The front pageStories from the archivePrivate jurisdiction - Blaafarveværket's own court

Private jurisdiction - Blaafarveværket's own court

Christian_VII_1772_by_Roslin
Published 11 Feb 2021

Solitude, schizophrenia and a royal achievement - The Royal Modum Blue Colour Works

When Blaafarveværket was founded in April 1776, the company was subject to strict state control. This governance differs greatly from today's employment conditions in state-owned companies. From 1660 to 1814, the King of Denmark-Norway had unlimited power in the kingdom, in the form of absolute monarchy, which was also felt by state employees.

In 1776, King Christian 7 was probably sidelined in the governance of Denmark-Norway. The king probably suffered from schizophrenia, which made him unable to govern, but the Danish court mostly managed to retain unrestricted power with Christian as the figurehead. The king signed all the documents that came before him, including unwittingly signing the documents authorising the coup d'état of his son, Frederick VI, in 1784. In 1776, Christian signed the royal decree that started the Blaafarve Works.

As the mining industry in Norway was considered an important business, it was often run by the state. Few private individuals had the finances or nerves to start up such an uncertain and capital-intensive enterprise as a mine. When the cobalt discovery in Modum was deemed viable, the state therefore became an owner. By royal decree, the Royal Modum Cobalt Works was founded in 1776.

In order to keep track of the workers, strict legislation was enacted. Blaafarveværket came under the jurisdiction of Bergamtet in Kongsberg.[1] in the following way:

Under the Over=Bergamt is also the Bergamt at Kongsberg, which consists of two Bergmeisters, a Bergamtskriver and four Geschworner [deputy head, subordinate to the Bergmeister]. This Bergamt is Prima Instantia [the lower court] for the silverworks' cases, as well as for the Berg=Jurisdiction in all court cases in Søndenfield, and also includes all Søndenfield ironworks' Proprietare and Bettiente, item Eidsvolds Guldværk in Eidsvold Præstgield [...] and Modum Blaafarveværk, in Modum Præstegield.[2]

Med Liv og Gods Forbinder os - A window into the social history of the early days of the work

As is the case today, there were many benefits to working in state-owned companies. Pensions, good wages, some schemes for payment in the event of illness and injury, etc. On the other hand, the autocratic royal power demanded total submission. This was also the case at the Royal Blue Colour Works. In the summer of 1780, Michael Scheidemand was hired as a pitman, Ole Huusmann as a materials clerk and supervisor, and Thomas Reinholdt Ziegler as supervisor. They were sworn into service in the courtroom at Fossum Farm on 22 July. The oath they had to take was as follows:

Then it is after last night's most submissive duty and obligation that we bind ourselves with life and goods to his Royal Majesty our most gracious King and master, as well as the very highest Royal House of Lords, so that we hereby pledge ourselves in the service entrusted to us to the most highly reported Lord Royal Majesty and his Blue Colouring Works in all possible ways [...] so truly help us God and his Holy Word.[3]

The fact that workers had to submit to the plant's owner was probably the case throughout the entire history of Blaafarveværket, not only during the period when the plant was state-owned, but the total and solemn swearing-in ceremony in the courtroom at Fossum disappeared when the plant was privatised.

The laws that the plant's workers had to comply with were sometimes very strict. This applied particularly to theft. All theft was perceived as very serious, as everything that was used in terms of tools, as well as everything that was mined, was the King's property. Thieves thus stole royal property. The penalties for cobalt theft were particularly harsh. If a labourer or officer was caught with more than 2 marks of stolen cobalt, i.e. around 500 grams, they were sentenced to death.[4] All cobalt extracted from the mines was, as mentioned, the King's property.

It should be said that cobalt theft must have been very rare. Other metals were probably more tempting to steal, such as silver, as they had a more immediate value. The cobalt ore had to be processed in such a complicated way that cobalt ore itself was probably not a tempting target for thieves.

Metal theft did, however, occur at Blaafarveværket, but this primarily involved the theft of iron tools. On 29 February 1808, miner Steffen Pedersen Grønvold was convicted of stealing drill iron worth 1 riksdaler.[5] Furthermore, it was specified in the judgement that:

"he may be or was seduced by another person, will or cannot be considered at all, as he, as a man of legal age and reason, must then fulfil his act".[6]

Grønvold was sentenced to two months of hard labour in the reformatory in Christiania, and to pay legal costs.[7] In 1789, the court at Fossum decided that all tools should be labelled so that the factory could ensure that no unauthorised persons used or stole them.[8]

The same law under which Grønvold was convicted also states the following:

On the other hand, the Executive Board shall, according to its discretion, accept the other challenging supervisors and labourers, who, if they are found not to observe their duties according to the orders given to them, shall, according to the nature and importance of the case, either be arbitrarily dismissed or suspended, or be prosecuted by action in the relevant jurisdiction.[9]

It actually happened that workers ran away from the factory. They often owed the mill money in the form of outstanding loans from the mill's coffers, or outstanding payments for food or clothing from the mill's suppliers. The importance and power of the Blaafarve mill is evident from a front page of the capital's newspaper, Nordske Intelligenz=Seddler, from 25 September 1782.

Announcements:

As without due and legal resignation from the service of Cobolt, the following workers are hereby summoned to resign without delay: Hærbrand Gulliksen with his three sons Ole Hærbrandsen, Hellich and Hærbrand Hærbrandsen, Brede Hansen, Torkild Rustand, Ole Pedersen Wittenberg, Ruud Christophersen Kongsberg, Johan [...] Liebisch with son Conrad Liebisch, Ole Lorenzen, and Daniel Persen Rørhaas: All of which persons are requested to be arrested and sent as escapees to the blue dye works in return for the compensation for costs incurred in their arrest and capture.[10]

The announcement goes on to state that everyone who had been employed by the Blaafarve Works had to be able to produce a certificate stating that they had been legally dismissed from the works. If they could not produce this, customs officers throughout Denmark-Norway could arrest them. All "fugitives" were to be arrested on the spot. The costs of transporting the prisoners to Modum would be reimbursed by the plant's management.[11]

Disorder and liquor - fighting, vandalism and Peder Kullebech

In addition to theft and escape from service, the Blaafarveværk's legal system was characterised by the reading of posters, new laws and orders from the King, etc. Sometimes, however, cases that were considered less serious were taken up in court. One offence that sometimes occurred was disorderly conduct. On two occasions, old man Peder Kullebech and several others were charged with disorderly behaviour. Disorderly behaviour is a generic term for fighting, vandalism and the like.

Kullebech was first indicted in January 1816. The indictment was quite serious. Kullebech was, together with factory worker Peder Zvarts, charged with disorder on the Strand farm, which belonged to Mrs Marie Tejlmann. As women were minors, Marie's brother, Mr Peder Tyrholm, had to conduct the case on her behalf. Incidentally, it was Mr Tyrholm who arrested Kullebech.[12]

Kullebech admitted that he was very drunk when he visited Strand Farm. He had made purchases from the stall of the Blaafarveværk's own supplier, Niels Tyrholm. When Kullebech became too violent and Mr Peder Tyrholm attempted to arrest him, Kullebech counterattacked. Kullebech "assaulted and attacked mr. Peder Tyrholm, so that the latter was forced to defend himself".[13]

Kullebech had to pay a fine, and the plant's supplier, Niels Tyrholm, was warned that it was strictly forbidden for the supplier to "keep a tavern in his stall".[14] The supplier was not allowed to serve spirits inside the stall, which the evidence suggested he had done. However, the workers who, together with Kullebech, had bought the liquor said that the effect of the liquor could have been somewhat enhanced as they had walked the long way from the cobalt sheds, in bad and cold weather, without eating first.

Kullebech got into trouble again in 1821, when he was again arrested for disorderly behaviour. This time he had knocked over a fence.[15] The case was not considered to be as serious, but hut master Klem, who presided over the court, warned against several offences. As we can see, the court's view seems to have softened somewhat after the end of the union with Denmark. The mill then ceased to be in royal ownership, but continued to have its own court for a few more years.

In the summer of 1822, the last trial at Blaafarveværket was held. It concerned schoolteacher Gullbrand Hansen and a dispute with one of his formerly employed maids.[16] After 1822, the private mill owners maintained strict labour regulations. These allowed mill owners to fine, dismiss and physically punish their workers when the regulations were violated, but they could no longer imprison or otherwise judge their workers. In royal ownership, the court could sentence labourers who, for example, stole firewood, to the penitentiary in Christiania. In private ownership, labourers who broke the law were reported to the sheriff. Factory owners were no longer able to send labourers to prison.

This marked the end of a chapter in Blaafarveværket's history. One of the last remnants of the Danish era disappeared. Blaafarveværket would never again be referred to as "The Royal Blaafarveværket".

Sources:

  • SAKO, Eiker, Modum and Sigdal magistrates' court, F/Fa/Fae/L0001: Tingbok, 1780-1813,

Use link for page view: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg20090224341117

  • SAKO, Eiker, Modum and Sigdal magistrates' court, F/Fa/Fae/L0002: Tingbok, 1813-1822,

Use link for page view: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg20090224350015

[1] Hagen, The blue colour from Modum. (Blaafarveværket: Spartacus forlag AS/Scandinavian Academic Press. 2014.) 60

[2] Bing. Description of the Kingdom of Norway. (Copenhagen: Paa Agent Gyldendals Forlag. 1796) 335

[3] SAKO, Eiker, Modum and Sigdal magistrates' court, F/Fa/Fae/L0001: Tingbok, 1780-1813, p. 2

Use link for page view: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg20090224340978

[4] Lindeman. Modums Blaafarveverk. Blaafarveværket: Blaafarveværket. 1993. 10.

[5] SAKO, Eiker, Modum and Sigdal magistrates' court, F/Fa/Fae/L0001: Tingbok, 1780-1813, p. 174

Use link for page view: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg20090224341152

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] SAKO, Eiker, Modum and Sigdal magistrates' court, F/Fa/Fae/L0001: Tingbok, 1780-1813, p. 139

Use link for page view: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg20090224341117

[9] Lindeman. Op.cit. 9

[10] Storm, J. "Bekiendtgiørelser." Nordic Intelligence=Seddler. 25.09.1782 https://www.nb.no/items/ce9d641b4f940a4f9f886daebd1e8b7a?page=0&searchText=Cobolt

[11] Storm, J. "Bekiendtgiørelser."

[12] SAKO, Eiker, Modum and Sigdal magistrates' court, F/Fa/Fae/L0002: Tingbok, 1813-1822, p. 13

Use link for page view: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg20090224350015

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid. 14

[15] SAKO, Eiker, Modum and Sigdal magistrates' court, F/Fa/Fae/L0002: Tingbok, 1813-1822, p. 33

Use link for page view: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg20090224350036

[16] SAKO, Eiker, Modum and Sigdal magistrates' court, F/Fa/Fae/L0002: Tingbok, 1813-1822, p. 35

Use link for page view: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/rg20090224350038

Images:

By Fisle - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57061551

By Alexander Roslin - Frederiksborg Castle and Christie's, LotFinder: entry 5277785, Public property, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19389278