Letter – Henry Richmond to William Darwin – 26 Feb 1760

Document Type: Letter
Date: 26 Feb 1760
Correspondent: Henry Richmond
Recipient: William Darwin
Archive Source: NRO 672 E 1E 1
  • Transcription
  • Comments (0)
  • Change font
    If columns/tables do not appear straight, change font
To Mr Darwin Greys Inn London						Newc 26th Febry 1760

Sir 		I have acquainted Sir Wr with what you say passed between Mr Craister and you; who says it is very well.  But I was afraid it might be improper for anything of the £500 to be mentioned to him by us as he never said ought of it himself to either my father or me.

	I have rec[eive]d the abstracts of deeds &c relating to the Escheat of Kirkheaton which I shall give my best consideration as soon as I have time.  At present it appears to me that you have put Sir Wr 's title upon the best footing in the note you have added at the end of you observations.  But as the deed poll in 1583 w[hic]h the inquisition of 20 Janry 26 Eliz seems  to be of great importance it will be necessary we sho[ul]d have a copy thereof before any judgement can be formed whether Sir John Forster got the Manor of Anick Grainge by that deed.   If he did, I hope it will be found that the Crown's having Kirkheaton in their hands at the time of granting off the Manor of Anick Grainge and for some years afterwards and then granting it off also will not sever that estate from its dependance on the manor it was anciently parcel of.  What inclines me to think thus is that when some Estates pcels of Hexham manor were forfeited to the Crown by the Attainder of Lord Derwentwater.  The said estates while in the crown did not pay the fee farm rents due to the said Manor of Hexham.  But the Crown having lately parted with them, by appropriating them to Greenwhich hospital the Trustees of the hospital have been advised that the s[ai]d Estates w[oul]d now be liable to pay the said fee farm rents and have accordingly pd the same which I am satisfied they wo[ul]d not have done unless it had been a clear case.  You are a better judge whether this is similar to the case of Kirkheaton.     By your letter to Sir Wr and what you say to me I find that MR Rooks has not met with anything material about Anick Grainge or Kirkheaton in his search in the Rolls chapel.  But pray is not the Augmentation office or the office of the Auditors of the land Revenue at Westminster the more likely place to afford us the Lights we want.  Since in that office of patents fm 1 Hen 8 to the end of Cha. I are kept, as I am informed by Mr Collingwood who met there with things which he and L[or]d Noland sought for in vain at the Rolls Chapel.  When you have considered this you may proceed as you judge best.   

	I expect Sir Wr has wrote you this post in reference to obtaining copies of the deeds in Lady Windsors possession; as I mentioned the same to him.  Pray will it be necessary for me to return you the abstract you have sent as the referring any observations on additions, I can make, to the pages of the said abstract will be sufficient.  I am   &c   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