Letter – Henry Richmond to Thomas Maughan – 13 Jan 1762

Document Type: Letter
Date: 13 Jan 1762
Correspondent: Henry Richmond
Recipient: Thomas Maughan
Archive Source: NRO 672 E 1E 1
  • Transcription
  • Comments (0)
  • Change font
    If columns/tables do not appear straight, change font
To Mr. Thos. Maughan at Newhouse, Weardale                                              13 January 1762

Sir        Sir Walter has got L[or]d Darlingtons Leave for Mr Elliot to attend the Reference about the dispute with Mr Bacon.

I expected before this to have heard something f[ro]m you about this affair. I mean 1st whe[the]r the ore was brought back; for without that, you know, you are not to agree to the Referees meeting 2dly. what points you & Mr Harrison think ought to be refered. This, you remember, I wanted to have had ascertained when he & you were here for the money for the pays, but he chose to have another view first. If this is not yet done pray write to Mr Harrison & get your opinions upon it put into writing, for Sir Wr wants it. He says he will have nothing refered that is Evidently his Right, or that can probably be maintained to be so. There are two points wch f[ro]m the first I have been of opinion Mr Bacon co[ul]d have no Right to. 1st. to take away the ore from Lingy brow Grove wch had been wrought by Sir Wr; & to take it in the night time too! 2dly. to sink the shaft 7 or 8 fathoms wide of any of the former workings of Cowhaust vein, or any drift driven to demonstrate that That vein or Float extended to such a Breadth. If this was to be submitted to, he would of course have a right to sink where he pleases. These two points therefore are not to be at all refered. There are two others wch were talked of as proper to be submitted to the Referees. 1st whether the Boundary of Kilhope & Welhope Fells is up the Ridge or up the Greensike from the Bounder Shaft. 2dly. Whether Lingy brow Grove, after she comes into Kilhope Fell, is distinct f[ro]m Cowhaust, or any part of her falls down into that Float and if so, then whe[the]r Sir Wr ought not to have a greater proportion of the ore after such junction, than one half. But this last point, you know, was what Mr Harrison wanted to have a further consideration of before he could give his opinion whether it ought to be refered. that is, he wanted to see whether it is clear that Lingy brow is distinct f[ro]m Cowhaust in Kilhope Fell. For if it is, then this point must not be refered neither if otherwise it may be refered.

I desire your ans[we]r hereto as soon as possible. PS Candlemas was the time limited for the Referees to make an End of this affair. I am etc HR 

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