PastPresented.info

MUNCASTER ESTATE BUSINESS, 1759-60


To Eskdale index 

Among the Pennington family documents preserved at Whitehaven Record Office are some letters written in 1759-60 by their estate steward at Muncaster, Lewis Herbert (ref. D/Pen/122). They have been kept because they contain details of iron-mining activity in the Deer Park, on the south-east side of the ridge which terminates at Newtown Knott. Mining was not by any means the only topic covered in the letters, which were written to keep Sir John Pennington informed while he was away from Muncaster (mostly on his Yorkshire estate at Warter, though as a Member of Parliament he also spent some time in London- this exalted position, incidentally meant that he could use the Royal Mail for free). Below, I have summarised the information from the various letters by topic.
POSTAL SERVICES AND TRAVELGRAZING IN THE PARK
IRON MININGWOOD: FOR CHARCOAL AND SHIPBUILDING
ESTATE TENANCIESCOAL SUPPLIES
PEAT RIGHTSTHE RAVENGLASS NAVIGATION BUOY
MUNCASTER CHURCH INCOME

POSTAL SERVICES AND TRAVEL
In 1760, decades before the invention of railways, neither mail nor passengers could travel any faster than a fit horse. These letters give some clues to the communications arrangements at the time. For example, on 3 Apr 1760, Mr Herbert had to apologise to his master about the delay of his reply to a letter Sir John had written from Warter on 17 Mar; the carrier from Whitehaven to Ulverstone, who delivered the Ravenglass mail, had, for some reason picked up this particular letter at Whitehaven Post Office but not delivered it at Muncaster until Monday [31 Mar]. By 8 Apr, on the other hand, Herbert had received Sir John's letter of 1 Apr. It seems that on 15 Apr, Sir John write two letters to Muncaster, for Mr Herbert acknowledged the receipt of one on 26 Apr, but reported on 8 May that a letter of the same date had never reached him. Such problems encouraged people to send urgent mail with friends who happened to be travelling; on 3 Apr, Herbert reported that when Mr Charles Lutwidge from Whitehaven passed through Ravenglass on his way to London a few days earlier, he had entrusted to him a letter for Mr Winckley [either an agent or a lawyer for the Penningtons] at Preston.
On 13 May, Herbert again apologised for a slow response to a letter Sir John had written on 2 May, which only reached Muncaster the previous Sunday [11 May]. He also then advised Sir John that he would be leaving for a trip to Cheshire (for which Sir John had earlier given permission) on Monday 26 May, and expected to be back at Muncaster by the following Monday or Tuesday. Sure enough, on 7 Jun he was able to report that he was back, and had even stopped at Preston on the way home to discuss costs relating to Sir John's estate at Pennington with Mr Winckley.

IRON MINING
On 12 Dec 1759, Lewis Herbert reported that the miners had, as ordered by Sir John (always referred to in the letters as Yo'r Hon'r) stopped work the previous Saturday- most reluctantly, for they were already getting spadefuls of ore as they dug their drainage level [he actually just uses the word "drain", but he seems to be implying the whole tunnel] into the hillside, and were confident of hitting a large body of ore within a week or so. The next letter, dated 11 Mar 1760, may be reporting the first activity since the December stoppage, for it states that Daniel Middleton had begun work at the mine just the day before, and that a great deal of rubbish had fallen into the drainage tunnel [presumably as winter frosts had worked on its ceiling and walls]. Herbert reassured his master that he would make sure the miners worked as ordered by Sir John, and that he would inform him immediately of any changes of situation.
Muncaster geologyOn 22 Mar 1760, he had to report that a spell of very stormy weather had slowed work in the mine, but that the ore was becoming more plentiful as they dug in. Although the miners were still digging more-or-less horizontally, he reported that the richest vein of the ore they were following (which appeared to be trending in the direction of Thomas Benn's house [known from other documents to be Newtown]) was at the bottom of the level, some 6-7 inches [15-18cm] thick. They had dug about a ton of clean ore from the level, and the ore body in the tunnel floor (thick enough to sink their picks up to the handle) was some two yards [180cm] wide- so Herbert asked Sir John's permission to dig deeper. Slow delivery of letters ultimately forced him to act on his own initiative, and on 3 Apr he reported that when the vein they were following above floor-level had shown signs of running out, he had allowed the miners to deepen the drainage level by half a yard [about 45cm] before they continued extending it into the hill. By that time though, the deepening work had not reached the place where they had found so much ore in the tunnel floor.
That report crossed with a letter written by Sir John on 1 Apr, ordering the miners to keep extending the tunnel, and not to deepen it. On 8 Apr, Mr Herbert therefore had to write an apology, though he noted that both he and Ralph [presumably the miners' foreman] had thought following the vein downward to be the best course, and that the work done "in the lower level" [which I take to mean the floor-deepening, not the opening of a new level in the mining sense] had been progressing through a mass of clean ore about half a yard [45cm] deep and 2 yards [180cm] wide. He also asked whether Sir John would approve of using the now-plentiful supplies of rubbish from the new workings to fill up the abandoned Mullinex pit. On 14 Apr, he was able to report that the men were following a vein about 2 inches [5cm] thick, still near the bottom of the drainage level, and still trending towards Benn's house. By 26 April, there was nothing startling to report; the vein still led on into the hill, and down still seemed the best way to go.
On 8 May he was at least able to observe that the ore was getting richer- there was a clear vein 3-4 inches [8-10cm] thick, but still almost at the bottom of the drainage level. On 13 May he estimated that the tunnel, still roughly level, extended some 12 yards [11m] from where they had started, with its head some 7 yards [6.5m] below the surface. The ore mentioned in the previous letter had dwindled to nothing, but again, at the bottom of the drain was a vein 2-3 inches [5-8cm] thick and about a yard [90cm] wide which they were pursuing- still in the direction of Thomas Benn's house. Herbert also reported that when they had been digging about a yard deeper in the 2-yard wide vein [i.e. presumably the unauthorised operation] they had won 2-3 tons of clean ore, which was lying on the hillside next to the working.
It's possible that this information persuaded Sir John, for on 7 Jun, Mr Herbert was reporting that the miners were working the level about a yard [90cm] deeper than the original level. However, there were now serious doubts about the whole enterprise. The only vein now visible, on the east side of the level was just 3 inches [8cm] thick and seemed to be leading into soft, boggy ground; the vein which had yielded most ore had dwindled away, as had the one they were following at the head of the drain. Sir John was therefore asked if he wanted the men to halt until he returned to Muncaster. On 14 June (by which time he presumably had not had any answer from his master) Herbert wrote again, advising that the situation underground was effectively unchanged. As it happened, Sir John's orders were to pursue the vein towards the bog, so on 30 Jun, Herbert reported that that had been done, but it had dwindled away as feared, so now the only vein visible in the whole working was one a mere inch [2.5cm] thick, on the seaward side- leading, as ever, towards Mr Benn's house. He had halted work the previous Saturday, and proposed not to restart without specific orders.
Evidently, no such orders were received, and this was the last letter in the file [but see the Industry section].

ESTATE TENANCIES
Mr Herbert's letters often contained enclosures of documents for signing, such as admissions to customary tenancies in the various manors he controlled [missing from the file, but usually summarised at the bottom of the letter], plus financial documents such as summaries of rents received [not in this file at all]. Rent payment was always problematic, sometimes for surprising reasons. Reasons for non-payment of rent were as interesting then as they are today: on 14 April, Herbert observed that Edward Dixon was unable to pay his rent because he had lost 11 guineas out of his pocket when he went to Hawkshead market the previous week [other sources suggest that Hawkshead was an important market for sheep farmers in central and south-west Lakeland]. Herbert and his colleague John Moscrop did not let Dixon off so easily, and by 8 May, having been informed of Sir John's anger at his habitual late payment, he had paid up. Herbert further observed that Dixon's lease obliged him to pay his rents within 10 days of the due date, and suggested that at Martinmas, Sir John could serve notice to quit by the following Lady Day [25 Mar 1761], when the lease had run for 7 years.
On 13 May, a rather more peculiar situation arose- a shortage of banknotes in Whitehaven. [Banknotes in the 18th century were just that, notes from banks promising payment of proper, jingling cash from their vaults; issued not just by the Bank of England but, as in Scotland, by individual banking firms- which, if they were prudent, avoided issuing notes promising to pay cash they didn't actually have]. Having sent two banknotes [also called "bills" as they still are today] worth £145 with the prevous month's account on 8 May, Herbert hoped they had arrived safely, as the supply in Whitehaven was so short [one important difference from modern banknotes was that they had the name of the intended recipient on them, like modern cheques, so theft was less of a worry].
Occasionally, Herbert would be approached by individuals wishing to lease one of the Pennington properties. On 13 May, for example, he advised Sir John that John Newby of Waberthwait wanted to know the terms for letting Esk Meals House, with its peat rights. By 30 Jun, Herbert was able to report that Newby had instead moved to the house at Park Nook, vacated by Robert Dixon, who had moved to a tenement a Meals formerly occupied by one Thompson.

PEAT RIGHTS
Tenements within the manor of Muncaster usually included rights to get peat from the common land up on Muncaster Fell and in the marshes bordering the River Esk. Some tenants were also obliged to cut peat for the Lord of the Manor in an arrangement known as the "peat boon"- Herbert reported on 8 May that thanks to fine weather the year's peat boon had been completed the previous Thursday. Sir John was keen to modernise the arrangement for one important stretch of peat moss, and on one of his visits to Muncaster he had ordered Herbert to open negotiations with the two tenants who then had rights there. On 7 Jun 1760, Mr Herbert advised his master that he and John Moscrop had discussed the possibility of a permanent division of the moss with Jo. Thompson of Bracken Wall and Mr Benson of Esk Meals, but Benson had insisted on a division into three equal shares, one of which would belong to Sir John. As the official line was that Sir John was entitled to a larger share than the two tenants, Herbert was pessimistic about reaching an agreement.

GRAZING IN THE PARK
Local farmers could rent grazing in Muncaster Deer Park during the summer months. On 22 Mar 1760, Mr Herbert asked whether Sir John would be willing to change from the arrangement which had been used with John Jackson the previous year (which nobody was inclined to accept) and take up Thomas Benn's offer for 20 head of cattle at 8d a week each, for about 2 months from mid-April. Sir John having evidently approved changes, but urged an attempt to increase the duration, Herbert reported on 8 Apr that both Benn and John Jackson were willing to graze for 2 months, but not, as Sir John would prefer, from 20 Apr to Michaelmas [29 Sep]. It seems that Benn later had a slight change of heart, and on 14 Jun Mr Herbert asked his master whether Benn could graze three cows in the park until Michaelmas, and a further four just until St. James Fair [the traditional Ravenglass fair on 5 Aug].

WOOD: FOR CHARCOAL AND SHIPBUILDING
On 3 Apr 1760, Herbert reported that John Jackson & Co. had sold all the wood [i.e. standing trees, apparently] they bought from Sir John (except the oak in the Coppy wood) to a Lancashire company who proposed to build 2 or 3 ships on Hestholm Marsh; many tenants in Lord Egremont's nearby manors [Eskdale etc.] who had recently bought the freeholds and timber rights of their estates had also sold most of their wood to the same company. However, Herbert also informed Sir John that "they" [uncertain whether this is Jackson & Co. or the Lancashire men] had also prepared all the "winter wood" for making charcoal, and aimed to "take the whole Purchase Clear of" by next Candlemas [i.e. presumably to cut down the standing timber by 2 Feb 1761], and furthermore that they hoped to buy all or most of Sir John's remaining wood if he wished to sell it. On 13 May, the news was that Jackson & Co. had cut down all the wood in Hazzle croft, and most of Copy Wood, and that they intended to exercise their privilege, agreed by Sir John, to get cover for their charcoal pits from within the Deer Park, as the woods they were felling did not contain sufficient suitable material.

COAL SUPPLIES
On 22 Mar 1760, Mr Herbert asked how much coal [or rather, "Coals"] he should order for the estate, and whether it should be delivered by sea or land. The best price available locally for land delivery was 17d per bushel, but Herbert believed it would be cheaper to arrange for ships which would be coming up to the Lime Kiln "for charcoal very shortly" to deliver the coal. However, on 14 Jun he had to propose an alternative arrangement, land delivery by Robert Aery of 100 bushels at 15d per bushel (a reduction of 1d per bushel on his 1759 rate) as no ship would go further upriver than Ravenglass.

THE RAVENGLASS NAVIGATION BUOY
On 14 Apr 1760, Mr Herbert advised his master that some of the Whitehaven ship-masters had petitioned Lord Egremont [holder of port rights at Ravenglass] to replace the existing fixed perch-type navigation marker near the entrance to the trident of estuaries with a buoy, which would be more easily visible however high the tide. Unfortunately, the ideal spot for the buoy was the seaward end of the Mungarth (Monk Garth) fish-netting area, let by Lord Egremont to Sir John and sub-let by him to local people. They got "a great Quantity of Fish" there, and they feared that the bulk of the buoy would frighten them so that they swam well away from both it and the nets. A deputation of two or three ship-masters came to see whether the buoy could be moved, but could see no other location where it would effectively serve its purpose, as it needed to remain floating however low the tide. Accordingly, Edward Frears of Ravenglass and Thomas Benson of Esk Meals were hired to put it in place, which they did a few days before 14 Apr.
By 8 May, Sir John had asked Herbert to make further enquiries, and he had spoken with Frears, who gave him a contact name- Mr Benson of Egremont, one of Lord Egremont's bailiffs. Herbert also reminded Sir John of the position of the old perch marker, about 100 yards (91m) from the new buoy site, 500 yards [460m] from the open sea. The wording is a little ambiguous [and could refer to the new buoy] but it appears that the perch marker had, not long previously, been knocked from its position and was now lying on the riverbed, from whence it was intended to salvage it in the near future. On 23 May, Sir John replied, asking Herbert to speak with bailiff Benson; unfortunately, as Mr Herbert had to report on 7 Jun, the man was away in Scotland, and it was not until 30 Jun that he was able to announce a resolution of the problem. Once informed of the situation, Mr Benson of Egremont had arranged for a reassessment of the positioning, which concluded that the buoy could be moved away from the Mungarth fishery to a point nearer to where the old perch had stood. Mr Frears of Ravenglass, Chris Leech, and Mr Benson of Esk Meals, had therefore moved it, and the local fishermen were happy again.

MUNCASTER CHURCH INCOME
Mr Herbert was not, of course, the only person writing letters to Sir John Pennington, and on 15 Apr the steward found himself receiving three enclosures with a letter from hs master. As instructed, Herbert went and discussed two of the enclosed letters with Mr Steel, rector of Waberthwait and incumbent of Muncaster (the third enclosure being, it seems, a rather annoyed letter directly from Sir John to the rector). Steel expressed surprise, and apologised for any trouble he might have caused. Asked how long he had known about the matter complained of, he explained that some six weeks earlier, he had received a letter from a Mr Montague, secretary to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty [a fund set up in 1703 to arrange for payments made to the Monarch as head of the Church of England to be shared among the country's worst-paid clergymen], requesting information on the annual income of the joint livings of Waberthwait & Muncaster and asking for a contact address for Sir John. Montague had further asked whether Sir John would be willing to undertake a permanent guarantee of the £10 yearly stipend of the curacy of Muncaster, explaining that without such a guarantee, his Governors would terminate their yearly contribution of about £4 which brought the stipend up to something like a reasonable salary for the post. Steel, obviously, could not answer the last question, so he had replied that he would contact Sir John, but it seems that, armed with the Warter address Steel provided, the Governors wrote to him directly.
Asked to investigate further, Herbert wrote on 13 May that he had again spoken with Steel, and learned more about the situation. In the early days of the scheme, years before Sir John inherited his estates, Muncaster had been chosen by lot to receive the income from investment of £200 of the Queen Anne's Bounty money, amounting to £5 yearly. This had been paid to Steel's father when he held the post, then to Steel himself, but he had realised that the low fixed interest rate was inefficient, so he had arranged to invest the £200 capital in the purchase of a freehold estate in westmorland, the yearly rental income from which was rather more than £5. That money was therefore not at issue, but Muncaster had recently been chosen by lot to receive a further annual augmentation of about £4, which was the actual source of the problem. Steel felt that the Bounty Governors could not legally withhold the money if the draw had picked Muncaster [probably a mistaken assessment, given that the Queen Anne's Bounty scheme had to operate within rules intended to prevent it, for example, from making payments to clergymen who were already overpaid] but he referred the matter to Sir John's "better judgement".