Letter – Nicholas Walton to Swinsin Jervis – 16 Mar 1753

To Swinsin Jervis Esq.                            		Ravensworth Castle  March. 13th 1753 



Sir      

      We were favoured with your letter of the 8th Inst. by last post after we had wrote to Mr Everest in answer to one rece’d from him.

      The Clause which Mr Denton has proposed to add to the Bill for Dividing Hexham Common to ascertain the right of the Hospital, we think a very proper Clause and comprehends all the Lands belonging to the Hospital which have a right thereon. Mr Everest had by last post a particular of these Lands distinguishing where lying in whose possession and at what Rents, a Duplicate of which you have also Inclosed; and we have only to add in regard to that Clause whether it may not be proper to add the Names of the Tenants in whose possession they are; as we have put it in the Inclosed Copy or as you shall think most proper; and as we do not admit, that properly there are two Commons, we have made a Small Alteration in regard to that, which you will be pleased to put Accordingly if it is thought Necessary.  Baggraw is the only beneficial Lease having been granted near 99 Years ago; it expires the 12 th December next, and as we Apprehend will advance about £30 per Annum, all the rest were Farms Lett in the Year 1737 for a term of 21 Years, and tho’ they may Advance when these Leases Expire some small thing we do not think it Reasonable to rate them upon this Division at more than the present Rents.  We were in Hopes Mr Boag would have been in Town before this time, and we thought he would the Better Explain our Observations on the Bill than possibly Cou’d be done by Letter.  Otherwise you would have had the Observations we now give you the Trouble of, referring to the Articles as they stand in the Minute made the 23 rd December 1752, Sent by us to the Board, a Copy of which we likewise Send you herewith.

      	

      Article 1st . We think it reasonable that the Lord of the Manor have One Sixteenth part for his Consent to divide, for tho’ in some cases Lords of the Manors give up their Share or take a less share, it is the general Custom of this Country to allow 1/16 part.  And it is the more reasonable in this Case as the Lord of the Manor gives up his Share of Common in respect of his Mills which let at £200 per Annum.

      2nd. There does not appear to us any Objection to the Lords Share of Common being laid Contiguous to Yarridge; but we are of Oppinion that this share as Lord of the Manor should be considered and sett off Quantity for Quality after setting first of all off Room for making Bricks, Winning Stones, Roads, Watering places and other necessary conveniences for the use of all the Parties.  And Sir Walter Blackett as Lord of the Manor should pay his proportion of the Expence of obtaining the Act of Parliament and Expence of the Division in respect of his 16th Part.

      3rd. That the allottment of Common to the Commissioners of the Hospital be Freehold, the same Tenure of their respective Estates and that no Annual rent be paid to Sir Walter Blackett as Lord of the Manor in respect of such allottment . Such persons as shall desire to have their Allottments Copyhold, ought to pay the Lord of the Manor a Rent

      4th. We Apprehend as the Law now stands all Commons upon Improvement are exempted from the payment of Tythes for Seven years from the Time of beginning to Improve, so that in this Case should a Proprietor delay his Improvement for 12 years he looses the Benefit as the Law now stands; But we are of Opinion Sir Walter Blackett does not mean to deprive the Proprietors of the Benefit they now have but to Enlarge it, so that we think instead of reckoning the 12 years [rest of sentence underlined] from the making the Division it should be from the time of beginning the Improvement.

      5th We do not see any Objections to the sale of Kingshaw green and Lambshield Lane, towards the Payment of the Debt contracted in defending the right of the said Commons and toward defraying the Expence of the Act of Parliament etc.  The Board were consulted and consented to bear their Share of the Expence of Defending the right of Common  But we find Lady Oxford not haveing been consulted on this point her Ladyship will not consent that Kingshaw green or Lambshield lane be sold.

      6th. It is very reasonable that the Royalties be reserved to the Lord of the Manor, he obliging himself to make reasonable satisfaction for Spoil of Ground in working thereof, or in Ways to and from the same and as the settling those Damages are often Attended with great Difficulty we think the Commissioners who are to Divide should have power to settle these Damages not exceeding Ten Shillings an Acre.  As Quarries are intended to be sett off for the use of all the parties, we think the Lord should not be restrained from Working Quarries in any of the Tenants Allottments for Sale or for his own use and the other proprietors should be restrained to the Publick Quarries or to Working Stone in their Allottments respectively for their own uses only.

      7th  It is Apprehended since the Treaty began for Carrying on this Division, many persons have raised their Rents and have Erected Buildings in Hexham which Increases the Value of Lands and Houses in one part while others lett on Leases, stand As they were at the time of letting which is unequal.  We therefore think it Reasonable that the Division be made according to the Rate or Value in the year 1743 save only and except such Lands as have been on Long Leases; as for instance Baggraw has been for 99 years.

      8th  It is very right, to set out a Reasonable quantity of Ground for Brick Kilns, and Freestone or Limestone Quarries at proper Places for the benefit of the Lord of the manor and All the other Proprietors

      9th  The Tyne Green and Mill Island being part of the Common Shou’d be Reckoned as part of the Whole and Divided accordingly amongst the Several Proprietors, and Should not be excepted or set off out of the Division.

      

      These are all the Articules contained in the Minute before mentioned to which we have to add that as it was the sense of the meetings we attended that not more than Seven or less than Five Commissioners should be named we are surprised to see Ten in your List, without Mr William Boag who Sir Ra. Millbank named as his Commissioner and it is our Opinion that Five Commissioners are Sufficient; much better than a greater number, Sir Walter Blackett was pleased to name Edward Collingwood Esq.  The Town of Hexham Mr Will. Cook, Lady Oxford’s Steward was thought proper on her Ladyship’s Account, Mr Boag on the Hospitals Account and Mr. Willm. Boag was for Sir Ralph Millbank, But if it is thought proper to have so great a number then we beg leave to recommend that that to the Ten of which you sent us a List there may be added John Reed of Chipchase Esq, Geo. Shaftoe Delival of Bavington Esq. Gaw. Ainsley of Little Harle Esq, Willm. Bigg of Little Benton Esq and Mr Wm. Boag of Newcastle upon Tyne. But we hope it will be thought proper to Confine the Number to Five as the having a great Number will generally Increase the Expence.  The Commissioners should have Sufficient time Allowed for making their Award we think it Cannot be done sooner than about Lammas 1754.

      As we wrote Mr Everest by last post Lady Oxford will Certainly give a Warm Opposition to the Bill, and as She Insists upon Sir Walter Blackett’s giving up his Share as Lord of the Manor we presume to think it would be much better to postpone the further application to Parliament till next Session in order that Lady Oxford may be satisfied with the Reasonableness of Sir Walters Demand, and for Settling other Matters which are not agreed, to by all the parties Sir Ra: Millbank positively Insists upon a Share in all the Common or he will not consent to the Division and it is probable a Petition will come very soon from Lady Oxford, Sir Ra: Millbank and some others against the Bill.

      We observe Sir it is Intended that the Original Division Deed shall be lodged in the Hands of the Clerk of the peace for the County of Northumberland which is certainly very proper, But as an Original may be very proper for any Considerable proprietor to have would it not be proper to add to that Clause that any proprietor willing to be at the Expence of an Original may have one.

      If any thing further Occurs to us, as necessary to communicate to you we will give you the trouble of another Letter and we are

      Your most Obedient and Humble Servants

      Nichos. Walton    Hugh Boag



P.S.  We have sent Duplicates of all to Mr Burrell



Clause for ascertaining the Hospitals Right upon Hexham Common to be Incerted in the Bill.   And Whereas the Commissioners or Governors of the Royal Hospital for Seamen at Greenwich or their Trustees, Lesses Farmers or Tenants, in respect of or as appendant Appurtenant or belonging to their Sev’l. Messuages Lands Hereditaments as Coastley now in the possession of David Brown & Eliz. Nicholson their under Tenants their Heirs or Assigns Langhope now in the possession of Jno. Dixon & Jos. Scott their under Tenants their Heirs or Assigns; Hackford now in the possession of Jno. Bell his under Tenants his Heirs or Assignes and Baggraw now in the possession of Matt. Leadbitter his under Tenants his Heirs or Assignes, in the said County of Northumberland are Intitled to a right of Common in and upon Hexham Common, Moor or Waist commonly called Distinguished or known by the name of Hexham East Common and Hexham West Common.

      N.B.  if it is thought proper to discribe the Common as above the Alteration must be made where it is first named in the Bill and thro’ the whole