Furnivals Inn London
10th November 1840.
Sir
The anxiety of my Client, Mr F. C. Montagu, to afford every opportunity for an amicable adjustment of his indisputable right to certain Tithes in Laycock, has induced him to require me, as his legal Adviser, to submit to you the particulars of his Title to the Tithes in question, and the steps that I have taken, to prevent misunderstanding and litigation between you and him.
In October 1710, James Montagu Esqre then of Lackham married Miss Elizth Eyles – the Trustees under the Settlement were her Brothers John Eyles and Francis Eyles Esqres.
In June 1713 James Montagu purchased of Richard Mitchell, then of Bewley, the Rectorial Tithes of certain Lands in the parish of Lacock, then in the occupation of James Montagu or his undertenants – inter alia – The Tithes issuing out of a close of Arable Land called Jenkins’ containing by estimation 8 Acres, and out of a close of pasture Ground called Jenkins’ and a paddock called Jenkins’ Paddock both containing by estimation 9 Acres and half – and out of a close of Arable Land called Whitecross 6 Acres – which Tithes were, by Indentures of 23 & 24th June 1713 conveyed by Richd Mitchell in trust for Jas Montagu his Heirs & assigns for ever – to his Brothers in Law, the above named John Eyles and Francis Eyles.
On referring to the Apportionment of Rent charge in lieu of Tithes in Lacock, I sometime since discovered that the Tithes of such Lands are stated to belong to you – and therefore I requested Mr Phillips of Chippenham, to apprize your Solicitor, Mr Awdry, of the Error that had crept into the Apportionment, and which he accordingly did, but without success – In September last, accompanied by Mr Phillips, I called upon Mr Awdry and recapitulated my Clients Title – he promised to look into your Title and advise with you on the subject, and to give me your determination on the 14th of October – upon which day he informed me you declined attending to my Clients claim – and therefore in order to prevent two Families, whose Estates had for such a length of time adjoined each other, being involved in litigation I offered to submit my Clients Title to the opinion of any Barrister, or Conveyancer of Eminence, your Solicitor would name – this most fair proposition he peremptorily declined – I confess from the absolute rejection of all amicable investigation, and adjustment, by Mr Awdry, I was led to suppose, on looking through your deeds, he had discovered some shadow of pretext for his Treatment of the question – and previous to commencing legal proceedings to establish my Clients most just and perfect right to the Tithes, I made diligent search thro’ the ancient Deeds and Records of the Montagu Family – when, to my great satisfaction and surprize, I discovered a Counterpart of a Conveyance, dated the 18th December 1718, of the Tithes made by Charles Lloyd of Bewley (Great Nephew & Heir of the above named Richd Mitchell) to your Ancestor, John Ivory Talbot Esqre of Lacock – which Deed is duly executed (and attested) by the latter, and wherein is the following reservation.
“Except other than the Tithes and Tenths of the several Closes and Ground in Notton and Bewley aforesaid or one of them, called or known by the several name or names or descriptions of Jenkins Arable Land, Jenkins’s Pasture, Jenkin’s Paddock, the Bean Lands – Ashley Pieces, Stammells Bushes, White Cross Close, The two Home Closes, Kings Hill, and Kings Hill Close, Cut Hide pasture, Cooks pasture, Man Mead, Brices and Bewley Field, and four acres in North Mead, which said excepted Tithes were heretofore sold and conveyed by the said Richard Mitchell the Son, to Jas Montagu Esqre or his Trustees, by Indentures of Lease and Release bearing date the 23d & 24th days of June 1713, and the Release made or mentioned to be made between the said Richd Mitchell the Son of the 1st part, the said James Montagu of the 2d part, and John Eyles and Francis Eyles of the 3d part.”
In such conveyance there is a further reservation of other Tithes made by Charles Lloyd as not intended to pass thereby.
I can only account for Mr Awdry’s treatment of the question and my Clients claim, by concluding that in investigating your Deeds and Title he did not trace, or must have overlooked, the above Grant and Exception contained therein – otherwise my Client and myself have much cause of complaint of the manner (to apply the mildest observation) which <sic> Mr Awdry so absolutely rejected all amicable arrangements – and on being informed whereof Mr Montagu forbid <sic> my making any further application to Mr Awdry & required of me to address you, in full confidence that his Title will receive the immediate just and gentlemanly attention it is entitled to, without either party being involved in expensive useless litigation.
I have the honor to be
Sir
Your very obdt Servt
Willm L<illegible> <illegible> Robins
J <sic> F. Talbot Esqre