These new landowners, or "squires", settled in the fishing villages, by inlets or on the headlands, and were consequently also referred to as "nessekonger", meaning the "kings of the headlands".

The squires carried on a number of enterprises that had been going on since the old days, while at the same time keeping their eyes open for new and profitable ventures. New jobs were created and there was considerable activity in the fishing villages. The squire's most important contribution was probably first and foremost the organisation of trade based in the area where the fish were caught, as opposed to the earlier Bergen trade, where it was the merchants of Bergen who determined prices, sorting and exports. Freer trade, increased settlement and good fishing led to better times in the north. From then on, more of the income from trade in the north was invested in the north, and less in Bergen and northern Germany. Lofoten and North Norway experienced considerable financial growth.

"Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire?"
In the old fishing villages, before the advent of the system of landlords and squires, many people were to some extent dependent on the wealthy class of local merchants. Furthermore, we know that the northerners were in despair over the so-called "Nordland Debt" that was owed to the merchants of Bergen. The relationship between them was one-sided; those who caught and supplied the fish always ended up in the red, but Bergen was a long way away, and control was difficult...
Some historians therefore maintain that for the fisherman and his family, relating to a local squire and merchant was like getting out of the frying pan only to fall into the fire. The local merchant, as opposed to those in Bergen, had plenty of opportunity to collect any outstanding debt from the fisherman and his family. In this way, it was probably better for them to owe money to a distant merchant in Bergen, than to the local squire.

The squires had a monopoly on all trade and industry, including the buying and selling of fish and all other goods. They were landowners, and rented out "rorbu" cabins and fish racks, and the land on which to erect them. The squires were so powerful, that the fishermen believed that the great, untameable ocean also belonged to them. Until the early 1900's, the fishermen were obliged to deliver their catch to whomever they rented their "rorbu" cabins from. The fishermen and their families who were resident in the fishing villages were the squire's tenants, paying their rent with something in the region of 6 – 24 days of unpaid labour.

The atmosphere in the fishing villages was determined by the way the squire treated his tenants and their families. Some squires were caring and governed with common sense. They were often the ones to provide credit and surety so that the families were able to buy essential commodities and fishing tackle. Other squires abused their position and power, making life miserable for the villagers and depriving them of their freedom. The squire system's bane was the Raw Fish Act of 1936-38 which stripped the fish buyer and squire of the right to determine fish prices.

A State of Contemporary Lawlessness
You probably think all this must have happened a very long time ago? In 1939, there were 226 landed properties in the borough of Moskenes. 120 of them were owned by five local landowners. One of the these landowners was the local "king", owning an immense 71 properties. The local inhabitants constantly joined together and approached the authorities requesting that they inter-vene against the system of squires, or what they referred to as " a state of lawlessness" As late as in 1979, 100 "cotters" in one of the fishing villages asked for help in order to gain permission to buy the land on which their houses were built. This particular case was resolved, but even today, there are some fishing villages where remnants of the system of squires still remain.

Many people had a good relationship with the squire, as a human being, but gradually, the old squire system became the subject of strong criticism. It did not seem appropriate as ordinary
people gained more and more political influence. Democracy was the objective, both locally and nationally. The system of squires, with its unilateral distribution of power and wealth, was now regarded as a prehistoric system, inconsistent with modern, political ideals.