Letter – Nicholas Walton to William Corbett – 19 Mar 1736

To William Corbett Esqr

      Rav. Castle  March 19th 1735/6

Sr                                                                               

	Yesterday was the first day that we reced in proposals for letting the Tyths of Whelpington etc when we mett with a proposal from Mr George Cuthbertson Attorney at law in Newcastle for Whelpington Tyths & he offered for the Same £130  we beleive he is imployed by Sr John Swinburn to take the Same.  Gawen Ainesley Esqr has offered £100 for the said Tyths.  We had also from one of the Tennants at Hartburn Grainge £100 offered for the Tyths of the Rectory of Hartb: but no body has offered any thing for Midford Tyths.  What we propose in letting of these Tyths is to receive in all proposalls & then to Judge whom to give the Preference to, after having acquainted the Directors with our Thoughts on the Circumstances of each Person offering to take the said Tyths or any part thereof.

	You will observe Sr that there is here an offer of £95 per Ann advance on Whelpington & Hartburn Tyths & we expect yett a further advance, but Should it even be no more it is a Considerable one;  We were very much Surprized with an objection to the letting of them this next year made by Mr Ainesley of Hexham, who alledges that he as Farmer at Hartburn Tyths has not had Legall notice given him & therefore will hold them another year.  This he Says is not only his Case but the Case of the Farmers of other Tyths advertised to be Lett and he Says he has wrote to Mr Delaval who expects to hold his in a like manner, & if so what we have done is to no purpose, and Consequently the Advance to the Hospital will be lost for next yr.  How farr the Directors will think fitt to give Ear to what Mr Ainesley alledges we know not, but we begg leave to observe that this is an Instance of his opposing the Improvemt of the Estate & the Revenue of the Hospitall.

	What he goes upon is the Clause in the late Act of Parliamt impowering the Commissioners to lett for 21 Years in which Clause he Says it is required that notice Shall be given 6 Months before the Determination of his or any other Persons Term, & having had none at all Says he has a right.  In answer to which we observe those Tyths to be lett only for one year Viz from Mayday 1735 to Mayday 1736 & Consequently as they were Lett only for one year, no notice was necessary we have taken Lawyer Grays opinion thereon which you have herein Inclosed, but that we may lead the Directors into no mistake we desire their directions whether we have a right to lett or not; it Should be done as Speedily as possible.

	If the Directors have given directions to advertise the whole Estate in the London Gazette, if they think it proper we desire to have one Sent us every Week during the Six Months the sd Estate is advertised.  We are Sr Your most Obedt Servts

      Nichos Walton		Hugh Boag