Letters – Joseph Richmond to Walter Blackett – 24 Jan 1755

To Sir Wr.Blackett Bt. MP. at his house in Curzon Street London

Newc[astle] 24th January 1755

Hon Sir

	Mr Ellis writes that Mr Shafto Downs has begun to work Coals at Stublock in yo[u]r Liberty by the order of Messrs Walton & Boag the hospitals Agents, & desires to know w[ha]t steps are proper to be taken to pu a stop to their working there. For if he is allowed to go on for any time, the whole ground in dispute, being above 336 acres will be lost. On the other side (see above) you have a particular state of the case for your consideration. To present & amerce Mr Downs at Hexham Court Mr Ellis says will be to no purpose. Perhaps the Com[missione]rs of the hospital will agree to refer this Dispute, & give orders to stop Mr Downs' working till it is determind. If they will not something else should be done to stop him as soon as may be.

	I hear today that John Gibson is dying, so that Mr Peart will want an able assistant in Weardale. Sedling Grove gets Oar pretty well; but there is little got anywhere else in that Country. but we are in hopes that Elmford & Great Slitt will turn out well in a little time, & repay the great expence you have been at.

	Mr Robson is still here under Dr Coopers care, who cannot yet get his disorder removed. but he seems rather better. his constitution seems to be impaired, so that he cannot go through business as he has done. I sho[ul]d therefore think it proper for you to have some body bringing up at Wallington under him.

	Mr Ralph Headlam has done with the Merchants business; & I find you are to have sev[era]l applications by this post to recomend him as Secretary to Mr Littleton, who is going Governor to Carolina.

	I have rec[eiv]ed 28 boxes with Goods f[ro]m Esholt, wch will remain unopened, till you come into the Country. I am etc  JR





Case for S[i]r W[alte]r Blackett's Consideration 



In 1730 you let High Stulock Coll[ie]ry to one Jno.Brown for £6 a y[ea]r, who wro[ugh]t her for 5 yrs without any interruption & then have her up; in 1737 she was let again to Abm.Teasdale & Thos.Westgarth for 14 yrs at £7 a yr for the first 6 yrs & £12 a yr afterwards. In 1739 the Agents for  Greenwich hop[ita]l alledged that nthe Gro[un]d where Teasdale & Westgarth were working was in the Barony of Langley, & at a Court for that Barony they presented Teasdale & Westgarth for sinking pitts on Stublock Edge, & amerced them in £30 wch their Bailif came to Levy, but was prevented by the workmen; in a few days after, he returnd with more force, & carried away the Ropes & Tools to Haydon bridge & sold them in an hours time, but y[ou]r tenants were orderd to bring new materials to the pitts & carry on the work. In June 1740 you were served with a subpoena out of the Exchequer & a copy of an Injunction to stop the working. The Subpoena was deliverd to Mr Ord, but never anything more was done since wch time the Coll[ie]ry has lain unwro[ugh]t till now, that Mr Shafto Downs the Hospitals Tenant for Gregs shield Coll[ie]ry, wch adjoins Stublock, has begun to work Coals in the liberty (or at least what has always been lookd upon to be within the Manor of Hexham) & says he has orders f[ro]m the hospitals Agents to do so. I find by some copies of Lres in my Office, & other papers that there was a dispute about this matter in 1690, between the Earl of Darwentwater & Sr Wm.Blackett, & it was referd to arbitrators to settle the boundary; but those chosen by the Earl, when they came upon the spot & viewed the gro[un]d, declined to enter into any Discussion of the matter; on which  Sr Wm.Blackett proposd a friendly tryal at the next assizes, & in one of his letters he says he was determined never to give up an inch of the Gro[un]d till it  was determind one way or other. But Gregshield belonging to the Dilston family , as above, being let to one Willey, & Stublock belonging to Sr Wm.Blackett let by him to one Bittlestone, those two p[er]sons entred into p[ar]tners[hi]p in both Coll[ie]rys  & wro[ugh]t them for many y[ea]rs so that the dispute dropt between the two families. The Question is whether an Injunction can be obtained to stop Mr Downs working, or what other Method must be taken to support y[ou]r right in 336 acres of gro[un]d wch the hospitals tenants or Agents lay a Claim to . I desire you will be pleased to let us have y[ou]r directions herein as soon as convenient. I have herewith inclosed Copy of the Injunction they servd you with in 1740.