- Comments (0) Change font
If columns/tables do not appear straight, change font
My Lord I have received your Lordships favour, and am sorry to find things so perplexed. The copy of Articles which Mr Dover sent to me some time since, one of which I imagined your Lordship had, I have now enclosed. The particulars tho’ some of them were not altogether agreeable, I was willing to consent to, as the time was so far advanced. The delay of payment to the 1st of October is owing to the works having been retarded so much that they cd. not be brought to market. And the signing of them in the Country as Mr. Blacket’s credit would be a sanction So it was no difficulty with me; I know not what to say to yr. Lordship’s objection to Mr. Blackets or Mr. Aireys books being decisive, tho’ at present it appears as if any books, together with Mr. Blacket’s, might be relyed on. Mr. Dover in a letter by last post mentions that in the Article which will be brought to your Lordship by Mr. Richmonds order, the mean proportion for fixing the price of lead is to be computed from Xmas last, whereas he [inserted in a different hand: ‘Dover’] says it shd. be computed for the whole year as in the original Article which is now inclosed to yr. Lordsp; and he cautions us against allowing this alteration, because lead has been cheaper since Xmas than before. Now all this I do not comprehend because if the mean price be fixed at all, it must extend itself to the whole Quantity of Oar to be sold otherwise it is an incompleat purchase. I wrote to Richmond some little time past to acquaint that I had consented to his articles, and he sends me in answer by last post thus. I have received yr. letter wch. I sent to Mr Dover, but he told the Bearer he could not sign the Memorandum because my Ld. Bp would have the Articles drawn and signed in London; so after waiting all this while we are to begin again. As our Mills stand idle for want of Oar, we cannot wait any longer, so have been obliged to order Mr Peart to send them a supply of Oar, and leave the dues at the Grove, till I know what will be the event of our present Treaty. I have by this post desired a Gentleman to wait on the Bishop with the Memorandum I drew up, wh. I thought might have done, without any farther trouble and expence; and if it be reduced into an article have desired it may be dispatched to you to sign, for otherwise if any wast happen to the dues, we cannot help it, nor is Mr. Blacket answerable for it. – Thus for Mr. Richmond. The circumstance of the dues being left on the bank is bad, and therefore the sooner they are sold, the more will remain. I hope yr. Lordp. will adjust this matter at once; the delay of wh. has proved both irksome and detrimental to us. If I did not know Peart, I should be amazed at his impudence in flying in the face of a determination finished in so solemn and deliberate a manner. I am my Lord Yr. Lordships most Dutifull Servt. Edmd Keene St. Peters Coll. Camb March 17th 1742.
DCRO D/Bo/F/119 Edward Chandler was Bishop of Durham 1730 – 1750. Edmund Keene was Rector of Stanhope 1740 – 1770 as well as holding other posts including being Master of Peterhouse College, Cambridge. Keene persuaded Chandler that they should receive respectively the actual value of their tithe and lott ore from Blackett rather than a commuted annual money sum. This arrangement took place for three years, 1741/2, 1742/3 and 1743/4, with Keene and Chandler selling their ore to Blackett at an agreed price. The complications for the Bishop and Rector of managing this method of ascertaining the correct value of the dues meant that the experiment was short lived. The date as written might usually imply it was written in 1743 by the modern calendar, but given the content concerns setting up arrangements for collection of the ore, it was almost written in the first year of the new arrangement, ie. 1742.