Letter – Nicholas Walton to John Everest – 25 May 1759

To Mr John Everest                              		Ravensworth Castle   May 25th 1759

at Greenwich



Sir 

      We reced yours of the <14> of May Inst. Inclosing the Draughts for two Intended new leases, which we have looked over and think the proposed Alteration improper: as we are persuaded Mr Hussey will agree when he hears our reasons

      The Tenants in Alstonmoore where almost all the Lead Mines lye are all Leased for a Tenure of 1000 years & it has been a matter of dispute whether the Hospital have a right to work Mines in these Leaseholds or Not, but as they have admitted it upon payment of Damages that Matter is clear, but it is certainly proper to reserve damages from the Lessees of Lead Mines as it is upon that condition that the Lessees of the Inclosed Lands admitt the working in their Lands.  Most of the Mines are upon the waists so that the Restraint is no discouragement.  Nor does any Lessee of a mine working in the Inclosures scruple payment of Damages.

      It has also been a matter of dispute whether the Hushing a mine was allowable in regard to Damages to Tenants & it is looked upon as an Improper manner of working so that upon both of these Accots. the forfeiture [next 16 words up to ‘Forfeiture’ has been added in margin]  of ten pounds per week has been Incerted as amounting to a Prohibition.  If no Forfeiture was fixed we apprehend then upon every offence the quantum of Damages must be proved to ascertain the Damages, it is therefore in our opinion very proper as it is.  What other Alterations you have made we think are verry proper.

      In regard to the Land Leases we think the powers reserved verry sufficient & begg leave to Recommend no Alteration be made therein as the Tenants of the Lands are Actually Contracted with agreeable to the Draughts so that we cannot see it possible to make any, and indeed we think as it stands in the first page of the Draught it is verry reasonable.  In the third page the penalty of ten pounds for every Tree cutt down is verry sufficient as no Tree in the Estate now unsold is of half the value.  The penalty assertained is an Intire prohibition; And the penalty for not grinding at the Ld’s mill we think Also Sufficient & ought to Stand as it is.  We have considered those things with Mr Stewart and we are all of opinion as above but Submitt it to Mr Husseys Judgement.

      We observe what you say as to the Discription of the Quakers Company Leases & cannot say more than we have done upon that head, than repeating that the description must be in all of them [underlined up to next full stop]  1200 yards in Length & 40 yards in breadth on Each side of the Said vein, provided the same does not Interfere with any former grant of any Lead Mine now in being.    What the Agent urges may happen but in their principal mine we think it will not however be that as it will if it is a matter of Justice to every Lessee, whose case it may happen to be,  These Gentlemen have equal chance with other to gain as well as loose by it, Nay as they work more Mines we think it is Evident the Chance is in their favour,   We are Surprised they should make one word about it.    We are

      Sir     Your most Humble Servts

      Nichos. Walton      Hugh Boag



PS    If there is any difference made between the Leases of the Quakers Company & the other Lessees it will most surely be the Ocasion of Complaint.

NB the draughts <of our> Lead Mine & one <Land> Lease  ref’d to Mr Everest