Letter – Francis Tweddell to Shute Barrington – 19 Feb 1800

Document Type: Letter
Date: 19 Feb 1800
Correspondent: Francis Tweddell
Recipient: Shute Barrington
Archive Source: DUL CCB B 182 121
  • Transcription
  • Comments (0)
  • Change font
    If columns/tables do not appear straight, change font
      Threepwood 19 Feby 1800

My Lord,

      Your Lordships late favor with which I was Honoured should have received a more early reply had I not deemed it proper to wait the result of a meeting then advertised, for the express purpose of considering the propriety of a Division of the very Bollihope and Stanhope Commons by Your Lordship adverted to, when by a great Majority in Number and Value, for forcible reasons then adduced, the Measure was concluded to be inexpedient. 

Had your Lordship been truly apprised, that Stanhope Common in particular, and containing 8000 acres, on account of its real barrenness is almost literally of no value, and that Bollihope Common is fit only for a Sheep Pasture which is its present state, and will not admit from its want of Soils of any such agricultural improvement as to repay the expenditure. Your Lordship of course would not then have expressed a Wish, however desirous to promote the benefit of the Community and of the Proprietors, that two such Commons, should come forward to Division in times of the present complexion. More especially as the heavy expenses of a separate Bill, Solicitors, Commissioners and Fencing, must collectively have been productive of much real disadvantage to the Proprietors, and instead of proving beneficial, have occasioned them very considerable detriments. When the Stanhope Inclosure Act was last Year in agitation (and which to those Proprietors is now unavoidably incurring large expence) the Unthank Proprietors, and several others, were then desirous, to have had Bollihope Common included in that Act, in order to have had a part divided, and the remainder apportioned in Stints, but the Solicitor, without consulting and of the Proprietors, struck that Common out of the Bill, and which circumstance most probably is known to your Lordship. Other reasons the Unthank Proprietors then had for urging the Measures, and which, with your lordships persuasion I thus wrote ‘the including the Bollihope Common in the Stanhope Act, would have been effected at a reduced apportioned expence to each, but which the Solicitor by striking out Bollihope rendered ineffectual the hopes of procuring a Clause to Sell any detached property from the Unthank Settled Estate, in order to liquidate all the Division Expences from the Main Estate (and which by Petition to the Lords under proper restrictions, I continue to presume might and ought to have been effected) but which, Lord Walsingham positively refused to admit.’

Notwithstanding, that several men of Business to whom I have related the circumstances with Me clearly concur in sentiment, that admitting such Clause, when, in its nature proper, would promote the Division of much valuable property, that otherwise may forever lie dormant, and finally ‘the obtaining  the Enfranchising Clause so liberally offered by your Lordship to the proprietors of Leasehold etc property, but which was withdrawn from the Stanhope Act (without cause assigned) to the very great dissatisfaction of the proprietors to whom it was offered’ and this on the unfounded conception ‘that in the Stinted Pastures to be divided under the Stanhope Bill there is no property to which it would apply it being all of a Customary tenure’ but this I beg leave to assure your Lordship is the reverse, as the Estate of Horsely head in particular, is a Leasehold on Lives belonging the Unthank Proprietors, and several others are of similar Terms, and which Circumstances at the late Meeting at Stanhope I mentioned to Mr Mowbray And as tho’ a mere mistake this desirable Clause was struck out, and which Clause was the main inducement to the Unthank Proprietors and others consenting to the Stanhope Divisions. We therefore do flatter ourselves, your Lordship will by a distinct Bill, realise a Measure so liberally offered by your Lordship, and which cannot fail to afford much general satisfaction to the whole of the proprietors within the Parish of Stanhope whose property may be affected thereby.

      Had the proposed Division been approved, every Assistance in my power would assuredly have been exerted towards promoting any additional Chapels or Schools as by your Lordship suggested, notwithstanding that the income Act and other unavoidable War Taxes, may specially militate against matters, however laudable and well calculated for general benefit.

      With all due respect I have the Honor to be, My Lord, Your Lordship’s most Obedient Servant,

      Fr Tweddell

Leave a comment

We welcome further information or corrections on topics and incidents mentioned in individual letters. It might take a while before your comments are checked for adding to public view within the website. We cannot undertake further research in response to questions.

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


General Discussion
Suggested correction or addition


  Return to search results or refine/create new search
The Dukesfield Smelters and Carriers Project aimed to celebrate and discover the heritage of the Dukesfield Arches & lead carriers' routes between Blaydon and the lead mines of Allendale and Weardale. A two year community project, it was led by the Friends of the North Pennines in partnership with Hexhamshire and Slaley Parish Councils and the active support of Allendale Estates. It was funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and the generous support of other sponsors. Friends of the North Pennines: Charity No:1137467