Sir Francis Willoughby's ironworks, 1570–1610

This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 18 November 2014, At: 11:12Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Renaissance and ModernStudiesPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rctc19

Sir Francis Willoughby'sironworks, 1570–1610Richard S. Smith aa Librarian, University of NottinghamPublished online: 05 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Richard S. Smith (1967) Sir Francis Willoughby'sironworks, 1570–1610, Renaissance and Modern Studies, 11:1, 90-140, DOI:10.1080/14735786709366360

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735786709366360

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information.Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilitieswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rctc19

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14735786709366360

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14735786709366360

form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

IV

SIR FRANCIS WILLOUGHBY'SIRONWORKS, 1570-1610

by

RICHARD S. SMITH

Sir Francis Willoughby, the builder of Wollaton Hall, has long beenknown as an outstanding representative of the many Elizabethanaristocrats and upper gentry with industrial interests.1 With the coalin his home manor making a major contribution to his income, itis not surprising that he went on to acquire other coal-mines outsideWollaton, though his investments in this direction were not veryconsiderable. His iron interests, on the other hand, involved himin far greater expenditure. He began modestly enough by establish-ing bloom-hearths on his own manor of Middleton in Warwickshirec.l 570, and this was followed by the erection of a hammer mill thereabout seven years later. Then around 1590 he established a blastfurnace at Middleton, and another on land leased from the Countessof Shrewsbury at Oakamoor, Staffordshire, whilst at the same timehe took over a furnace which had been erected by Sir John Zoucheat Codnor, Derbyshire. At first sight, this rapid expansion mightseem to be the action of a confident entrepreneur, adding moreundertakings to his industrial empire, but in fact Sir Francis washeavily in debt by 1590, and his furnaces are to be seen rather asspeculative ventures, intended to rescue him from his manydifficulties. The surviving documents enable us to follow the historyof these ironworks in considerable detail, to establish the costsinvolved, and to form an impression of the contribution they madeto the finances of Sir Francis and his successor, Sir PercivalWilloughby.

/ am grateful to Lord Middleton for permission to use and quote from theMiddleton Collection, hereinafter referred to as ' Midd. Coll.', now housed inthe University Library, Nottingham.AH contractions in documents quoted have been extended, and figures given inArabic numerals.

1The involvement of the Elizabethan aristocracy in industrial enterprises hasrecently received authoritative treatment by Laurence Stone in his Crisis ofthe Aristocracy, 1558-1641 (1965), pp. 338-355.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Willoughbfs Ironworks, 1570-1610 91

I

MIDDLETONThe Willoughbys first obtained an interest in the manor of

Middleton, with other property in Warwickshire, as the result of amarriage settlement in 1435,1 and from its acquisition, the manorseems to have served as an alternative seat of the family. R. A.Pelham has shown that Middleton's position in relation to the marketfor iron which the Birmingham area already represented in thesixteenth century, and to the ironstone supplies of the SouthStaffordshire coalfield, probably led Sir Francis Willoughby to decideto use his wood supplies within the manor to produce iron.2 Theidea was first mooted around 1570, long before Sir Francis ran intofinancial difficulties. By this date, the blast furnace or ' indirect'process of iron-making had already reached the Midlands. The newprocess had been introduced to the south of England at the end ofthe fifteenth century, but its progress to other parts of the countryhad been slow.3 Greatly expanded production was permitted by thenew method, but it involved a considerable initial capital expenditure,since, in addition to the blast furnace in which the ore was melted,the second or refining stage required two hearths, a finery and achafery, at which the ' sows ' or ' pigs ' of cast-iron produced at thefurnace were further refined and then shaped into bar iron under theaction of a water-hammer.

The first furnace in the Midlands of which we have record wasestablished in Cannock Close, Staffordshire, by William Lord Pagetbetween 1561 and 1563,4 and reference to his activities is made inthe earliest document on iron-making in the Middleton Collection.This is a letter from John Tyrer, the steward at Middleton, who hadobviously been asked by Sir Francis to make inquiries about thepossibilities of iron-making from the craftsmen of the Walsall area.5

In his reply, which is dated 6th December 1571, Tyrer confinedhimself to describing the older ' direct' or bloomery process, inwhich the ore was first reduced by a ' bloomer' working at a bloomhearth, and the resulting' bloom ' of unfinished iron was then passed

1V.C.H. Warwicks., iv, 157.2R. A. Pelham, 'The Establishment of the Willoughby Ironworks in NorthWarwickshire in the Sixteenth Century', Univ. of Birmingham Hist. J., IV(1953-54), 18-29.

3H. R. Schubert, History of the British Iron and Steel Industry (1957), p. 175.4Ibid., p. 179.5H.M.C. Midd. MSS., p. 494.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

92 Richard S. Smith

on to a ' brander', who worked on the bloom at a stringhearth toproduce the finished bar iron. The' direct' method, which requiredlittle capital expenditure and produced an iron with a low carboncontent, was to show a remarkable tenacity, despite the greateroutput made possible by the new blast furnaces.

Tyrer reported that ironstone could be purchased for 4s. Od. a load,and would cost 3s. Od. a load to transport to Middleton. One loadwould make a bloom of iron, for which the bloomer would receiveIs. 4d., and each bloom made two brands, the brander receiving 6d.a brand. It took the bloomer twelve hours to produce one bloom,whilst the brander could produce a brand of iron in four hours.1

Eight blooms would produce a ton of iron, for which eight loads ofcharcoal would be needed at 6s. 8d. a load. On this basis, a tonof iron would cost £6 8s. Od. to produce, but Tyrer added that othercharges would be necessary ' for common worke men as nede shallrequyre '. He also reported that' every tunne of yron is worth whenit is branded 7 li. or ther abowt'. Tyrer may be referring here tothe cost of production, but if in fact the selling price is meant, it mustbe an underestimate. Sir Francis Willoughby noted in amemorandum of c. 1577 that a ton of bar iron sold for £13,2 and thereis no reason to believe that the selling price was very different in 1571.Tyrer's figures must obviously be treated with caution,3 but it isinteresting to compare his estimate with the estimate produced around1590 for Sir Francis Willoughby of the costs of production of a tonof bar iron by the ' indirect' or blast-furnace process at Middleton.4

Ironstone and charcoal were then both costed at 10s. Od. a load, andmaking this adjustment to Tyrer's figures would give costs of£9 10s. 8d. a ton by the bloomery process against £7 11s. 2d. a tonby the furnace process. The later process used almost as muchcharcoal (7i loads) as did the older method (8 loads) but less thanhalf the quantity of iron ore (3f loads against 8 loads) to producea ton of iron, indicating the greater efficiency of the blast furnace.

1The letter says 'Every blome makes 2 brandes, which wyll be wrought in 4howres', and Schubert comments 'The time required for smelting such bloomswas twelve hours, and for working them four hours' (op. c i t . , p. 149), butthe brander's wage rate suggests that each brand required four hours forworking.

2H.M.C. Midd. MSS., p. 496. For the date of this memorandum, see below,p. 94.

3See below, p. 97, and Appendix 2 for an account submitted later by Tyrerfor the operation of Willoughby's bloomsmithies.

4See below, p. 100 and Appendix 3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Willoughby s Ironworks, 1570-1610 93

The fact that it took the bloomer eight twelve-hour working days toproduce the blooms for a ton of finished iron whilst the sixteenth-century blast furnace could produce the pig for a similar quantityof bar iron in a day and a half is a further demonstration of thesuperiority of the indirect process.

In his letter to Willoughby, Tyrer referred to the difficulty ofobtaining ironstone in the face of Lord Paget's competition, andreported that men in the trade considered that Willoughby wouldmake more profit selling his woods ' then yf you shuld sett uppesmythies, considerynge the great charge and trobble that dothbelonge unto them. And further the[y] saye yf you shuld set themuppe, your woodes wold not serve you 4 yeres'. The report canhardly be considered encouraging, but allowance must be made forthe fact that, as steward at Middleton, Tyrer was unlikely to beanxious to extend his area of responsibility. Despite his reluctance,however, arrangements obviously went ahead.

The next stage in the developments at Middleton was theconstruction of a hammer mill in the late 1570s. R. A. Pelhamremarks upon the fact that mechanisation should have taken placeat the refining stage, as Tyrer's letter shows that in the direct processthe brandsmith required less time for his operations than did thebloomsmith.1 But Middleton is not an isolated case, and in otherareas the use of the water hammer sometimes preceded the appearanceof the blast furnace.2 The construction of a hammer mill was lesscostly than building a furnace; it needed less technical skill for itsbuilding and operation; and finally it fitted into, and did not displace,the older system of working. Presumably more bloomsmiths couldbe employed to make possible the expanded production permittedby mechanisation at the refining stage, but there is evidence thatWilloughby was not merely planning to work up iron from his ownbloomeries, but was also proposing to work up sows from otherpeople's furnaces.8

An interesting fact about the installation of the hammer mill is thatthis time the initiative came not from Willoughby, but from NicholasLycett (or Lesurde), a hammerman working an iron-mill at Oakamoor

1Pelham, op. cit., p. 19.2'Even before blast-furnace production expanded outside the Wealden area,the power hammer found its way into regions in which the bloomery processstill was the sole method employed'. Schubert, op. cit., p. 148.

3See below, p. 95.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

94 Richard S. Smith

for the Earl of Shrewsbury—the mill which was subsequently to betaken over for another of Willoughby's projects.1 Lycett's initiativeis typical of other attempts by craftsmen-entrepreneurs to enlistWilloughby's interest in projects to which they would contribute theirskills whilst he would supply the capital needed. ' I have hard seye',Lycett wrote,' that you have blome harthes, and met romes to buylda hommer, wich maye turne your worshippe to great profyt', andhe offered to construct the hammer and all implements and tools,and ' uppon the syght blewynge and burnynge of two blomes ' to lethim know what a ton of iron would cost.2

It was never Willoughby's practice to embark upon a new projectwithout carefully considering costs and prospects, and an undatedmemorandum drawn up in his own hand was obviously occasionedby the hammer mill project. The memorandum appears in anincomplete and misleading version in H.M.C. Middleton MSS., pp.495-496, where it is assigned to c.1590, which would associate it withthe building of Willoughby's blast furnaces around that date. Thedocument has been widely quoted, and the H.M.C. Reporter's datinghas not been questioned,3 but one fact which puts c.1590 out of courtis the reference to Lord Paget's furnaces in Cannock Wood, whichhad been forfeited to the Crown by 1583, and other evidence in thedocument shows that it must have been drawn up at the time ofLycett's hammer mill proposal, c.1577. Willoughby notes that hispurpose is ' To spend my owne stone, and to convert this mill to ahammer mill', and goes on to jot down ' Black brooke. WalkeMill'. Blackbrook is a stream passing through Hints, a parish justacross the Staffordshire border from Middleton and close to WatlingStreet, so that it would have been accessible to chapmen collectingfinished iron. It was here that Willoughby's later forge was also tobe erected.4 ' Walke Mill' was probably situated on the Blackbrook,and Lycett's next letter to Willoughby reports on his negotiations with' master Worleye' for the setting-up of his hammer' at the walk myll

1See below, p. 103.2Pelham, op. cit., p. 20.3Pelham, op. cit., p. 23; Schubert, op. cit., p. 226, n. 4; R. A. Mott, ' AbrahamDarby (I and II) and the Coal-Iron Industry', Trans. Newcomen Soc., XXXI(1957-59), 51. Mott dates the document precisely to 1588, but does not givehis reasons; J. U. Nef, The Rise of the British Coal Industry (1932), i, 171, n. 11,where he curiously quotes the document as evidence that 'As early as 1590,bar iron was brought to Walsall from as far away as Nottingham'. Thedocument is printed in full in Appendix 1 to this article.

4See below, p. 98.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Willoughb/s Ironworks, 1570-1610 95

pole V Worleye is identified by H. R. Schubert as John Wyrley, theowner of a hammer mill on the river Tame, north of Aston Hall,Birmingham,2 and in a passage in the memorandum not printed inH.M.C. Middleton MSS., Willoughby notes' to write to Mr. Worleythat he will give me leave to worke a tonne of iron at his hammerMyll, paying for the cooles sending the workemen thither my selfe'.Clearly the document was drawn up when Willoughby was proposinga test at Wyrley's hammer mill before setting up his own. It isinteresting to note that, in preparing for the test, Tyrer was to send' two seame of sea cole viz. two paire of bannisters [i.e. panniers]',together with the iron. A ' seam' was a measure used in iron-making, equivalent to 16 cwts.,3 and the document thus providesanother early example of the use of mineral coal at the refining stage.The reference to Edward Littleton's willingness to build a furnace' ifhe had any good vent and utterance for his sowes ' indicates thatWilloughby was considering the possibility of working up sows fromother people's furnaces when his hammer mill was erected, and thenotes go on to estimate the profit he was hoping to make in this way.The version of the memorandum printed in H.M.C. Middleton MSS.misleadingly interpolates into the text items from a sum in the marginof the document. A tentative explanation of the sum is that the sowswould cost Willoughby £6, and it would then take 5j loads ofcharcoal costing 55s., with 20s. for the workmen, to produce a tonof bar iron at the finery and hammer mill he was proposing to erect.With a ton of bar iron selling at around £13,' For the five load andd[im] and 205.1 shall receive 61. or more', leaving him a clear profitof around £3 on a ton. The memorandum then goes on to estimatethe profits to be obtained from working up blooms of iron producedby the direct method. Willoughby uses the figure, later to be agreedwith Lycett, often blooms to produce a ton of iron, but whilst Lycettdemanded four loads of charcoal Willoughby uses a lower estimateof 2 | loads for working up the iron, with 13s. 4d. for the workmen,and even so estimates a profit of only 26s. 8d. for ' stringing of atonne'. If this explanation of the memorandum is correct, thedifference in the profits to be obtained from working up a ton of bariron from sows and blooms results mainly from the market pricesof the sow iron (£6) and the bloom iron (£10) used. ButWilloughby's figures are often not reliable, and it must be remembered

1Pelham, op. c i t . , p. 20.2Birmingham Ref. Lby., No. 276768, quoted by Schubert, op. cit., p. 226, n. 4.3Schubert, op. c i t . , p. 148.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

96 Richard S. Smith

that the estimate often blooms to produce a ton conflicts with Tyrer'searlier estimate of eight blooms, and seems to run counter toWilloughby's own note that' every blome should way 400 in waightand being burned should way 300 in waight'. The other notes inthe memorandum are probably not to be pressed too far, owing toWilloughby's habit of jotting down ideas as they occurred to him.In particular, no significance can be attached to the cryptic note ' 13forges and furnisses in a parishe, 120 in comitate [sic]', especially aswe have no means of knowing which county he had in mind.1

Negotiations with John Wyrley for the location of the hammer millat the' Walk Mill Pool '2 proceeded smoothly, and Lycett was soonable to report that he had agreed with him ' for settinge the homerin every point savinge a bucke and a doe '.3 Wyrley had also agreedthat Willoughby was to have all his woods, and Lycett estimated thatWilloughby's woods, together with those that were now to bepurchased, would last twenty years. Lycett concluded with theconfident assertion that ' you shall have 60 tuns of iren in a yeareof me wherbye yow shal be a gayner', and shortly afterwards anagreement was drafted between him and Willoughby.

By the draft agreement, which is endorsed ' 1577', Sir Francis wasto obtain a lease for twenty-one years from Mr. Wyrley of a site forthe hammer, and was to advance thirty pounds towards the buildingcosts to Lycett, who would then proceed to the erection and equippingof the mill ' of his owne proper cost and charges '.* It is someindication of Lycett's lowly standing that he was required to providethree securities from himself, Richard Weston and Peter Groute inreturn for the advance of thirty pounds.5 Lycett undertook toproduce at the forge twenty tons of iron yearly for Sir Francis forfive years, with Willoughby providing ten blooms of unburned ironand four loads of charcoal for each ton. Provision was made forthe production of not more than another twenty tons should SirFrancis require it. Should Lycett fail to produce the agreed twentytons, he undertook to pay £11 13s. 4d. for every ton not delivered.

1R. A. Mott quotes this note as an estimate of the number of ironmills inNottinghamshire and Derbyshire, but there is no evidence to show thatWilloughby had these counties in mind. Mott, op. cit., p. 51.

2The name indicates that there had been a fulling mill on the site at one time.A. H. Smith, English Place Name Elements (1956), ii, s.v. 'wale' .

3Pelham, op. cit., p. 20.4Ibid., p. 21.5Upon his departure from Oakamoor, Lycett assigned the remainder of hislease to Weston and Groute. Chanc. Proc. Eliz. W9/21 and A2/30.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


No mention is made of the benefits Lycett was to receive from theagreement, other than ' the keping of two kine and a gelding & alyverey cote '. Presumably he was to have the use of the hammermill when not engaged upon the working up of iron for Willoughby,and in this way he would have established himself in a semi-independent position in a mill which he obviously could not haveerected without Willoughby's resources and influence.

A note by Cassandra Willoughby1 of a summary which she assignsto 1579, ' For iron made at Middleton, which had cost Sir Francisin getting 604/. 0s. 5d., received 752/. 125. 6d.' is quoted by R. A.Pelham as evidence that Lycett was able to carry out his claim to beable to produce sixty tons of iron a year at the hammer mill.2 Butwe have seen that, by the agreement of 1577, Lycett's liability to SirFrancis was limited to forty tons a year, and Tyrer's original account,which Cassandra summarised under the date 1579, in fact coversmiscellaneous items of receipt and expenditure between 1574 and1586.3 The items relating to iron production listed in this accountwere taken from an undated summary ' The breife of John Tyrersbook of fawling and coling wood for the blacksmithies ',4 whichrecords the output at Willoughby's bloomsmithies, and not at thehammer mill worked by Lycett. ' The breife of John Tyrers book 'records an expenditure of £680 0s. 5d., upon an output of 856 bloomswhich sold for £808 12s. 6d., thus showing a useful profit of£128 12s. 8d., though, as no dates are given, we are not entitled toassume that the figures relate to a single year's output. It shouldalso be noted that although the summary includes payments forfelling, cutting and coaling timber, it does not include any paymentsfor the wood itself, which would have been provided from theWilloughby estates. A separate estimate in the summary, whichpresumably includes all charges, puts the cost of production of abloom of iron at 25s. 5d. The account notes that sixteen bloomswere ' in Licetes hands ', but no sums are recorded for finished iron.Obviously, from this information no conclusion can be drawn as tothe output Lycett was able to maintain at the hammer mill.

1H.M.C. Midd. MSS., pp. 554-555.2Pelham, op. cit., p. 21.3Midd. Coll. MiA58. The account includes 'Charges of the Walke Milne255l. 6s. 3d.; building a milne, repairs and other necessary charge', but inthe absence of details no conclusions can be drawn as to the cost of settingup the hammer mill. For Tyrer's confused book-keeping, see below, p. 100.

4Ibid., 165/42. See Appendix 2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

98 Richard S. Smith

No more is heard of Nicholas Lycett,1 and we do not know howlong the hammer mill continued in operation, nor for how longiron-making by the direct process continued at Middleton. The nextdevelopment took place around 1590, when a scheme was drawn upfor equipping a complete ironworks comprising a furnace and a forgewith two fineries and a chafery. As H. R. Schubert points out, theuse of water-power in the indirect process made local separation ofthe furnace and the forge inevitable, since separate water wheels wererequired for the furnace, and for the forge and the water-hammer.2

For this reason, the forge was usually erected at some distance fromthe furnace, either down the same stream, or on another waterway.This was the case with the Middleton undertaking, the furnace beingerected in Middleton itself, whilst the forge was erected at Hints,where, as we have seen, Lycett had probably erected his hammer.On 19th October 1591, Edward Bassett leased to Sir FrancisWilloughby the Holly and Hollys Meadow in Hints for twenty-oneyears at £5 a year,' with liberty to erect, build and set up one forgeor hammer mill with chafery, fineries and all other things meet andnecessary for the making of iron upon the same ',3 which suggeststhat the earlier hammer mill had been given over. Bassett alsoundertook to deliver at the forge 200 dozen of coals a year for thenext three years at 10s. a dozen.

A certain Laurence Loggin, who described himself as an expert inthe building and operating of blast furnaces, and who, as we shallsee, was responsible for proposing and erecting the Willoughbyironworks at Oakamoor, was in charge of the preparations for thenew works at Middleton, which may also have been built at hissuggestion. Willoughby was heavily in debt at the time, and wasobviously hoping that his ventures would help to restore his finances.In a letter dated 22nd January 1591, Loggin described his efforts toprocure a new source of supply of ironstone at Polesworth, on theEast Warwickshire coalfield.4 He complained of the dilatoriness ofTyrer in making arrangements for a trial of the new ironstone, andconcluded that 'before he [Sir Francis] make any iron at MyddletonI thynk he must purchase the good wyll of hys men', which againsuggests that the earlier attempt at iron-making at Middleton had

1There is a note in a list of Willoughby's receipts for 1586-87: 'Received the26th of Aprill 1586 of one Weston for Licetes debt 40l.'Midd. Coll. MiA67b.

2Schubert, op. cit., p. 158. 4Pelham, op. cit., pp. 24-25.3Midd. Coll. 169/72.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Willoughby's Ironworks, 1570-1610 99

been abandoned before the furnace proposal was mooted. Thebuilding of the works seems to have gone ahead despite Tyrer, andsoon an undated memorandum, probably from Loggin, was urgingSir Francis ' that allthough noe monye be sent into the cuntrye thefornace and fordge maye be sett going if it please his wor[shipp] todivert his l[ett]re to Mr. Lyle as it is allredye penned '.x Thememorandum goes on to point out that every week the works stoodidle, Sir Francis was losing twenty nobles of clear profit, ' besydesthe receipt of monye which might paye the debts & serve many otheruses'. Obviously, Sir Francis's difficulties were delaying thelaunching of the works, and a similar delay was experienced byLoggin in getting the Oakamoor works into action. John Lisle, whois mentioned in the memorandum, was a neighbour at Middletonwho had some connection with the new enterprise, and it was he whofinally announced in a letter to Sir Francis that the furnace had beenput in blast in May 1592.2

Alone among the furnaces with which Sir Francis was associated,Middleton provides details of the costs of launching an ironworks,in a document headed ' An estimate of the charge for the works atMiddleton 400/. '3 The estimate was probably drawn up by Loggin,as were others itemising the costs of working up iron to be discussedlater. Loggin had an interest in launching new enterprises, and hisestimates are unlikely to have been too generous. The Middletonestimate first lists the details of the costs involved in setting up theworks, comprising ' a fornesse, and a forge, with two fyneries, onechafery, with the hutches, fludgats and bridges to either of them',which the account suggests could be erected for the surprisingly lowsum of £168 3s. 4d. This is followed by ' Provicion for the worksto begine withall besides the winter provicion ' which is estimated tocost £155 10s. The total cost would thus amount to £323 13s. 4d.,even less than the sum mentioned at the head of the estimate. Itmust be pointed out, however, that some items have been omitted ;there are estimates for ' getting of stone ' and ' carriage of timber 'but not for the stone or timber itself, which would substantiallyincrease the cost, nor for the sites or watercourses. But even allowingfor these, a statement appended to another document may not be farout:

1Pelham, p. 25.2Ibid., pp. 25-26.3Ibid., pp. 22-23.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

100 Richard S. Smith

The charges of bewlding the fornace and fordge at Myddleton andHynts could never sertaynly be knowne by reason John Tyrer his orderin keping his book was to intermingle the payments belonging to theworks together with the payments belonging to the house atMyddleton

Item it wilbe proved that 500 pounds would have sufficientlye erected& stocked the sayd works whatsoever was thear bestowed.1

The claim needs to be set against the statement by John Rovenzonin his Treatise of Metallica (1613), ' Whereas an Iron-works cannotbe well set up and set on worke after the usual manner without a1000 pound or 1500 pound disbursement and stocke ' The costof fitting out a complete ironworks at this period is not dealt withby H. R. Schubert, but he describes a project of 1610 when doubtwas expressed that a works could be erected for £1,000, and it wasfeared that the expense might be two or three times as much.2 Theexample is hardly typical, however, since the furnace was to be erectedin the Forest of Dean, whence the sows were to be sent to a forgeto be erected in Ireland.

Middleton not only provides an estimate of the costs involved inerecting and stocking an ironworks, but also gives a careful estimateof the cost of working up a ton of iron.3 The furnace, we are told,will cast 8 tons of sow iron in a week, each ton of which will cost54s. 4d. to produce. When the charges at the forge are added, thecost of the finished bar iron comes to £7 1 Is. 2d. a ton. The costscan be summarised as follows:

At the furnace

(To produce 30 cwts. of rough iron)

£ s. d. £ s. d.Iron Stone (at 10s. a load) .. .. 1 17 6

Charcoal (at 10s. a load) .. . . 1 17 6

Founder .. . . .. .. 5 0

Repairs . . . . . . . . 1 6

4 1 6

1Midd. Coll. 165/92.2.2Schubert, op. cit., p. 185.3Midd. Coll. 165/92.2. See Appendix 3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


At the forge(To convert 30 cwts. of rough iron into 1

Transport from the furnace to the forge . .Charcoal (at 10s. a load)Workmen's wages (i.e. hammerman and

finers)Repairs

Clerk's wages on every ton

ton£

1

1

of bar

s.3

15

06

d.00

08

iron)

£ s.

45

d.

sO0

7 11 2

As might be expected, costs of materials accounted for the greaterpart of the running costs, amounting to £5 10s. for every ton offinished iron.

The estimate claims that the forge at Hints was capable of producing120 tons of bar iron a year ' being sufficientlye stockt and wrought'Assuming an average selling price of £12 a ton for the finishedproduct, this means that a profit of £540 a year would be realisedunder ideal conditions, on an initial investment which we have seenwas claimed not to have been in excess of £500. To produce 120tons of bar iron, 180 tons of rough iron would be required from thefurnace. As the average output of the English blast furnace in thesecond half of the sixteenth century was one ton in every 24 hours,180 tons would have required a campaign of thirty weeks of sixworking days each, and was thus a figure quite possible of achieve-ment. Unfortunately, no series of accounts has survived forMiddleton, but two summaries of output exist. The first covers thefirst eighteen months' output of finished iron at the Hints forge, from12th May 1592 to 22nd November 1593.1 During that period 104tons 13 cwts. were produced, of which 86 tons 3 cwts. had been soldfor just under £847. Of the remainder, over 7 tons had been' delivered by warrant', and 9 tons ' upon day by bonds '. Afterallowing for ' necessaries ', only 13 cwts. remained unsold.

Obviously the works was not operating to capacity, and it is tobe noted that the iron was selling at around £10 a ton. But this, ofcourse, represents the initial phase, when the works was establishing

1Midd. Coll. 165/47.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


itself and building up its sales. Another summary for a later yearshows a much better performance. This is for the year from 7thApril 1595 to 4th April 1596, when 106 tons 14 cwts. were made, and106 tons 4 cwts. sold at just under £13 a ton for £1,362 15s. Od.1

Although the forge was not operating to capacity, output and saleswere very satisfactory, and we may be sure that a good profit wasrecorded.

Middleton had been settled upon Percival Willoughby after hismarriage in 1583, and he was frequently resident there in the 1590s,apparently acting for Sir Francis. By an agreement dated 1stSeptember 1595, Thomas Meryhurste of Delves, in Wednesbury,Staffordshire, leased his ironstone mines in the parishes ofWednesbury and Walsall to Percival Willoughby, for a considerationof £26 4s. 2d.2 Willoughby was to dig ironstone there until he hadgot sufficient at the rate of 14d. the load to answer the accountoutstanding between the said Thomas and his son and the executorsof' John Lysley esquier deseased '. This is no doubt the John Lislewho had been connected with the launching of the enterprise, andwho had announced the furnace's being put into blast in 1592.

Towards the end of 1595, Sir Francis Willoughby began adetermined effort to settle some of his debts, and whilst Percival wasmaking arrangements for supplies of ironstone, Sir Francis wascontemplating letting the works to a certin Rhys, whom we shall meetagain in connection with the ironworks at Codnor. A draftagreement, dated 15th October 1595, is endorsed in Sir Francis'shand, ' Ryse towching the Iron myll at Myddelton '.3 It values thestock ' being in coles, stone, sow iron and 2 teames of oxen ' at £600,and ' th'use of the stock' is accordingly put at £60, whilst the rentof the furnace and forge is put at £30, indicating that the buildingsat this time were valued at £300. The valuation of the undertakingas a going concern at £900 can be contrasted with the estimate alreadyquoted of £500 to erect and stock the works. Rhys was also to take4,000 cords of wood a year from Sir Francis at 2s. a cord, payingfor the cording himself, and although the wood sales would representa considerable profit, the proposed rents were obviously very low foran ironworks which, as we have seen, was producing over 100 tonsof finished iron a year at this period. The deal did not go through,

1Midd. Coll. 165/57.2Ibid. 165/91.3Ibid. 165/90.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


and on 19th November 1595 the works were handed over, togetherwith the Codnor ironworks, to Percival Willoughby for three years,as a recompense for his undertaking to pay £3,000 of Sir Francis'sdebts with the interest, and sundry other debts.1 This agreementensured that the ironworks descended to Percival after Sir Francis'sdeath in 1596, but in the protracted legal squabbles over theinheritance, Percival was in no position to concern himself with theday-to-day running of an ironworks. On 16th January 1598, heleased to Edward Leighe, esquire, of Russhall, Staffordshire, andLewes his son, the furnace in Middleton, and the forge or hammermill in Hints for a period of five years at a rent of £160 a year.2 Nomore is heard of the Middleton ironworks after this date.

IIOAKAMOOR

The ironworks at Middleton was not the only one to be establishedby Sir Francis in the West Midlands. He was also responsible forerecting an ironworks at Oakamoor, in the parish of Alveton,Staffordshire, and once again the picture is not of the introductionof the blast furnace to an area new to iron-making, but of thesupplanting of the older form of manufacture. There were plentifulsupplies of wood in the district and ample water-power from theriver Churnet, whilst iron ore could be obtained from the coalmeasures of the nearby North Staffordshire coalfield. Alvetonlordship was in the possession of- the Earl of Shrewsbury, who hada bloomsmithy there, and there was also a hammer mill in the samelordship belonging to a certain Simon Herring. Both bloomsmithyand hammer mill had been worked by Nicholas Lycett, who describedhimself in his first letter to Sir Francis Willoughby as tenant to theEarl of Shrewsbury,3 and were presumably given over by him around1577 when he undertook to erect a hammer mill for Sir Francis'sbloomsmithy at Middleton.

After Lycett's departure, a dispute over the works at Oakamoorbroke out between Richard Weston of Rugeley, Staffordshire, andPeter Growt,4 whom we have already met standing as joint suretieswith Lycett for the thirty pounds advanced by Sir Francis Willoughby

1Midd. Coll. 74/2.24.2Ibid. 178/21.3See above, pp. 93/94.4Chanc. Proc. Eliz. W9/21.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


for the building of a hammersmithy at Middleton.1 Weston claimedthat Lycett had assigned the remainder of his lease in the bloomsmithyand hammersmithy in Alveton lordship jointly to him and to Growt,and that Growt was denying him entry. Weston subsequentlyassigned his interest to a John Austen and John Appe, who alsoclaimed that they were being denied possession.2 Simon Herring,the owner of the hammersmithy, entered a demurrer to this complaintwhich is dated 25th May 1587, and it is possible that the dispute keptthe smithy and the hammer out of action until Laurence Loggin,whom we have already met in connection with the blast furnaceoperations at Middleton, suggested to Sir Francis Willoughby around1590 that he should erect a blast furnace and a forge at Oakamoor.

The circumstances leading to the establishment of the undertakingare known to us in some detail, as three years later the relationshipbetween Sir Francis and Loggin ended in the inevitable acrimony,and an action ensued.3 The interesting fact emerges from the suitthat all the initiative in arranging for the establishment of the workscame from Loggin. Sir Francis's part in the proceedings, once hehad agreed to the proposition, was confined to using his credit toborrow £400 from the Countess of Shrewsbury, and then, so desperatewere his needs at this period, he misappropriated the money for twoyears. The case is worth quoting in some detail, since it shows thatthe initial agreement was for Willoughby to act as the ' sleepingpartner', putting up the capital and receiving a fixed return, afterwhich Loggin was to reward himself from any surplus he couldmake.

Laurence Loggin described himself in his petition as a yeoman ofAshby de la Zouche, who ' havinge attained some skill in the tradeand course of makinge of iron in iron workes comonlie cauledfurnaces and forges and fynding himself from want of wealthat his owne chardge nether able to erect and sett up the same norto continewe in workes anie such furnace and forge ', had pointedout to Sir Francis Willoughby the opportunity offered at Oakamoorfor the erection of an ironworks on the land of the Countess ofShrewsbury and Simon Herring. Wood could be obtained at areasonable price from the Countess, and if Sir Francis agreed to makehimself responsible for the costs of erecting the works and purchasing

1See above, p. 96.2Chanc. Proc. Eliz. A2/30.3Court of Requests Eliz. 235/80 and 237/33.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


the wood, Loggin undertook to get the agreement of the Countessand of Herring to the proposal.

Loggin was to be responsible for the supervision of the works andthe workmen, and was to obtain from the Countess the sum of £400towards erecting and furnishing the works, together with a lease ofher woods. Sir Francis was to make himself answerable for therepayment of the £400 at the end of twenty-one years, and to pay£40 yearly for interest on the sum. For the woods he was to payhalf-yearly at the rate of five shillings for every dozen or wainloadof coals used. Sir Francis was then to erect at his own expense afurnace and a forge to Loggin's directions, and to furnish andmaintain them with all things necessary for the making of iron byLoggin or his deputy. After the works went into production, SirFrancis was to receive £140 yearly above all his costs and chargesout of the sale of the iron, and Loggin was to have to his own use' all the overplus of the profit that should arise '.

Loggin claimed that he had accordingly obtained £400 from theCountess of Shrewsbury, procured a lease of her woods, andpermission to build the furnace on her land, and the forge uponHerring's land, and that grants to this effect were made to Sir Francis.Sir Francis had promised to use the borrowed money speedily forerecting the furnace and forge, but he did not in fact embark uponthe project until two years after he had received the £400. The workshad eventually been erected, and had operated under the agreementuntil ' March last past' (i.e. 1594), when John Bentley and SimonHerring on Sir Francis's authority ejected the workmen placed thereby Loggin, and were now barring him from the works, and from anyshare in the profits.

Sir Francis in his reply admitted the general truth of Loggin'sversion of events, but made the significant point that without hissecurity, Loggin could never have procured £400 from the Countessof Shrewsbury, and claimed that as a result of the expenses incurredin erecting the works, he had insisted that Loggin should undertaketo repay him all sums of money spent and due to the Countess, andalso to give him good security for the £140 due to him yearly. Logginhad failed in this, and as a result Sir Francis had forfeited his landmortgaged to the Countess of Shrewsbury, and had been put to greatexpense in obtaining a reassurance.

In his reply, Loggin again insisted that the works could have beenbuilt in four months if the money had been forthcoming, and that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


after they had been built, they had had to stand still for three monthsat a time for lack of funds. It was these delays which had causedthe debt due to the Countess of Shrewsbury to grow, and if the workshad been operated fully according to the agreement, they would havemade a clear profit of £500 at the least. It seems likely that it wasthe hope of realising this higher profit that decided Sir FrancisWilloughby to break the agreement with Loggin, which seems fromLoggin's admission to have been a verbal one. The interrogatoryreports a meeting between Percival Willoughby and Loggin inSeptember 1593, at which Percival said that Loggin had made a verygood bargain for himself, since if there were any losses Sir Franciswould have to bear them, but if the works proved profitable, thenLoggin would receive the greater part of the profits.

From this account, it is obvious that Loggin was the prime moverin the whole enterprise, fixing the location of the furnace and forge,obtaining a promise of £400 and a lease of her woods from theCountess, and supervising the erection of the works. What he couldnot do, however, was to provide sufficient security to the Countessfor the borrowing of the sum needed to launch an ironworks. Wehave seen that when, in rather similar circumstances, Nicholas Lycetthad been erecting a hammer mill for Sir Francis, he had needed toprocure two men to stand as sureties with him for the sum of £30advanced by Sir Francis towards the building of the hammer. It wasSir Francis's vital function, encumbered though he was, to providethe security that theCountess was bound to insist upon. Accordingly,all the leases were in his hands, and he was in a position to oust Loggincompletely from the works in the event of a dispute.

Willoughby's first approach to the Countess of Shrewsbury appearsto have been in a letter dated 21st May 1591, sent to her via RichardWeston, whom we have already met disputing the tenancy ofOakamoor hammersmithy after Lycett's departure:

Understanding by this bearer Richard Weston of the willinge mindeyour Honore hath to deal with me before an other, for such woodsabout Alton Parke as are mete to be dispended in the Iron Workes there,and that your Ladyship is also contented to disburse at Midsomer next400//' towarde the furnishinge stockinge and repayringe of the saydworkes, I will therefore with what convenient speed I may cause thewaters to be vewed by men of skill, to the end I may be assured whetherthat proportion of wood may there be dispended, as willinglie yourLadyship would; which done I shalbe readie to conclude the bargainwith all speed.1


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


The point that Willoughby makes about the need to inspect thewatercourses before finally concluding a bargain for a certain quantityof wood is interesting, implying that it was the availability of thissource of power which set limits to production.1 No doubt it wasthe prospect of an assured income from her woods which inducedthe Countess to support the venture, and on 11th August 1591 sheleased to Willoughby for 21 years ' her coppis woodes and under-woodes which ar and ben usually felled within everie twentie yeres'in her lordship of Alveton.2 Willoughby undertook to pay 200 marksa year, for which he was to obtain 533 loads or dozens of coals, paying5s. a load for every extra load taken above this number. At the sametime negotiations were concluded for the £400 which the Countesshad agreed to lend to set up the works. The indentures concerningthe loan are dated 13th and 15th August 1591, and are signed byWilloughby ' at his newe House' at Wollaton.3 But despite thesplendour of the new house, some indication of Sir Francis'sdifficulties is given by the fact that he found it necessary to mortgagethe Townfield and Holliwell Close in Wollaton to the hard-headedCountess as security for the loan and the £40 yearly interest he wasto pay. Nor was the mortgage on these two important closes of thehome manor to be redeemed in his lifetime.

As is indicated in Loggin's complaint, Sir Francis found morepressing need for the £400 at home, and the works were not readyto go into production until 1593. No estimate of the cost of erectingand stocking the works at Oakamoor has survived, but as atMiddleton, an estimate of the expense of producing a ton of bar ironwas made soon after the works were ready, no doubt by Loggin.4

The estimate can be analysed as follows:At the furnace

(To produce 30 cwts. of rough iron) £ s. d. £ s. d.Ironstone (at 5s. a load)Charcoal (at 12s. a load)FounderRepairs

(This figure is said to include the cost of transport 3 16 0of the rough iron from the furnace to the forge)

1Similarly, although as Schubert points out (op. cit., p. 244), furnaces workedbetter in cold weather, it is likely that it was the availability of more constantwater power which led to the longest campaigns taking place in winter.

2Midd. Coll. 171/39.3Ibid. 171/40, 171/41.4Ibid. 165/92.1. See Appendix 4.

£12

s.0862

d.0000

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


At the forge{To convert 30 cwts. of rough iron into 1 ton of bar iron)

£ s. d. £ s. d.Charcoal (at 12s. a load) .. .. 2 2 0Workmen's wages (i.e. hammermen and

finers) . . .. .. . . 1 0 0Repairs . . . . . . . . 6 8

3 8 8Clerk's wages on every ton .. . . 3 9All rents on every ton . . . . 9

7 9 2

It will be seen that some costs differed from those at Middleton—ironstone was estimated to cost considerably less, but charcoal more,and there were certain small rents to be met—but the final estimatedcosts of production of a ton of bar iron at both places were closelysimilar (£7 9s. 2d. at Oakamoor; £7 11s. 2d. at Middleton). Theworks at Oakamoor seem to have been on a larger scale than thoseat Middleton, having an estimated annual output of 160 tons of bariron against the 120 tons estimated for Middleton. But, as atMiddleton, performance fell below promise. Oakamoor is the onlyone of the ironworks for which detailed accounts have survived,covering the years 1593 to 1608. The earliest account books, thosefor 1593 and 1594, include details of costs at both the furnace andthe forge, together with sales, but later accounts were kept in twoseparate books: (i) the ' Iron Book', which was obviously kept atthe forge, and recorded the quantities of bar iron ' weighed into ' thestorehouse week by week, the quantities sold, and also the paymentsto the forgemen and the founder; and (ii) the ' Book of Payments ',which recorded payments at the furnace (except the founder's wages)and other charges.

Most costs do not seem to have varied greatly over the period forwhich accounts are available. Corders received between 4d. and 6d.for cutting a cord of wood, with occasionally a payment of 7d. or8d. a cord, whilst colliers received between 2s. 2d. and 2s. 4d. a loadfor coaling. Ironstone varied from 3s. 6d. to 5s. a load, probablyaccording to quality, and cost Is. 2d. or Is. 4d. a load for carriageto the furnace. At first the carriage of charcoal cost Is. 2d. a load

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


to the forge, and Is. 6d. a load to the furnace, but from 1596 onwardspayments between 2s. and 3s. are quite common, no doubt indicatinga need to go farther afield for wood. Wood from Alton Park,however, which Sir Francis had contracted with the Countess ofShrewsbury to take at the rate of 533 loads of coals a year, cost 2s. 4d.a load for carriage to the furnace from its first appearance in theaccounts in 1594. Throughout the series, the hammerman and thefiner each received 6d. a hundredweight for working up the iron,whilst the founder was paid 24s. for each' found ', or week's operationof the furnace, whilst it was in blast, which, according to Loggin'soriginal estimate, would produce six tons of cast iron.1 It must beremembered that the furnace was in blast for only part of the year,whilst the working up of the iron into bars went on throughout theyear. On the other hand, an occasional entry suggests that thefounder may have been paid half-rate when the furnace was not inblast, for example the founder was paid £3 12s. on 26th March 1597' for stoping the furnas 6 weeks '.2 It is impossible to say from thedocuments whether any assistants were employed by the founder, thefiner and the hammerman, but it is obvious that these skilled workmencould earn high wages in a good year. Nevertheless, they were byno means easy to attract or retain at Oakamoor, possibly becausethe failure of the works to operate to capacity restricted their earnings.Morris Lawrence, the first finer, left as early as 12th May 1593,3 andon 12th January 1594 a payment was made for the charges of a newfounder coming to the furnace.4 On 13th July and 7th September1594 payments were made to men sent to find a hammerman anda finer.5 On 30th June 1599 22s. was paid' for the charges in sendingfor Drewett the fyner and fetching his stofe from Depemore toOkemore', and again on 8th September 1599 23s. was paid ' insending to seke a fyner '.6 3s. 4d. was paid on 2nd February 1600for the same purpose, and again on 22nd December of the same year24s. was paid' for the sindinge in to Walles for a fyner and for caringhis stofe from thence to Okemore ' . '

1Midd. Coll. 165/92.1. These payments were higher than those made atMackeney, and possibly reflect the difficulty of attracting workmen to thecomparative isolation of Oakamoor. See below, p. 138.

2Ibid. 165/61.3Ibid. 165/52.4Ibid. 165/54.5Ibid. 165/55.6Ibid. 165/64.7Ibid., 165/66.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


Apart from the skilled workmen, and others employed on cutting,coaling and carrying wood, getting and carrying ironstone, andoccasionally transporting the finished product, there were labourers,carpenters and masons employed on various duties around the works.It is impossible to say how many men were on the payroll at any onetime, but the sums paid as wages show that the number cannot havebeen large. A typical year, 1607, when the payments can be preciselyanalysed, shows that, of a total of £680 13s. lOd. in the ' Book ofPayments', £310 3s. 2d. was spent on wages.1 (These figures do notinclude payments to the founder, finer, and hammerman, recordedin the' Iron Book', which has not survived for this year.) Allowingan average earning of 3s. 6d. a week, and 50 working weeks to theyear, this sum would represent an average labour force of no morethan 35 employed on all other operations.

Output and sales in the account books that have survived aresummarised in Appendix 6. It seems that the works did not beginoperations until March 1593, and the first two account books covernine months of that year. Only 40 tons of bar iron were made, ofwhich 24 tons were sold, at an average price of just under £11 a ton,and at the end of the year 11 tons remained in the storehouse (someiron having been delivered without payment to Loggin and to HenryWilloughby). Most of the 11 tons was sold at the beginning of thenext year at the reduced price of £10 a ton, suggesting difficultieswith sales, and the furnace did not begin to blow again until 19thApril 1594, continuing in blast for only nine weeks. Against receiptsof £111 for the first six months of 1594 are set expenses of £222, andit is not surprising that the book records the receipt of a number ofsums from' my master', and this at a time when Willoughby himselfwas heavily in debt. It seems that initially at least there was somedifficulty in disposing of the extra output that the furnace madepossible, but it must be remembered that Loggin claimed in his courtaction that the works stood idle for months on end for lack of funds.

No accounts survive for 1595, but when the accounts reappear for1596, iron was selling at £12 a ton. Costs were high over the year,averaging almost £11 10s. a ton, and only a small profit was recorded.Costs, however, do not necessarily bear a direct relation to outputin the annual summaries. The output figures are for the bar ironmade and weighed into the storehouse, which might follow some timeafter the iron had been cast at the furnace, so that the expenses of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Wiltoughby's Ironworks, 1570-1610 111

a campaign might fall in one year, whilst the bar iron made up andsold might figure in the next year's accounts. The Iron Book for1597 shows that 95 tons 10 cwts. were sold for £1,146, most of theoutput selling at £12 a ton. The chief customer had been a Mr.Keeling, who took 65 tons 10 cwts., all at the standard price.Profits for this year must have been satisfactory, and although nextyear, 1598, sales fell to 72 tons 5 cwts., the iron still sold at £12 a ton,and with costs averaging only £8 14s. a ton, a profit of over £280was recorded.

The early accounts books show the efforts needed to establish sales.In 1593, payments were made for carrying iron to Newcastle,Uttoxeter and Leek, and in December of that year 24s. was paid toLoggin 'for his charges twise to Whittchurch and twise in toShropshire about salle of iron'. Details of purchasers are onlyoccasionally given, and whilst, as one would expect, local place-namesare prominent, for example Ashbourne, Cheadle, Leek and Trenthamin 1600, other entries sometimes indicate more distant customers. In1594, two tons were sold to a buyer in Derby, and in 1597 six tonsare noted as going ' into Lestershaire'. Unlike Middleton,Oakamoor had no large market readily available for its output, andthe build-up of sales was consequently slower.

Percival Willoughby was closely associated with all the ironworksfrom the beginning, and in 1594 the works at Oakamoor wereformally vested in him, in recognition of his agreeing to be boundwith Sir Francis for several large sums.1 An account endorsed inPercival Willoughby's hand ' Receites from Mathew since his firstentraunce at Okemoore till the 4 of Jann. 1598 '2 (i.e. 1599) showsthat after the works had established themselves, useful profits wererecorded over the years 1594-98:

£ s. d.1594 .. 250 0 01595 .. 408 4 61596 .. 146 13 41597 .. 273 0 81598 .. 289 19 3

Total .. 1,367 17 9

1Midd. Coll. 178/13.2Ibid. 165/22. Matthew Stockes had been appointed clerk to the ironworks.Court of Requests Eliz. 237/33.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


It should be pointed out that these sums do not exactly representannual profits, as comparison with the summaries given above willshow. The account for 1598, however, shows that, at the end of thefive years, the accountant claimed only that £3 12s. 9d. had beenoverpaid, so that the five years' working had yielded £1,364 5s. Od.From this sum would need to be deducted the annual interest on theCountess's loan, the loss on the first year's working and possiblepayments to the Countess for wood. Whilst the early accountsinclude payments for cording and coaling wood, payments for thepurchase of the wood often seem to have been omitted. Nevertheless,the profits remaining after these deductions must have been asatisfactory return on an initial investment of £400, although outputand sales had clearly failed to match up to original expectations.

In 1599 sales fell again to 59 tons 10 cwts., and with costs this yearaveraging £12 8s. a ton, a loss of £72 resulted. The following year,1600, sales improved to 76 tons 15 cwts., but the iron was being soldat only £11 or £11 10s. a ton, and with the costs still high at over£10 a ton, a profit of only £78 19s. was made. The next year forwhich records have survived is 1605, when the highest sales for anyyear were recorded. 100 tons 16 cwts. were sold for an average of£11 a ton, whilst costs amounted to just over £9 a ton, and a profitof £226 17s. 7d. resulted. Sales were well maintained the followingyear, 1606, when 105 tons 12 cwts. were sold, again at an averageprice of £11 a ton. Costs were somewhat lower at around £8 10s.a ton, and a profit of £262 8s. 6d. resulted. No Iron Book hassurvived for 1607, but profits can be calculated as £181 15s. 6d.,suggesting that sales were maintained at around 100 tons. Unlike theearlier accounts, those for 1605-07 include considerable payments forstanding timber, and as a result show a steep rise in the costs of woodand woodcutting. In 1605, ready-cut cords were still purchased fromAlton Park, but in 1607 no wood was obtained from this source, andthe need to go farther for supplies is reflected in increased costs forcarriage. On the other hand, iron sales of around 100 tons a yearnow seem to have been established, and the profits for the years1605-07 make all the more puzzling the account for 1608, whichabruptly closes the series. The furnace was not brought into actionuntil 7th June, and the campaign lasted only 13 weeks. The 39 tonssold, however, fetched £12 10s. or £12 13s. 4d. a ton, and with costsat just over £9 a ton, a profit of £131 18s. 8d. was recorded. Thelast entry in the book, dated 5th November, shows over 4 tons

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


remaining in the storehouse, considerably more than had remainedunsold at the end of any other year (except the first), and might seemto indicate, together with the late start to the campaign, a declinein demand, which is difficult, however, to reconcile with the priceobtained for the iron. After 1608, no more is heard of the Oakamoorfurnace. The poor showing in this year together with the late startto the campaign suggest difficulties which may have closed down thefurnace, though the book ends with the usual formula ' So there isdew to me to be alowed in the nexte yeares acounte '

The surviving account books show that the original estimate of thepotential output of the ironworks was never approached in the seriesof figures available to us. The estimate calculated that 160 tons * atthe least' could be made, and, as we have seen, the highest outputrecorded for any year was that for 1605, when 111 tons were weighedinto the storehouse. 160 tons of bar iron would require an outputat the furnace of 240 tons of ' rough iron ', and as the furnace wasto be capable of an output of 6 tons a week, this would imply anannual campaign of 40 weeks. In 1605 the furnace was actually inblast for 35 weeks, and in the same year year 110 tons 19 cwts. ofbar iron were made up, suggesting that the furnace was not beingoperated at its full capacity. From the Iron Books which havesurvived, the campaigns appear to have been as follows:

1594 (first sixmonths) 9 weeks 3 days 19th April to 23rd June

1597 31 weeks 3 days In blast at beginning of yearto 12th February

26th March to 7th May7th July to 12th November

1599 16 weeks 3 days 24th May to 15th September1600 28 weeks 10th December 1599 to

16th February22nd June to 25th October

1605 35 weeks 23rd December 1604 to10th March

29th May to 17th June29th June to 21st August17th September to

23rd December

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


1606 28 weeks 22nd December 1605 to2nd February

21st May to 27th October1608 13 weeks 7th June to 8th SeptemberThe accounts show that output was geared very closely to demand.

Only two years, at the beginning and end of our series, finished witha sizeable surplus of unsold iron in the storehouse, but the changesin the selling price and the fact that in some years a few big buyerstook up a large part of the output suggest that demand might besubject to considerable variation. In this connection, a discussionbetween Loggin and Percival Willoughby after Percival had takenover the ironworks, reported in Loggin's evidence, is of interest.1

Percival had asked how long it would take to recoup the moneyalready paid to the Countess of Shrewsbury, and Loggin replied thathe thought a sufficient quantity of iron could be made in 30 weeks,but ' whether the same would be speedily sould, he was uncertayne '.

It is unlikely, however, that a sudden fall in demand brought theworks to a halt, especially as the years 1605-07 seem to show thatafter the initial difficulties sales had established themselves at a levelsufficient to ensure useful profits after all costs had been met, andthe 1608 figures, despite the late start, are equally encouraging. Amore important consideration for what appears to be the shut-downof the works is the fact that in the difficult years after the death ofSir Francis, Percival Willoughby was in desperate straits for money,and was living from bond to bond. After the costs involved in theirerection, the works would have needed only a comparatively smallworking capital, as is indicated by a note appended to the summaryaccount for 1605:' The stocke remayninge is worth a hundred poundeverie man being payd ',2 but Percival's urgent needs may havedeprived the works of even the small sums needed to continueproduction, as in fact happened, according to Loggin's evidence, inthe first years of the works' existence. It might be objected that ata time when Percival Willoughby's needs were so acute, he wouldhardly have committed the folly of bringing to an end a source ofrevenue, but his precarious state may have left him no choice. Onthe other hand, it is possible that the works were not abandoned butsold, although no record of a sale has survived.

1Midd. Coll. 165/93.2Ibid. 165/69.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


IIICODNOR

The most considerable ironworks to come into Sir Francis's handswere those at Codnor, just inside the Derbyshire border, some tenmiles from Wollaton. It is perhaps typical of the exaggeration whichso often bedevils accounts of early industrial undertakings that R. H.Tawney, in his classic introduction to Wilson's' Discourse of Usury ',speaks of the Willoughbys spending £20,000 per annum on theirironworks in Derbyshire.1 There is no basis for this figure, and infact, as we shall see, the whole undertaking was passed over to SirFrancis, soon after 1590, in return for a loan of £2,500. Willoughbyhimself was heavily in debt at this period, and had been obliged toborrow the money in turn upon the London money market. AtCodnor, then, Sir Francis was not responsible for introducing blastfurnace production to the area, as was the case at Middleton andOakamoor, but took over an existing undertaking under specialcircumstances.

Ironstone was readily available in the coal measures of the exposedcoalfield of the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire border, and iron hadbeen worked up there at least since the Middle Ages,2 finding a readymarket in Derby, Nottingham and the market towns of the EastMidlands. In the late sixteenth century, a dominating position inthe area was held by Sir John Zouche of Codnor Castle, whopossessed extensive estates in south Derbyshire, and around 1582 heestablished at Loscoe, Codnor, the first blast furnace to be built inthe East Midlands.3 In addition to being an ironmaster in his ownright, Sir John was a member of the Society of the Mineral andBattery Works, one of whose protected interests was in machineryfor wire-drawing. This monopoly was a lucrative one, since wire wasin demand for the carding process in the woollen industry, and in1581 Sir John had been tempted to infringe the monopoly byestablishing a wire mill at Mackeney in Derbyshire. The Company,however, was able to insist on the work being stopped, and took

1T. Wilson, Discourse on Usury, ed. R. H. Tawney (1925), pp. 52-53.2V.C.H. Derbys., ii, 356-358.3Star Chamber Proc. Jas. I. 311/31. Schubert, op. c i t . , p. 377, considers thatthis refers to another furnace at Heanor, but the action refers to Zouche'spossession 'of and in one iron myne and furnas for working and making iron,and of and in one watercourse for the use of the said furnas in Heynor andLoscoe'. Loscoe borders on Heanor, and there can be no doubt that thisis a reference to the original Loscoe furnace, with its forge at Hartshay inHeanor parish.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


similar action when two years later Sir John attempted to re-openthe mill.1

Soon afterwards Sir John died,2 and was succeeded by his son,' the young Mr. Zouche ', also named John, who had married Mary,the daughter of Sir Henry Berkeley, Lord Berkeley. When he firstappears upon the scene, he had already fallen victim to the diseasethat was afflicting other members of the upper gentry in theneighbourhood, and was heavily in debt. As with Phillip Strelleyof Strelley and Nicholas Beaumont of Coleorton, the fact of hisindebtedness is well attested, but it is impossible to be quite certainof the cause. One may feel fairly sure, however, that the reason forhis difficulties, and those of Strelley and Beaumont, was simplyextravagance, which led to his becoming more and more deeplyinvolved with the moneylenders, and there is nothing to show thathis industrial activities contributed to his insolvency. In fact, as weshall see, when matters came to a head, his industrial undertakingswere amongst his most valued assets.

The extent of his indebtedness is clearly shown by an undateddocument endorsed in Sir Francis Willoughby's hand ' A note ofsuch Statutes as Mr. Zouche hath entered into', which lists them asfollows:

1. 23Nov.l587. Luce Lane citizen and grocer of London 1000 marks.2. 25Feb.l590. John Lacy citizen and glassworker of London £1200.3. 10 Jul. 1590. Sir Christopher Hatton £3000.4. 9 Oct. 1590. Edward Elyott of Ratclyffe, Middlesex, vinter, £200.5. 24 May 1588. Sir Geoffrey Chaworthe £1000.6. 22 Nov. 1590. Sir Henry Berkeley, Lord Berkeley, £2000.7. 13 May 1587. William Sedley of Lincolns Inne £1200.3

That these were not the limit of Zouche's obligations is shown byanother document, dated 13th May 1587, by which Zouche undertookto pay an annuity of £100 out of his manor of Alfreton and his landsin the parishes of Swanwick, Ridding and Greenhill, Derbyshire, toJohn Tufton of Hothfield, Kent, in return for a loan of £l,000.4

Zouche had obviously reached a crisis in his affairs, and in hisdifficulties he turned to his neighbour, Sir Francis Willoughby, inmuch the same way as Phillip Strelley was to turn to Sir John Byrona few years later. Sir Francis himself was heavily in debt around

1Schubert, op. cit., p. 295.2Sir John was dead before July 1588. Midd. Coll. 178/4.3Midd. Coll. 178/5.4Ibid. 178/1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


1590, but his credit was not as exhausted as Zouche's obviously wasby this date, and he borrowed £2,500, which was then made over toZouche in return for a lease of his ironworks. It seems that Percival,as prospective heir, was closely associated with Sir Francis in theventure from the beginning and a draft of an indenture exists,endorsed 33 Elizabeth (1591), by which John Zouche of CodnorCastle leased to Percival Willoughby of Newehall, Middleton,Warwickshire, one furnace, two forges, four fineries and two chaferiesin Codnor, Heanor and Duffield ' for the meltinge of Iron Stone,castings or workinge of Rough Iron, or the fynishinge and makingeof Barre Iron '.* Zouche undertook to erect one new furnacetogether with bellows, tooks, instruments and all other thingsnecessary, and was also to provide charcoal and ironstone as needed,receiving £6 15s. for each ton of bar iron made. The agreement wasconfirmed in an indenture dated 28th August 1594,2 which states thatSir Francis Willoughby had ' borrowed and stood engaged to thevalue of £2,500 ' for John Zouche, and in order that Percival mightcontinue to meet the interest charges, and allow John Zouche £200a year or 20 tons of iron, and 200 marks a year to his wife, Mary,Zouche had demised to him' the forge, fornace or iron workes calledLoscowe Milne, and the forge, hammer and fineryes at Hartehayewith the iron work there, with all water, tooles and every other thingto the said woorke belonginge, and the woodes and mynes in Codnorpark, Butlerly park, Alderker park, Hartehaye, Marehaye, Sawterwood, Haynor wood, Wyndgreenes, and in any other landes of thesaid John in the countie of Derbye, with the coale pittes and mynesof coale at Heage within the said countie, and the iron milles inMarkney and the coppyhold land there', to hold for 20 years ' forto paie himselfe and weare out the said debtes and yerely pencions '.Percival Willoughby was to place and displace workmen and officers,except one clerk to be appointed by Zouche to oversee the yearlyprofits, and was to make yearly two hundred tons in wrought ironbars. Finally, when Sir Francis and Percival had recouped their£2,500 and the interest charges and other outgoings, together withthe sums ' for new making a forge or furnace to be made in Codnorpark', Zouche was to regain possession.

The original agreement seems to have been entered upon withamicable expressions all round, as we learn from the deposition of

1Midd. Coll. 165/76.2Ibid. 178/8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


Christopher Shipward of Nottingham, when Zouche took the matterto Chancery in 1597.1 Shipward deposed that when the agreementwas being entered into, Sir Francis ' sett downe a brieffe note ofcomputation' in his own hand within what time the debt to himselfand Percival Willoughby was likely to be paid out of the ironworks.He declared that the ' workes shold be soe fullie stocked and thatthe workemen shold worke with double workemen bothe day andnyght but he would rayse the said money within the tearme of fiveyeares \ The reason, Shipward maintained, that no bonds wereentered into for performance was that Sir Francis said that if he mightfind good dealing from John Zouche, then Zouche should receiveperformance of good dealing again, and ' sholde not fynde that hedelt with gryping merchantes or cutt-thrott brokers', and further thathe looked for no gain other than ' his travell for his paynes (savingonly that he should have tenne shillinges for everie tonne of iron yfhe made 200 tonne in the yeare) '.

It is difficult to see just what advantage Sir Francis hoped to obtainfrom the transaction. At first sight, the agreement that he shouldhold the works until the debt was ' worn out', with the usual interestat ten per cent, might seem to be a decently veiled way of helpinga friend at a discount, but it must be remembered that Willoughbytoo was paying ten per cent on the £2,500 he had borrowed forZouche. If' his travell for his paynes' means simply that Willoughbyshould receive what was due for the repayment of his money plusthe interest charges, then we are left with the conclusion that the onlygain he might expect was a mere ten shillings for every ton if heshould achieve the target figure of two hundred tons of bar iron ayear.

A series of notes exist which appear to have been drawn up at thetime the original arrangements were being made for the handing overof the ironworks to Sir Francis.

First that the founder and all other forgmen be sett in and appointedby Sir Francis.

That the Nue Mill be yelded up to him by Mr. Zowch by Surrenderaccording to the custome of Duffielde Freth.

That both the furnaces be paste unto Sir Francis. That all theTenantes in whose growndes there is ether iron stone or wod for the useof the workes to be bownd to Sir Francis that he may have free libertiewith egresse and regresse to dig gett and carrie away soe much Ironstone as shall be needfull for them.

1Chanc. Proc. Eliz. Z 1/12. The deposition is in the Midd. Coll. 178/23.3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


That all such cariages that belongeth to the workes may have libertiethrough the Tenantes groundes or anie other Mr. Zowches land withinDarbeshire in the same manner as it hath bein in Sir John Zowches tim.

That the wodward and all other officers belonginge to the furnacesand the forges be eyther servauntes to Sir Francis or be bound unto himto performe there duties as his officers shall think fitt.

That there be no exchanges of eyther Clark, wodward or anie otherofficer without Sir Francis consent.

That the Colepittes of Hedge [Heage] be past to Sir Francis for themaintenance of the forge at Nue Mill and that there may be allowedyerely from Harthay pittes to Harthay forge 50 ruckes of coles.

That my Lady Zowch showlde joyne with my master in assurance forperformance of soe much wod as shall be imployed for the uses of thefurnaces and the forges.

That my Lorde Barkeley passe his assurances to Sir Francis.1

The reference to ' both the furnaces' indicates the intention tobuild another furnace at Codnor in addition to the furnace at Loscoewhich had been built by Sir John Zouche in 1582. But, as we haveseen, the new furnace had not been built by 1594,2 and there is noreason to believe that the project was ever carried out. The ' NueMill' forge was the one which had been erected by Sir John Zoucheat Mackeney in Duffield Frith. The agreement to hand over theHeage coalpits for the maintenance of the Mackeney forge, and toallow 50 rooks of coal from the Hartshay pits for the Hartshay forgeis of especial interest as showing that in Derbyshire at least it wasthe intention to use considerable quantities of coal at the refiningstage in the new process from the beginning.

The erection of a second furnace was no doubt considered essentialto make possible the annual output of two hundred tons of bar ironwhich seems to have been Sir Francis's target. To produce thisquantity, three hundred tons of rough iron would be required, andan estimate was made of how this could be achieved with two furnacesin blast:

Loscoe furnas doth blow one yere with another 26 weekes and dothcast weekely 5 tons in rowgh Iron. Sumtimes she hath continued30 weekes and 28 weekes and one yere above thirtie, as appereth by theclarkes book of accomptes. 130 tons.

The furnace which is presently to be sett up in Codnor Parke willblow in the opinions of them who hath undertaken the buildinge of heryerely 36 wekes. There is none so leane myn abowt Codnor whichheretofore hath been tried, but will yelde at leste 5 tons of Ironweekely. 180 tons.

1Midd. Coll. 179/49.1.2See above, p. 117.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


Soe that both these furnaces blowinge three score weekes (which nodowbt will be performed) castinge weekly at ether furnace 5 tons, thewhole some of rowgh iron will yerely amownte unto viz. 300 tons.1

The new furnace was not to have a larger weekly output than theold, and its advantage was to have been in its sturdier construction,which would have permitted a 36 weeks' campaign annually, whilstLoscoe furnace had only once blown for more than 30 weeks in ayear.

On the basis of the estimated annual output of 200 tons of bar iron,an estimate of possible profits was then drawn up:

Both the fornaces will yelde sowes to make 200 tons barr iron yerely,the ton praysed at 10/. cometh to 2000/. from which some deducte allallowance. First the stocke 900/., for Mr. Zouch 200/., for Mrs. Zouch133/. 6s. 8d., for clarke & other officers aboute the workes 84/. Intotalll217/. 6s. 8d. deducted from 2000/. Rem. in cleare 782/. 13s. Ad.If 180 tons be made & sold for 10/. the ton, cometh to 1800/. from whichdeduct all charge 1217/. 6s. 8d. Rem. in cleare 582/. 135. 4d.

If the workes be sett to one that will pay my Master 400/. yerely aboveall charges, then yf more money happen to rise Mr. Zouch will have thatto runne out as paid to my Master which the taker will have. Themoney will rise according to the quantities of Iron made & the priceas you see above written. And so what money will ryse above 400/.yerely my Master will loose out of his totall somme.2

The document implies that at this early stage Sir Francis wasconsidering the possibility of leasing the ironworks, but the notepoints out that any extra money obtained from the ironworks wouldbe considered as paying ofFZouche's debt, even if it went to a lessee,and not to Sir Francis.

In April 1591, with the building of the new furnace still underconsideration, an estimate was made of the charges that would haveto be met in the next six months, making provision for two furnacesand two forges.3 The estimate needs to be compared with the carefulcalculations made at Middleton and Oakamoor, both of which putthe cost of producing a ton of bar iron at about £7 10s. the ton.These estimates, as we have seen, employed the usual figures of oneload of charcoal to one load of ironstone at the furnace, andcalculated that 16 loads each of charcoal and ironstone would beneeded to produce six tons of rough iron in a week. At Codnor,on the other hand, only 14| loads of ironstone were to be provided

1Midd. Coll. 179/49.4.2Ibid. 165/79.3Ibid. 165/80. See Appendix 6.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Willoughbys Ironworks, 1570-1610 121

for two furnaces, though three times as much charcoal was to be madeavailable. Again at the two forges 34 loads of charcoal were to beprovided, sufficient by Middleton and Oakamoor standards to makeup ten tons of bar iron. These discrepancies are sufficient to warnus that the Codnor figures are not to be taken as average weeklyfigures that would occur throughout the year, and may have beenbased upon a calculation of stock already in hand not included inthe estimate.

It is interesting to note that the cost of erecting a new furnace wasput as low as £60 in this estimate, but another document endorsedin Sir Francis's hand shows that Zouche was to provide the materialsfor the building, and there were, of course, no site charges involved.

Md. to procure a letter from Mr. Zowche to his officers in the countreyto make provision of tymber, stone and such other necessaries, as SirFrauncis deputies shall reqyre for the building of the new fornace, andto make provision of charcole and cordewood for the Newe Forge, forthe mayntenaunce of which forge there is nether wood cutte beforehande nor coales provided.

Also to write that parte of those coales which are provided for therest of the workes may be sent into that forge, until] there be provisionmade for the same, by reason thother workes are well furnished withcoles allreadie, and none at all att the newe forge where most yron isto be made.1

In another estimate, the output possible at the New Forge atMackeney was put as high as 160 tons of bar iron yearly, which wasexpected to bring in £1,600. ' The charge upon a tonn of iron at theNew Forge ' was said to be four pounds, presumably covering forgeexpenses only, and the allowances which Zouche was hoping couldbe paid out of the profits totalled £633 6s. 8d.2

The only accounts to have survived giving details of the perform-ance of the Codnor works are two summaries covering roughly thesame period, the six months from February to August 1591. Afterthe optimistic estimates, output was disappointing. The first account,which is endorsed, is in Sir Francis Willoughby's hand: ' Logginsaccount for Mr. Zowches workes about Codnor, 1591',3 shows thatwith only one furnace operating, the target of 200 tons of bar ironwas far from being achieved, and in fact only 50 tons of finished ironwere produced during the six months at the Mackeney (Duffield)

1Midd. Coll. 165/78.1.2Ibid. 179/49.3.3H.M.C. Midd. MSS., p. 496. See Appendix 7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


forge. The furnace had blown for 18 weeks and had cast 105 tons,giving a weekly output of just over 5 tons 15 cwts., which agrees withthe usual performance of a blast furnace at this period. 75 tons ofsow iron had been required to produce the 50 tons of bar, whichrepresented only 13 weeks' output at the furnace. The founder waspaid £1 for each weekly found, as compared with the 24s. receivedby the founder at Oakamoor, and the finer and the hammerman eachreceived 8s. for working up a ton of iron, as compared with 10s. paidto their Oakamoor counterparts, though in 1592 a replacementhammerman was demanding 10s. instead of the 8s. offered.1 Theiron was sold at £12 a ton, and out of the profits Zouche was allowed£6 15s. a ton, whilst £125 was allowed to Sir Francis as ' his halfeyear's clear profytt'. The second account is headed ' The computa-cion of Lawrence Loggyns moyete for this halfe yeare begynnyngethe 20th of Februarye and ending the 31th day of Julye 1591 '.* Aninteresting note in this account is that the amount remaining aftermeeting the charges and allowances to Zouche and Willoughby is saidto remain ' on Mr. Loggyns behalfe '. Apparently, Loggin wassub-contracting the works, as we have seen was the case at Oakamoor,and was to be allowed to keep for himself any surplus after the otheragreed payments had been made.

In the account quoted above, the only costs to which direct referenceis made are the payments to the founder, the finer, and the hammer-man, so that the sums paid to Zouche and to Sir Francis are in nosense clear profits. But in any case, a half year's payment of £125would only suffice to service Sir Francis's debt, and obviously outputwould need to be considerably boosted if both impecuniousneighbours were to be satisfied. As we have seen, however, thesecond furnace which was to make this output possible was neverin fact constructed, and before long there is evidence in a letter fromGeorge Littleton, Sir Francis's bother-in-law, dated 21st July 1592,that the inevitable difficulties were appearing.

Right worshippfull I finde Mr. Zouche rather willing to satisfie anyothers then you. Howe you entered into this bargaine to relieve Mr.Zowche, howe you were at the begininge hardely delt with, indenturesmade contrarie to your meaninge & that within 7 or 8 weekes & afterMr. Zouche agreed with others by order in the Chauncery to avoydeyour bargaine, howe he hath staied you from having any proffitt of thesmythie longer then you gave him 10 tymes more money then the proffitt

1See Appendix 8.2Midd. Coll. 179/50.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


came to, what he hath saied to you himself you best knowe. For mypart I think he should be very bolde that should advise you to meddellwith this iron, the proffitt is not greate but the losse maye be more thenthe value of the iron 1

After Loggin's dismissal, a certain Sylvester Smith appears to havetaken over responsibility for all the Willoughby ironworks. A letterfrom him, dated 9th October 1592, from ' Chedull' (Cheadle,Staffordshire), reports on all three ironworks,2 and, as is pointed outby H. R. Schubert, contains the first specific reference to the use ofmineral coal in the forging of iron by the indirect process.3 It wasproposed to use the coal at the chafery stage, where the half-finishedbar or ' anchony ', received from the finery, was reheated for finalforging under the hammer to its finished bar shape. Schubertcomments: ' The reference to a selling price lower than the averageimplied some doubts about the possibility of successfully forging bariron with mineral coal. In any case, the attempt was regarded asa novelty by the writer of the letter'. But it is difficult to see thatany novelty is implied in Smith's matter-of-fact statement: ' For asI heare they are purposed to make iron with seacole at the chafery,which if they do they will hardly sell at above 10/. the tonne '.On the contrary, it seems that, although a stranger to the district,he is acquainted with the practice, and knows how it diminishes theprice of the finished product. We have seen that when proposals forthe original agreement between Willoughby and Zouche were drawnup, it was stipulated that the Heage coalpits were to be transferredto Willoughby for the maintenance of the New Mill forge, and thatHartshay pits were to supply 50 rooks of coal annually for theHartshay forge. The supply of mineral coal on this scale impliesthat its considerable use at the forges was intended from thebeginning.

The use of coal at smithies in the Middle Ages is well attested,4

and no ingenuity would be required to suggest its use at the chaferystage in the new process, where the shaping of the bar under thehammer was so analagous to the work carried out at smithies. Itseems likely that from the beginning the optimistic estimates ofoutput and possible profits at the Derbyshire ironworks were basedupon a considerable use of easily available mineral coal at the pits

1Midd. Coll. 179/51.5.2Ibid. 165/89. See Appendix 8.3Schubert, op. c i t . , p. 226.4V.C.H. Derbys., ii, 349, n. 6.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


on the Zouche estates.1 We have also seen that when Sir FrancisWilloughby was proposing to work up a ton of iron experimentallyat John Wyrley's hammer mill he gave orders that a quantity of coalwas to be sent with the iron.2 Schubert himself gives anotherexample of the delivery of large quantities of coal to the hammermenat a forge near Sheffield, and rightly points out that this use of coalat the chafery was probably ' the grain of truth in the constantlyrepeated claims of the various applicants for patents in the seventeenthcentury, including Dud Dudley, that they could make bar iron withmineral coal \ 3 Incidentally, Schubert says that the forge referredto by Smith was apparently the one at Hartshay, but the letter quiteclearly refers to the New Mill forge. The letter also shows thedifficulty of recruiting skilled staff, and refers to the ' fyner' having' gonne into Wales to seek workmen '. Nicholas Lycett, who haderected Willoughby's hammer, was from Montgomery, and SirFrancis's representative at the Zouche ironworks, Rhiss (or Rhyss)may also have been a Welshman.

Percival Willoughby seems to have taken full responsibility forZouche's debt in 1594. By the time of Sir Francis's death, hisrelations with Zouche were obviously very strained indeed, and it isnot surprising that Zouche immediately attached himself to Percival'sadversary, Sir Francis's scheming widow. Percival's possession ofthe ironworks was not disputed, but in 1597, Zouche brought anaction against him in Chancery, claiming that the Willoughbys mustby now have received satisfaction for their £2,500.4 A documentprobably drawn up at this time, lists a number of complaints aboutthe operation of the works since Percival Willoughby took them overon 14th April 1594, to which Percival has provided answers in his ownhand. He also summarised his reasons for the failure to make theworks pay off the remainder of the debt in a sheet of notes attachedto an interrogatory:

3. The losse by water three unseasonable yeares past.

1In this connection it is interesting to note that the making of coke, which wouldspoil the finished iron less than raw coal, was known in the Nottinghamshire-Derbyshire coalfield at this date. This can be inferred from a letter fromSir Francis Willoughby to the Duke of Rutland in 1587: ' I have sent youa basket of seacoal. There are twenty rooks 'broughte' into charcoal andlaid up in store. I have kept the party that makes them, in case you wanta greater number.' H.M.C. Rutland MSS., i, 220.

2See above, p. 95.3Schubert, op. cit., p. 227.4Chanc. Proc. Eliz. Z 1/12.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Willoughbys Ironworks, 1570-1610 125

6. His [i.e. Zouche's] unquietnesse and trouble caused chapmen toforsake the workes whereby the cheefest salle was taken awaye.

7. The overseer of the worke could not followe by his own oversightbeing still in danger of his life every daye passinge in the woodes,nayther thought it best to hasarde such sommes of mony for thestock as should have bine employed for feare of expulsion and losseof all.

9. And allso wages is raysed by reason of derenesse of corne andfowleness of waves.1

A copy of a letter from Thomas Egerton, the Lord Keeper, dated21st June 1597, directed to Thomas Holcroft, Henry Beaumont, JohnHarpur and William Agarde, declares that ' I doe understand theforementioned iron woorkes to concerne and importe the saidMr. Zouch very neerely and deeplie, as principall good staies of hislivinge and station, and yet the same thus standinge in strief, not muchto convert to the profit of eyther', and requests them to attempt tofind a basis of agreement.2 They duly reported on 6th September1597 that they had met at Derby, examined the accounts, and decidedthat Percival Willoughby needed to be paid £3,200 in settlement ofall his claims.3 The debt was to be paid in five annual instalments,but at first Willoughby would not agree to the securities Zoucheoffered for payment. Agreement, however, was finally reached, and,by order of the Court dated 28th November 1598, the ironworks wereto be committed to three undertakers, with no prejudice toWilloughby's possession, who were to meet the agreed instalmentsuntil Willoughby's £3,200 had been paid.4 Zouche and theundertakers were to put £600 into the works as stock, and for furthersecurity, Zouche's manor of Alfreton was leased to Willoughby fromwhich he was to levy any sums not paid.

Against this depressing background of debt and difficulties, howin fact was John Zouche proposing to repair his fortunes? It seemsthat he had recently lost his wife, from whom he had been estranged,and a letter from London, written by Luke Gonalston, one of PercivalWilloughby's servants, dated 22nd July 1598, gives us a fascinatingglimpse of the hopes now raised in this gentleman in distress:

Mr. Zowche he fareth well in the meane while, and presumeth muchupon a good Landladie, for he hath (as I am credibly tolde) made up

1Midd. Coll. 178/23.2.2Ibid. 179/54.1.3Ibid. 179/54.3.4Ibid. 179/55.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


the Tennyscourte att Thurland howse,1 and a verie faire and pleasauntbowlynge allye; he hath nowe caste awaye his mourning habit, andflourisheth lyke a freshe widower, and hath bestowed upon eight of hismen eighte lyverie cloakes att six poundes a peece; the speeche is (butthat I feare it is too good to be trewe) that he shall have a wyfe that willallowe him 3000/. towardes the payment of his debtes, and will bringhim 1000/. yerely reveinewe 2

But Zouche's hopes of a fortunate match were obviously notrealised, and if in fact Sir Francis had assured him at the outset that' he should not fynde that he delt with gryping merchantes orcutt-throat brokers ', in the event Sir Percival was to accord to theyounger Zouche the same relentless treatment he knew only too wellhimself at the hands of the London usurers. In a complaint dated21st November 1608,3 Sir John Harper of Swarkeston, FrancisNeedham of Melbourne, and John Zouche, son and heir apparentof Sir John Zouche4 of Codnor Castle, cited the arrangement madeby the Chancery decision of 28th November 1598, whereby EdwardFitzRandolph of Sommercotes, Robert Mason of Greenhill Lane andThomas Tacye of New Mills had been designated as undertakers ofthe ironworks. Sir John Zouche had been outlawed for his debtsbut the King had issued Letters Patent granting to the complainantsas executors all the personal property and profits which ought to havecome to the Crown as a result of the outlawry, intending that theyshould devote two-thirds of all revenues, goods and chattels to thepayment of the debts. But, notwithstanding the Letters Patent, SirPercival had re-entered the ironworks and put out the undertakers,and had continued to cut down the woods and to make leases oflands in Alfreton. The executors accordingly asked that Sir Percivalshould be forced to give up the property and make account for anyprofits received.

Sir Percival's answer was to draw up a statement indicating thefailure of the undertakers to meet the instalments as due.8 The first£400 had been paid in 1599, but of the four remaining instalmentsof £700 a year, two payments of £150 had been received for the firsttwo instalments, and nothing at all for the remaining two. He had

1Thurland House was the Willoughby's town house in Nottingham, and hadpassed on Sir Francis's death to his second wife. She had obviously installedZouche as a tenant, no doubt rubbing salt into Percival's wounds.

2Midd. Coll. 75/4.12.3Ibid. 178/28.1.4Zouche had been knighted in 1603.5Midd. Coll. 179/56.1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


then received two payments of £500 in 1604 and 1605 from a certainAlsoppe Geslinge and others who had taken over the works by leasefrom Sir John Zouche, and three payments of £400 from one Tulley,' taylor of London', who entered the works in 1606. Willoughbythus admitted to receiving £2,900 since the Chancery decree in 1598,but allowing ten per cent for interest the debt still stood at£1,895 6s. 8d.

The reference to Tulley,' taylor of London ', suggests that we havehere an example of that investment of merchant capital in earlyindustrial development which J. U. Nef has claimed was sowidespread.1 But fortunately the indenture has survived by whichSir Percival leased his interest in the ironworks to William Tully,Merchant Tailor of London. It is dated 23rd February 1606, anddiscloses that Tully had been bound with Sir Percival in a numberof bonds, and his lease of the ironworks was to be terminated whenWilloughby paid the sums for which they were jointly bound.2 Sothat once again we have an example of a London merchant becominginvolved in an industrial undertaking not on his own initiative, butas a result of his connection with loan operations.

As Willoughby had received four or five hundred pounds a yearover the past five years, the ironworks must have been recording asteady profit, and having established his claim firmly, one might haveexpected him to wait until his debt was paid off, with any delays beingpaid for at 10 per cent. But his needs around this time were probablyso insistent that he decided to look around for a possible purchaserof his interest. It is remarkable that under the circumstances he wasable to persuade the Earl of Shrewsbury to take an interest in theproposition. A draft of an agreement between Sir Percival and theEarl exists, dated 23rd May 1609, by which Willoughby agreed totransfer to the Earl' all manner of specialtyes and assurances of whatnature soever that ever heretofore hath beene betwixt the saidSir Percival and Sir John Zouche '.3 Sir Percival had declared in hisanswer to the Bill of Complaint filed in Chancery by the young JohnZouche that a sum of around £2,000 was still owing to him, and theEarl was to secure this sum to him to be paid by four equal portions.Endorsed on the draft agreement is a copy, in Sir Percival's hand, ofa receipt dated 16th June 1609, signed by Anthony Neville for the

1J. U. Nef, Rise of the British Coal Industry (1932), ii, ch. 3.2Midd. Coll. 73/15.3Ibid. 179/62.2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


documents ' concerning the state of business depending betwixt SirPercival Willoughby and Sir John Zouche' to be delivered to the Earlof Shrewsbury for his counsel to consider, and to be redelivered toSir Percival should there be no further proceeding in the matter.

But the bad luck which dogged Sir Percival pursued him here too.Two years later, matters had made no further progress, as an undatedmemorandum reveals:' After Mr. Nevile had gott the writinges, beingnow two yeares past and more, Sir Percival could never get themagaine, or growe to any end, but hath beene urged to send and attendhim, and to make many journies into the countrye and otherwise.These writings have done my Lord no pleasure and Sir Percival forwant of them hath incurred many suites and forfeatures, and hathlost both his freindes and his creditt, the very interest in two yearsand more coming to about 500/. yet with my Lord's favour after somany losses both in time and otherwise, Sir Percival desires eitherhis writinges as he delivered them, or the mony '.* Before he couldget any satisfaction, however, death had intervened, and the lastdocument concerning the affair is the draft of an undated letter inWilloughby's hand, addressed to Sir Ralph Winwood:

It pleased the late earle of Shrewsbury by his servant Anthony Nevillto contract and agree with me uppon valueable consideration for thepayment of two thousande two hundrede pounds by his Lordshipp forwiche I was longe and often a suitor to my great losse, and beinge asI heare, that your Lordshipp is becum executor to his Lordeshippe myhumble desire is, your honor woulde be pleased to take this debt longesence dewe unto me into your noble and worthye consideration, beingurged to sell and engage my owne estate for want of sutche moneye asin this kinde and otherwise is dewe unto me, and I shall ever acknowledgemy selfe mutche bounden to and ever be readye by your Honour.2

No more is heard of the Zouche ironworks after this and it seemsunlikely that the Zouches ever regained full possession.3 They hadpledged their estates beyond redemption, and in 1634 the last Sir JohnZouche and his son sold what remained of their interests, and aresaid to have emigrated to Virginia.4

1Midd. Coll. 179/64.1.2Ibid. 179/64.2.3Schubert, op. c i t . , p. 377, says 'The ironworks still existed in 1615', quotingG. C. Bond, 'History of Early Coal and Ironstone Mining in Nottingham-shire', Trans. Inst. of Mining Engineers, LXVII (1923-24), 237. Bond'sarticle consists simply of extracts from H.M.C. Midd. MSS. but withoutreferences. The extract in question is from H.M.C. Midd. MSS., p. 182, andthere is no reason to associate the unnamed iron mills mentioned there withthe Zouche undertakings.

4S. Glover, The History and Gazetteer of the County of Derby (1833), ii, 312.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


In addition to the undertakings at Middleton, Oakamoor andCodnor, the Middleton Manuscripts contain references to two otherironworks projects. The first is a brief memorandum recordingdiscussions between Sir Francis Willoughby and Laurence Loggin onthe possibility of erecting a works near some woods which Sir Francishad purchased in Ireland.1 The memorandum is dated 2ndSeptember 1589, a few months earlier than any of the other documentsassociating Loggin with the furnaces discussed above, and it may havebeen the Irish proposal which first brought him into contact with SirFrancis. If the works were erected' at the indefferente charge of thesaid Sir Francis and the said Laurence Loggin with other suchepersons as the sayd Lawrance Loggyn shall thinke good to acceptas coppartners ', the profits were to be equally shared, but if they wereerected at the sole charge of Loggin and his partners, these were tohave the whole profits until they had been repaid, with interest, andthen the profits were to be shared. The collapse of Sir Francis's hopesin Ireland must have ruled out the scheme, but it is very doubtfulwhether Loggin and his partners could have put up the money in anycase.2

The other document is a receipt dated 1 lth May 1593 for the paymentby Percival Willoughby to the agent of Sir Robert Sidney ' LordGovernor of Flushing ' of £40 for the half year's rent of land at Coyty,Glamorgan, and £60 for wood to be delivered at the ironworks therein Willoughby's possession.3 There is no other reference in themanuscripts to these works, so that it is impossible to be sure thatthey were in fact operated by Percival Willoughby.

Obviously the Willoughby furnaces failed to make the contributiontowards restoring the family finances which had been hoped for,although they were all reasonably successful. As we have seen, thesums required for starting operations at Middleton and Oakamoorwere far below J. U. Nef's estimate of an ' original outlay which

1Midd. Coll. 165/75.2Two of the three partners named, Robert Payne and George Draycot, wereinvolved in an unsuccessful woad project at Wollaton. R. S. Smith, ' A WoadGrowing Project at Wollaton in the 1580s', Trans. Thoroton Soc., LXV (1961),27-46.

3Midd. Coll. 165/41. Sir Robert Sidney had granted permission to two men tobuild an ironworks at Coyty in August 1589. H.M.C. De L'Isle and Dudley,i, 29.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


normally exceeded a thousand pounds n for setting up an ironworks,and other investors might have been satisfied with the return theworks were able to make after they had established themselves. Butthe Willoughby's needs were too pressing, and although the evidenceis not conclusive, it seems likely that difficulties in providing even thesmall circulating capital involved, coupled with the urgent need fromtime to time to realise any assets available, may have been responsiblefor the decision not to carry on with the ironworks. TheWilloughbys were clearly not examples of that new type of landedgentry which Tawney claimed to have discovered in the sixteenthcentury—' a laborious and acute man of business '.2 But behind theironworks projects we can see men like Lycett the hammerman, andLoggins the blast furnace builder, who possessed special skills andwho from their experience could pick out favourable businesspossibilities, but who lacked the capital to put their schemes intooperation. It is more likely that men such as these foreshadow theentrepreneurs of succeeding centuries.

1J. U. Nef, 'The Progress of Technology and the Growth of Large-scaleIndustry in Great Britain, 1540-1640', Econ. Hist. Rev., V (1934), 12.

2R. H. Tawney, The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century (1912), 192.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Willoughby's Ironworks, 1570-1610

APPENDIX 1

131

[c.1577] [Midd. Coll. 165/92.7]

[H.M.C. Midd. MSS., pp. 495-496]

Notes by Sir Francis Willoughby probably drawn up in connectionwith the hammer mill project at Middleton

To spend my ownestoane and toconvert this millto a hammer mill.

Sowe wayethabowt 12.c.

6/.75*.

Summa 91. 15s.Summa 121.Chare 31.

3 tonne aweeke 91.

i part of abrune 2s. 6d.

26s. id.stringingof a tonne,

13 forges and furnisses in a parishe, 120 in comitate [sic].

Mr. Edward Littelton, of Pilleknoll, will bild a fornis if [he]had any good vent and utterance for his sowes.

Blacke brooke.Walke Mill. Robinson or above.

120 tonne in sowes will make 80 tonne in barres.66s. id. or 16s. Sd. carriage 12s.: 61.—to deliyver at Walsall.

5 loode of cooles and di[m]. will make a tonne of barre ironfor the finery and the hammer, 20,$. for working.

For the five lood and di[m]. and 205.1 shall receave 61. or more.

550 loode of cooles will make 100 tonne of iron.

To way every blome. Note that every blome should way400 in waight, and being burned should way 300 waight.

Every 12 strike should holde owt 11 strike or 10 and di[m]at the least when it is brought to the blome smithes.

A shever of iron to make a punche for trying of iron stone.

10 blomes will make a tonne in barres, which is sold for 13/.2 dozen and halfe of coles at 8s. will make a tonne in barre iron20s. and for the workemanshipp 13s. 4rf.: 33s. 4d.

So I shall gaine in every tonne 26s. 8d.

To write to Mr. Worly that he will give me leave to worke atonne of iron at his hammer myll, paying for the collessending the workeman thether my selfe.

Tyrar must send 15c. waight of iron and two seame of seacole, viz., two paire of Bannisters.That Tyrar provide wailes and way every blome.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


2is. 8d. carriage To send to John Martin of Walsall for iron stone.from Merivall tomyll.35. Stockingford1 myle di[m]. furder.

To send to Mr. Skefington for 5 or 6 loodes of stone, 12d.stoane 20d. getting, Fra. Watt his tenant: 2s. Zd. "is. 4d.:Summa 6s.

Lord Pagett hath 2 furnisses and 2 hammers in Kanke[=Cannock] Wood and one in Bramley.

APPENDIX 2[c.1577] [Midd. Coll. 165/42]

The breife of John Tyrers book of fawlingand coling wood for the blomesmiethiese

£ s. d.Paid for fawling and cutting of 5098 cord and £of woode for cole 107 5 8Paid forcolinge of 1279 dozen di[m]. of charcolebeinge made of 5098 cordes 96 0 3Paid for hedginge in the coppes 6 1 3Paid for earring colles to the smithies therwagies that went with my Mr. carriges 10 5 0Paid to Alvery Smithe for leing in the cole andneacessary workes 6 10 0Paid for neacessary laborse and toles for thesmithie 7 16 1

Summa 233 18 3

Charcole sold to Mr. Firres 7 doz.Charcole spent at Kinsburyand Middleton 52 doz.Spent of cole at the blomesmithies 1220 doz.

1279 doz. I

Getting of stonne Paid for getting and all other manner ofa doz. 2s. 5d. chargies for 1408 dozen of iren stonne 169 19 5Cariag of a lode Paid for carriage of 1301 lode of iren stonne 181 3 42s. 9\d.

Summa 351 2 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

•Sir Francis Wiltoughby's Ironworks, 1570-1610 133

Coles to blome and Made of iren 856 blomes and 2 bleases and £ s. d.borne a blome of other neacessaries 87 5 7iren17q. lstr. 15J. Od. Paid for stringing of iren and coles for the same 7 13 10Stonne tomake a blome Summa totalT of all iren charge 680 0 5of iren1 lode f 8s. 3d.Blowing andborninge andcutting 2s. 2d.

Summa 25s. 5d.

Receates of Yeren:

Receaved for 785 blomes i 752 12 6

More in Licetes hand 16 blomes 16 0 0

More occupied to my Mr. useat Wollaton and Middleton 53J blomes 40 0 0

Summa 808 12 6

Summa of blomes 854J

and ther wanteth l i

Summa of charge before written 680 0 5

Clear gayne of all the iren is

whearof

Rem' in John Tyrer's hand

Item in Licetes hand

Occupied to my Mr. use

128

72

16

40

12

12

0

0

1

1

0

0

Summa 128 12 1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


APPENDIX 3

[c.1590] [Midd. Coll. 165/92.2]

The charges in making a ton of Iron at Hynts

The Fornace

Item the ironstone all comyng from Walsall the charge of everyload ryseth to the some of 10s.The usuall pryce of coales both the wood and all other chargestherof being payde every load aryseth to \0s.

The fornace with 20 loads of stone and 20 loads of coales willyeeld 8 tons of sowes at the least, the charges both of which stoneand coles aryseth to 20/.The founders wages for every ton 3s. 4d. of sowe iron which8 tons cometh to 26s. 8d.Reparations in necessaryes to the workes in every ton of sowes12d. which cometh to in the week 8.s.

The full charge of 8 tons of sowes which wilbe made in a weekamounteth to the some of 21/. 14s. 8d.Soe that a ton of cast iron or sowes standeth in all manner ofcharges in the some of 54r. 4d.

The Fordge

Item 30c. of cast iron will make a ton of barr iron the chardgewhereof together with the carryadge of the same from the fornaceto the fordge 41. 4s. 6d.

Item 3 dussen and an half of coles will make up the sayd ton ofbarr iron the charges of which coles aryseth to the some of 355.The workmens wages for making the same 2O.r.For reparations and necessaryes uppon every ton of bar iron 6s. 8d.Clarks wages as well for the fordge as for the fornace in everyton of barr iron 5s.

The whole charge uppon every ton of barr iron all things paydefor doth arise to "II. \\s. 2.1

Item the fordge att Hynts will make in bar iron everye year beingsuffycientlye stockt and wrought at the least the some of 120 tons

The charges of bewlding the fornace and fordge at Myddleton andHynts could never sertaynly be knowne by reason John Tyrer hisorder in keping his book was to intermingle the paymentsbelonging to the works together with the payments belonging tothe house at MyddletonItem it wilbe proved that 500 pounds would have suffitientlyeerected and stocked the sayd works whatsoever was thearbestowed.

1The original gives the incorrect total of £7. 10s. 2d.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


APPENDIX 4

[c.1590] [Midd. Coll. 165/92.1]

The charges in making of a ton of Iron at Okymoor works

The Furnace

Item the charge of everye loade of iron stone cometh to 5s.

Item the charge of every loade of coales thear 12s.

Item the furnace will dyspend 16 loads of coles and 16 loads ofstone weeklye with which she will cast 6 tons of rough ironthe charges whearof cometh to the some of 131. 12s.

The founders wages for everye ton of rough iron 4s. which for6 tons cometh to the some of 24s.

The reparations to the furnace for everye ton 16d. which everyweek cometh to 8s.

The full chardge of six tons of sowes which wilbe mayde in aweek amounteth to the some of 15/. 4s.

The Fordge

Item 30 c. of rough iron will make a ton of barr iron the chardgewherof together with the canyedge thereof from the furnaceto the fordge cometh to the some of 3/. \6s.

Item 3 dussen and an half of coles will make a tonn of barr ironthe charge of which coles cometh to the some of the workemenswages for makyng the same 20s.

For reparations and necessaryes uppon every tonn of bar iron 6s. Sd.

Clarks wages as well for the fordge as the furnace at 30/. theyeare in everye ton of barr iron 3s. 9d.

All rents being about 61. devyded severallye to every ton 9d.

The whole charges of everye tonn of barr iron all things paydefor doth aryse to the some of 11. 9s. 2d.

Item the fordge ever synce it was fynnyshed the same being sufficientlye stockedand wrought accordinglye wolde have made yearlye, and will soe long as it maybe soe furnished, in barr iron 160 tons at the least.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


APPENDIX 5

OAKAMOOR PRODUCTION AND SALES, 1593-1608

Iron madeIron sold

CostsReceipts

Iron madeIron sold

Wood and woodcuttingCoaling and carriage . .Ironstone getting and

carriageFounder's wagesForgemen's wagesRentsOther charges

CostsReceiptsProfits

Iron madeIron sold

Wood and woodcuttingCoaling and carriage . .Ironstone getting and

carriageFounder's wagesForgemen's wagesRentsOther charges

CostsReceiptsProfits

15931 15942

(April to December) (January to June)tons

4024

£316260

1596s

tons cwts.7373

£121224

267407511

107

84889042

18>0

513

1174

1513

10132

1599*tons i6059

£92

289

21037781176

743670

-

zwts.5

10s.1

16

87

148

10

1115-

cwts. qtrs. tons34

s. d.19 10!9 6

qtrs.20

d.53

03648

529

qtrs.20

d.05

0200

11

10-

12 10

£\ 222

111

15974

tons cwts.96 595 10

£ s.- -- -

- -- -- -- -- -

__ _1,146 0

- -

1600'tons cwts.78 1476 15

£ s.110 10265 13

210 837 778 1411 876 10

790 12869 1178 19

cwts. qtrs.-

10s. d.

12 31 6

qtrs.00

d.__

-_-_-

0-

qtrs.00

d.83

0200

11

000

-2

1598>tons cwts.7272

£46

185

17331761159

585867281

105s.

1715

4186

1516

1306

>qtrs.

00

d.75

8000

10

606

1605s

tons cwts110110

£302212

23847

1121177

1,0031,230

226

1916s.5

15

143

181018

52

17

. qtrs00

d.36

610000

187

1Midd. Coll. 165/52.2Ibid. 165/64.3Ibid. 165/59.

4Ibid. 165/61.5Ibid. 165/63.6Ibid. 165/64 and 165/65.

7Ibid. 165/66 and 165/67.8Ibid. 165/69.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


Iron madeIron sold

Wood and woodcuttingCoaling and carriage ..Ironstone getting and

carriage ..Founder's wagesForgemen's wagesRents ..Other charges

Costs . .ReceiptsProfits

1606tons cwts.105 14105 12

£ s.371 2155 16

162 1237 9

106 1711 1053 13

899 11,161 9

262 8

l

, qtrs.03

d.114

28001

286

16072

tons cwts- --

£ s.394 10164 6

147 8- -- -

11 1062 18

_ _- -

181 15

. qtrs.—-

d.4

10

8--00

-6

1608s

tons cwts39 639 4

£ s.104 1483 3

73 1617 1739 613 032 13

364 12496 10131 18

. qtrs.22

d.102

84608

2108

APPENDIX 6

[1591] [Codnor Estimates] [Midd. Coll. 165/80]

A proporcion of the wickly charges that will growe in making provicion ofcharcole & iron stone for the two fornesses & two forges, the cariage of sowes& the repayringe of the said fornesses & forges Aprell the 15, 1591, whichprovicion must be made betwixt May day & Martlemas.

The 2 Fornesses

Imprimis for the fornesses must be provided 400 dozen ofstone which beinge divided into a wickely proporcion ariseth to14 dozen & a halfe. The wickely charges wherof for gettyngeand caryage wilbe 41. Is.

Item to be brought to the said fornesses betwine May andMartilmas as aforesaid 1200 dozen devyded as aforesaid arysethto 43 dozen a wicke, the charges whereof in cuttinge colinge &cariage wickely wilbe • 10/. 15s.

The New Forge

Item coles to be brought wickely to the New Forge betwynethe aforesaid tymes are 30 lodes the charges wherof wilbe wickely 11. \0s.

1Midd. Coll. 165/70.2Ibid. 165/71. In the absence of an Iron Book for this year, output figuresare lacking, but profits can be calculated from the 1607 Book of Paymentsand the balances in the 1606 and 1608 Iron Books.

3Ibid. 165/73.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

11.0/.

41.

291.

13s.

4s.

19s.

Ad.

4d.


Hartes Hey Forge

Item coles to be brought to Hartes Hey Forge betwixt theaforesaid tymes wylbe every wicke 4 lodes which comes to 1/.

Item for cariage of sowes by the wicke which in the aforesaidtyme wilbe

Item the charge for reparacions by the wicke wilbeItem Sir Frauncis Willoughbye his wickely charge for the

Founder, Fyners & Hambermen

It is to be noted that the aforesaid provicion will make 200tonnes of Barre Iron by the yere

Summa totall between Mayday & Martlemas daye 783/.

Memorandum that the charges in erectingetheneweFornes isnot contained in the over somme which will amounte to 60/. ortheraboutes, so as the benefitte of the workes must for the halfeyere pay for worckemen & stock the worckes

W. GlasyerW. Rhiss.

APPENDIX 7

[1591] [Mackeney Forge, Duffield] [Midd. Coll. 165/81][H.M.C. Midd. MSS., p. 496]

The accompt betwene Sir Frauncis WiUughbye and LawrenceLoggyn towching the iron mayde in Duffeild workes by the spaceof one half yere.

Item mayde in the sayd workes betwixt the 21 of Februarye andthe 21 of August, being half a year as is aforesayde

of barr iron 50 tons.Which soulde after 12/. the tonn aryseth to 600/.Whearof dew to Mr. Souch by deduction of six poundes

fyvetene shillinges uppon everye tonn 337 10. 0.For Sir Frauncis his halfe year's clear profytt 125. 0. 0.The workemen's wages, viz. the fyner and hammerman for

working up the said 50 tonns of barr iron, at 16s. the ton 040. 0. 0.The founder for casting of 75 tonns of rough iron which mayde

the sayd 50 ton of barr iron, and casting that by 5 tons 15c.wekeleye, he is to be answered for 13 weekes, which comyth to 013. 0. 0.

summa 515. 10. 0.Which 515/. 10s. being deducted from the sayd 600/., ther

remayneth overplus 084/. IOJ.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Sir Francis Willoughb/s Ironworks" 1570-1610 139

Noate the fornace blew 18 weekes, in which she cast 105 tons,which devided into equall partes she cast 5 tons 15c. weeklye,soe cast in 13 weekes 75 tonn, whearof the 50 tons of bar ironshould have bene mayde.

Memorandum, it was concluded betwene Sir Frauncis andMr. Souch at Lammas last [i.e. 1st August] that betwene thenand the 21 of February aforesayd was wrought upp in barr iron44 tons, and after betwene Lammas and the 21 of August wearwrought upp 6 tonns, soe that by that order in the compas of halfea year wear mayd the sayd 50 tuns in question.

Memorandum, what iron hath been mayde at the sayd workesafter the 21 of August, Ryse his book maketh mencion whatLoggyn's further allowance should be.

APPENDIX 8

[9th October 1592] [Midd. Coll. 165/89]

[Letter from Sylvester Smith, Clerk to the Oakamoor Ironworks]

[Addressed} To the Worshipfull Jhon Bentley Esquier at Wollaton.

Worshipfull my dewty remembred, according to the order taken by Sir FrancisI have sent a hammerman to his worship for New Mill forge, and such a manas his worship may bowldly trust, but I cannot agree with him for his wages byreson he expecteth 10s. upon the tonne and I offer but 8s. so as the matter isreferred to your selfe and his worship to determyne. If he be placed there SirFrancis neede be at no further charge for any to keepe possession. I sawe atmy being at those wooks smale provision for any wynter blowing, many thingsare wanting to make any great work, wynter being so fast approaching. I vewedthe stone myne and I fynde they have gotten heretofore but of the very worstsort of stone, whereas there is better by farre in fetching the same deep, whichI think will both make better yeald and better iron also, wherefore I wysh thebest stone maye be gotten, for as I am lett understand his worship is to takeether monny or iron for his debt, which if it be so Sir Francis is lyke to havebut a hard bargayne, for that as I heare they are purposed to make iron withseacole at the chafery, which if they do they will hardly sell above 10/. the tonne,which I hope his worship will have a regarde of, if he should yeald 12/. for thesame. As for a fyner I praye you certefie his worship, I have hard there is onehyred by Mr. Zouch or by som other for him, whose name is Jhon Mathew, aman accompted both honest and an indifferent good workman. I have bin tohave spoken with him, to see if he wilbe content to becom Sir Francis his servant,which if he would I ment not to seeke any further, but as yet I cannot meetewith him for that he is gonne into Wales to seeke workemen, but at his retorneI purpose to speake with him and certefie your worship.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014


As for our workes at Okamore they go well forward, having at the place 140dussen of coales, and betwene 25 and 30 loade wekely to com in betwyxt thisand Christmas. I have agreed since my [being] at Wollaton and payed som monnyin hand for so much stone as will keepe the furnasse blowing till well towardesCandlemas, by means whereof my charge is weekely 10/. at the leaste, which Imust ether do or ells I shall not make iron sufficient to keep the forge in worketill I can blowe agayne, and I must now continew wood cutting for ower nextyears provision, whereby my charge is increased, besides I am fayne to keepeour Middleton furnasse men at a deade charge. Wherefore I besech your worshipas heretofore, so now to continew your myndfullnesse both of me and this worke,and procure the residue of the monny appoynted, for I feare all wilbe to lytellto rease so much monny as this work by gods helpe shall yeald. I thinck towardesthe ending of this weeke to be at Wollaton hopinge to fynde more plenty thanat my last being there had not youi worship holpen me. Our founder continuethsick still, to my no smale losse of tyme, and Sir Francis hynderance, but for thathe is of the mending hand I trust to blow ere I see your worship . . . . .

Thus with my humble comendacion I end. Chedull the 9 of October 1592.

Your worships to commaund

Sylvester Smith.

I am to intreate your worship to help drive a bargayne betwyxt Sir Francisand this bearer if it be possible, other wyse I know not where to fynde a manI may so well trust both for workmanship and uppright dealing both which arenot a littell behovefull for that place.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

11:

12 1

8 N

ovem

ber

2014

Documents

Sir Francis Willoughby's ironworks, 1570–1610