| Description | ‘Dear Sir,
I have received your letter of the 7th instant. The deed of trust turned up immediately after I inform’d you of its having been mislaid; Haynes, Durham, and Taylor have not sign’d—the former has peremptorily refused it.
You say it is probable Messrs. Bedford & Co. wou’d not have allowed me to proceed in paying the dividends upon the event of Haynes’s refusal; but I cannot perceive any reason for such conclusion. The advice of those gentlemen to me has been to pay all who chose to come in, and, at the expiration of the term limited for creditors to do so, if any should be found holding back, to pay the dividends on their debts to Charles Porden in order to enable him to defend any actions that may be brought against him by the non-complying creditors. I cannot pretend to argue with Messrs. Bedford & Co. any point of law, and therefore hope you will excuse me if I follow implicitly their advice.
There is one point essential to the closing of this business that depends entirely on yourself: I mean your assent to, or dissent from, the claim I have stated for you (and indeed formality requires that you shou’d render me your account); vide my letter of the 3d November last, to which it is necessary you shou’d give a decisive reply.
In the present state of Mr. Boulton’s health (however “apparently” he may, at times, enjoy “ease and comfort”) it is absolutely necessary to keep from him the discussion of any unpleasant subjects, and he thinks it unfair that he in particular should be so often goaded by reflections respecting your brother’s withdrawing from Soho, which was an act of his own and not of his employers; but had [it ] been otherwise, Mr. Boulton ought not to be censured, for he had nothing at all to do with the direction of Messrs. Boulton, Watt, & Co.’s concerns, and if you are of opinion that the house had not sufficient grounds for complaining to Mr. Charles Porden that his time and his mind were estranged from their business, to so great a degree as to render his services of little or no value to them, still this point wou’d be more properly discussed between Messrs. Boulton, Watt, & Co. and yourself, without disturbing the repose of him who alone has made all the efforts that have been made (except those made by yourself) to save your brother from the ruin that has befallen him. If you wish to urge this subject further, Mr. Boulton begs your correspondence may be with the house of Boulton, Watt, & Co.
I have further to add, Mr. Boulton directs me to say that he is willing to sink the whole of the money he advanced to your brother and will allow him to take the dividends thereon, which is equivalent to making him an immediate present of *£23 4/-. [Footnote: *The claim of a baker (I think in Dale End) not stated by your brother, and some differences in other accounts, have reduced the dividend to 4/- in the pound.] He will also give him the further sum of £50 which Mr. B. claims of you for a moiety of the £100 lent him and you conjointly, which subjects Mr. Boulton to a dead loss of £116, besides three or four years’ interest.
I am, dear sir, your most obedient humble servant,
Wm. Cheshire
PS. I will thank you to present my compliments to your brother and ask him if he can give me any information what became of the blank leases and blank skins belonging to Soho Building Society?’ |