors on Dee and Don will be obliged to export their fish.
1721 September 4.
James Gordon, elder, Aberdeen, to Alexander, duke of Gordon.
Transport of salmon to Livorno; suspects that Mr Dawson is trifling over the price; the salmon could be shipped on the ‘Middleton’ galley from Cromarty.
1722 January 18.
Alexander, duke of Gordon, London, to (?) Walter Hamilton.
Asks about salmon lost in Captain Middleton’s ship
Laurence Magnolfi, Florence, to Alexander, duke of Gordon, at London.
Sale of recipient’s salmon at Leghorn; is grateful to Messrs Aikman and Alexander for their kind memories of writer; stockings sent by the latter are not yet arrived; another Scotch painter, Mr Smibert, is also returning home from Italy, having improved in his studies very much.
1772 October 21. (GD44/43/76)
Hugh Gordon, Aberdeen, to James Ross.
None of the merchants will buy the salmon; suggestion that it should be shipped for Holland; no salt; if the slates had been in Aberdeen ten days previously they would have sold well, being so scarce at present that a good many new houses are covered for the winter with tiles; is glad that the children have got over the smallpox and that the duchess is recovering ?from birth of a daughter; potatoes.
1773 May 7. (GD44/43/91)
William Murdoch, Rotterdam, to James Ross.
Containing account for 84 and a half barrels of salmon.
1775 September 9.
John Smith, Inverlochy, to James Ross.
Loss of a boat; the Loch aros in a gret rage and sunk the bote and the salmon and the tuo men gote evrey one of them gote ther ore aneth there oxters and by chance ther was a bot coming over the loch before the wind an tooke them oup’.
1776 July 4. (GD44/43/165)
Patrick Steuart of Tannachy, Tanachy, to James Ross.
His children have the “chinkcough”; he does not wish to go where there are children as it is infectious; suggests that recipient and Mrs Ross should come for a salmon dinner, but not to bring the children, so that he can see what is needed for a boiling house.
1777 July 15. (GD44/43/175)
Patrick Steuart of Tannachy, Tugnett, to James Ross.
Theft of salmon; most of the fish has gone to public houses for drink.
1779 December 10, 13 (GD44/43/230)
James Ross to Messrs James Robertson and Co, Portsoy.
Purchase of salmon on salmon fishings of the duke on Spey and in the sea, on both sides of the river.
1781 May 2. (GD44/43/254)
John Wilson, Portsoy, to James Ross.
In absence of Mr Robertson, writer asks that not more than 200 salmon should be sent daily to the boilhouse, and only on four days a week, not to send any fish taken on Saturday to it on the Monday; at present they have in the boilhouse two parcels not manufactured, and by so many coming in, their people cannot do justice to them; they have had complaints from London and they cannot impute this to any other cause.
1781 May 5. (GD44/43/254)
John Wilson, Portsoy, to James Ross.
Agrees to take 240 salmon four days in the week but no Saturday’s fish on Mondays; will send red port.
1781 July 24. (GD44/43/257)
Sir Robert Herries, London, to James Ross.
Possibility of finding a foreign market for the duke’s salmon; suggests talking to George Keith, a partner in Ostend house of writer’s brother, who is in Scotland at present.
1782 February 23. (GD44/43/267)
Charles Gordon of Braid, 19 Hay Market, to James Ross.
Progress of the fishing appeal before House of Lords.
1782 February 28. (GD44/43/267)
Charles Gordon of Braid, London, to James Ross.
Intimates the duke’s success in the Spey fishing appeal; needs money.
1782 February 28. (GD44/43/267)
Thomas Bannerman, Aberdeen, to James Ross.
His friend at Brussels complains of quality of Spey salmon received and refuses more; this not the first complaint; suggests that this year’s salmon should be properly cured and packed in good casks, and the mark of Spey’ which is too well known already, should be abandoned in favour of another.
1782 March 26. (GD44/43/269)
William Berry, manager of salmon fishing at Portsoy, Portsoy, to James Ross.
Complains of bad condition of the salmon; they are not marketable goods at present; those received from the under coble have not been worth bestowing kitt and vinegar on; threatens to return such fish in future.
1782 January 23. (GD44/43/271)
William Berry, Fochabers, to James Ross.
On behalf of himself and Anthony Forster of Berwick, acknowledging purchase of all the salmon caught upon the salmon fishings on Spey and in the sea belonging to the duke of Gordon, to 1 June next to come and thereafter, as long as they choose to boil salmon for the London market, reserving only what salmon the duke uses in his own family or give away in presents to his friends, and what may be used for meat fish for the people employed about the fishing, delivered at Portsoy, declaring that they are not obliged to receive more than 250 salmon per day before 15 April nor above 2800lb in one day thereafter, in return for twopence halfpenny stg for each lb Amsterdam weight, to 12 May, and then at twopence stg thereafter.
1782 May 30. (GD44/43/271)
William Berry, Portsoy, to James Ross.
Dreadful account from London of lack of sale of pickled salmon; wishes to give up boiling the duke’s salmon at the end of the month on the present terms; will take a few more at three halfpence if wished; further stipulations. With inventory of the contents of the boiling house, Portsoy, 26 May 1781.
1782 June 10. (GD44/43/272)
William Berry, Portsoy, to James Ross.
No more salmon to be sent after the following Tuesday; asks for his account as he longs to get home.
1783 August 17. GD44/43/285
James Gordon, Tugnett, to John Menzies.
Asserts that finaks are a species of salmon and would therefore become grilse or salmon, and consequently present practice of fishing for them on the coast within limits of writer’s lease should be stopped by the duke; asks that the duke will order his tenants of Dallachy to stop fishing for finaks'.
1783 August 21. GD44/43/285
James Hoy, Glenfiddich, to John Menzies.
A message from the duke, on receiving no 35 supra; he refuses to meddle; lease to James Gordon did not mention finnocks.
1787 March 10. GD44/43/300
Cosmo, baron Gordon, Edinburgh, to John Menzies.
A misunderstanding over writer’s offer to lend money to the duke; hopes that the adventure’ of sending fresh cod and salmon to the London market will prove sufficiently advantageous; Mr Fall of Dunbar is establishing new fisheries and making herring nets at Buckie.
GD44/28/24/3
Linwilg: Correspondence with John Peter Grant of Rothiemurchus, Doune, and others in his name, anent permission solicited by him for floating wood down the river Spey after 15 may each year, this interfering with the duke’s salmon fishing at Tugnett
1816 (GD44/35/7/2)
Lease granted to George Hogarth of Marshall Meadows, James Arbuthnot of Dens, William Forbes of Echt, George Hogarth of Woodhill and James Forbes, merchant in Aberdeen, of the salmon fishings in the river Spey belonging to Alexander, duke of Gordon.
