THE TONTINE INN BOOK.

THE Tontine Inn did not exist in the period now under review, being closed as a
licensed house in 1849, its erection having been completed in 1785.  However,
there is no doubt at all that The Tontine had much to do with social amenities
in the town; it was there the wealthy townsmen feasted, there the complimentary
banquets were held, round about it that much of the early election fighting took
place. Its day really ended with the formation of the North Midland Railway
Company's main line east of the town, for this isolation of the town, side by
side with admirable railway facilities at Masborough, very largely reduced the
outside patronage which had made The Tontine so profitable a house. It was not
unnatural that Masborough should be regarded as more convenient so soon as the
North Midland was made, with an intervening space of years between that event
and construction of the line between Sheffield and Masborough.  Almost from the
opening of the Inn, coaches ran daily to different towns, the fares being 11/-
to York, 5/- to Leeds, and 8/- to Birmingham, these being for box seats, with
material reduction for other seats, which were practically 350% less. The Iris
gives us a very graphic account of a storm which struck Sheffield in January,
1802, when "scarce a house in the town escaped dilapidation.  The slates were
torn from the roofs and scattered dreadfully through the streets, making it
perilous to pass through them.  A sheet of lead, 2,000 lbs. in weight, was
precipitated from the roof of The Tontine into the yard, falling on the very
spot whence five minutes before the mail coach for Doncaster had started out." 
Incidentally it may be added that this particular gale brought down two great
trees in the Nursery, these being torn up by the roots, whilst in the Wicker
three high chimneys at Dixons' silver refinery were laid to the ground.

THE TONTINE INN BOOK, 1850. So I come to a folio volume, stoutly bound in
leather, closed by leathern thongs, kindly lent to me by Mr. Philip Wake and
bearing a simple inscription, "Tontine Inn Book, 1850." Inspection of the
contents shows that really it is divided into two parts, each of interest to
present day readers.  One of these periods is from the first proposal to build
The Tontine, November 1st, 1782, up to October 26th, 1792, and the other from
January 24th, 1838, to October 25th, 1861. Thus the end of the volume is just
outside the beginning of the period really under discussion in these pages, but
The Tontine Inn was so very familiar an object to residents in the town in the
'sixties and a little later, that something of its history has a right to a
place here.  As a matter of fact The Tontine stood in a gradually increasing
swirl of traffic for a considerable time after Mr. T. J. Parker, the honorary
treasurer, made his last entry in this very interesting and valuable book. The
opening entry speaks for itself, and runs as follows:- "Proposed Proposals for
building a large and commodious Inn and Tavern in the Town of Sheffield" (the
distinction drawn between the two classes of accommodation now grouped together
in the term hotel is worth noting). The minute proceeds:-- "First : That a
subscription be set on foot for the purpose of undertaking and completing such
new Intended Inn and Tavern. "Second: That each person willing to encourage the
Scheme do subscribe thereto not less than the sum of £100 and That any person be
at liberty to become a Subscriber until the Subscription shall be declared to be
closed. "Third: That a Plot of Ground where the Castle Barns now stand, of such
dimensions as the subscribers or the Major part of them in value shall think
sufficient and convenient for the Design, be taken upon a Lease for 99 years.
"Fourth: That, when the Subscription shall amount to £4,000 such Design or Plan
of an Inn and Tavern be set about as shall be most approved of by the
Subscribers at a Meeting for that Purpose to be called. "Fifth: That such Person
or Persons be employed to undertake the buildings who shall agree to complete
the same in the most workmanlike manner and on the most Moderate Terms and That
in the execution of the whole Plainness and Simplicity of Stile be observed and
Regard be chiefly paid to Convenience and Economy. "Sixth: That the Neat Rents
and Profits of the said Inn and Tavern when completed shall be equally divided
amongst the Subscribers in the way of a Tontine. That each Subscriber shall give
in, at a future day to be appointed,  for  each  share by  him  subscribed for 
his  own  Name or  the Name or Names of such other Person or Persons with his
her or their respective  Age  or  Ages  who  shall  be  the  Nominee  or 
Nominees  during whose  Life or  Lives  and  the  said  term  of  99  years, 
each  such  Subscriber shall be entitled to receive an equal share or Dividend
of the said neat Rents and Profits.  That upon the Death of any Nominee or
Nominees the Subscribers whose Nominee or Nominees shall be living shall be
equally entitled thereto until the decease of all the Nominees but one when the
Subscriber whose Nominee shall be the fortunate one to survive the rest, his or
her Executors, Administrators or Assigns shall become entitled to the said Lease
and all Benefit and Advantage thereof. "Seventh: That at the meetings of the
Subscribers to be from time to time called such further Orders and Regulations
be made and adopted as the Nature of the Business may seem to require and that
all such Orders and Regulations as shall be at any time made and adopted shall
be reduced to writing and duly entered in a book to be kept for that Purpose.
"Eighth:   That   where   there  shall  be  a  variety  of  opinions  in  any
Business to be proposed to the consideration of the Subscribers the Majority of
the Subscribers shall decide the Question and that all Absent Subscribers shall
vote in any question by proxy if they shall think fit." The minute ends with the
words "We whose names are hereunto subscribed do hereby promise and agree to pay
the respective sums set opposite to our respective Names for and towards the
building and completing such Inn and Tavern as aforesaid Unto such Person and
Persons and by such Instalments as shall from time to time be agreed upon
amongst us.  As witness our hands dated this first day of November, 1782." Then
follows the list of subscriptions:--Vin: Eyre for the Earl of Surrey £300; for
Hy Howard Esq. £200; for himself £200; Edward Loftus £100; for Wllm Brightmore
£100; and for John Bishop £100; Thos Gunning £100; Henry Tudor £100; James
Wilkinson £100; John Parker £200; John Stacye £100; Robt Athorpe Athorpe £100;
Ben Roebuck £6100; John Curr £100; Thomas Rawson £100; John Kenyon £100; John
Read £100; John Morewood; £100; George Greaves £100; Jos. Matthewman £100;
Joseph Clay £100; George Woodhead £100; James Wheat £100; Arthur Thompson £100;
Joseph Mitchell, £100; Joseph Mitchell (for Thomas Boulsover) £100; John Shore
£100; George Townsend £100; Benjn Thompson £200; Kenyon Parker £200; John Winter
£100; Vincent Eyre (for the Duchess of Norfolk) £200; and Vincent Eyre (for the
Earl of Surrey) an additiona1 £100. The above original subscription list as will
be seen amounts to a total sum of £4,100, or £100 above the sum specified in the
foregoing minute. The first meeting of the Subscribers was held on January 13th,
1783, at the "house of Mr. Fox, the Rein Deer Inn," 21 of the 33 subscribers
being present, and a Committee was elected to "form a plan and obtain estimates
of an Inn and other Buildings to be erected on a certain piece of land lying on
the east side of the Bullstake in Sheffield 3976 superficial square yards, and
to obtain a lease of this piece of land from the Right Hon. the Earl of Surrey
for 99 years at the reserved yearly ground rent of £20 agreeable to his
Lordships proposal to the subscribers." This Committee was constituted as
follows: Vincent Eyre, John Parker, both esquires; the Rev. Mr. Wilkinson, Mr.
James Wheat, Mr. Joseph Clay, Mr. J. Matthewman, Mr. Benjn Roebuck and Mr.
George Greaves, and any five of these formed a quorum to carry on the business
of the subscribers. Much business was done at the ensuing meeting of this
Committee on January 20, 1783, also held at the Rein Deer Inn, when it was
resolved that the whole front of the Castle Folds should be built up by the
subscribers to the said Inn taking the whole into the scheme, and erecting a
private house at the northern corner.   It was also decided that in the centre
of the proposed  buildings  there  should  be  "a  gateway  arched  for horses 
and carriages, 14 feet wide and that, up one pair of stairs over this gateway
there should be a large Dining Room, 58 feet by 20 and 18 feet high, and that on
the ground floor besides a Coffee Room of about 28 feet by 21 feet, there should
be about 7 or 8 different rooms of entertainment, the largest not to exceed 28
feet by 21 feet, that the ground floor should not exceed 12 foot in height, the
Chambers 10 feet 6 in. and the Attics 9 foot." It was also decided that the
designs for the buildings of Mrs. Smilter should be "as little interfered with
as may be."  Again, it was decided that there should be a "markett room,
suitable rooms for servants and such other proper rooms offices and conveniences
as are usual in large inns."  The inn was to be provided with stabling for sixty
horses; it was decided that the total expenditure should not exceed £3,500, that
if a dining room not less than 50 feet by 20 feet could be provided on the
ground floor the same would be as useful as that proposed above," and that "the
above be given as instructions to the several workmen who have given in plans,
and that they be directed to prepare plans agreeable to these resolutions with
such alterations as they may think proper." Subsequently, at a general meeting
on March 31st, 1783, at the house of Godfrey Fox, at the sign of the Rein Deer,
it was decided to accept the plan produced by Joseph Badger subject to
alterations "in such inferior parts as the Committee shall deem moot."  Mr.
Vincent Eyre was appointed Treasurer, with power to make calls from time to
time, and a first call on subscribers was made of £10 per cent., to be paid to
the Treasurer's account at Messrs. Shore's bank.  It was further resolved that
"a lease of the Castle Barn and ground adjacent be taken for ninety nine years
in the name of the Rev. Mr. Wilkinson in trust for the subscribers to The
Tontine Inn upon the terms proposed by Lord Surrey." In September it was
resolved that a proposal made by Mrs. Smilter to accept four hundred pounds as a
full recompense for her tenant right and interest in several tenements and
ground adjoining to The Tontine Inn should be accepted, and that the Treasurer
should pay to her this sum on her executing a deed of assignment in the said
lease and on her giving up possession of the said premises for the use of the
said undertaking. Two years elapsed before another meeting was held, or at all
events before the proceedings of any other meeting are recorded in this old
volume. On September 5th, 1785, a general meeting was held at The Tontine Inn. 
This was for the special purpose of accepting the nomination of the various
subscribers, and the proceedings are of very considerable interest. The
nominations were as under:-- The Earl of Surrey's five shares: No. 1, his
Lordship's own life; No. 2, Mary, daughter of Mary Irwine, of Kirklinton, in the
county of Cumberland, aged 5 years; No. 3, Jane Irwine, a younger daughter of
the above; No. 4, Martha Jessett, in the parish of St. Cuthbert, Carlisle, aged
10 years; No. 5, William, son of Mary Fawcett, aged about 2 years. On behalf of
the representative and executor of the late Duchess of Norfolk, his son Michael
Jones, aged 10 years, and for a second share his younger son Edward Jones, aged
about 5 years. Henry Howard's two shares: No. 1, his son Henry Thomas Howard;
No. 2, his younger son Edward Charles Howard. Vincent Eyre's two shares: No. 1,
his son Vincent Henry Eyre, aged 10 years; No. 2, Thomas Joseph Eyre. John
Stacye nominated for his share Thomas Athorpe, son of Robert Athorpe Athorpe, of
Dinnington, aged about 10 years. Henry Tudor nominated his neice, Augusta Ann
Hirst, aged about 13 years. William Brightmore's nominee was his son Edward,
aged 4 years. Joseph Matthewman nominated his daughter Dorothea, aged 10 years,
and as executor for the late Thomas Gunning nominated Elizabeth Gunning, his
daughter, aged 18 years. John Kenyon nominated for his share James, the son of
James Wheat, of Norwood Hall, near Sheffield. Benjamin Roebuck nominated
Benjamin, son of Francis Trenton, of Sheffield. Joseph Mitchell nominated his
son William, aged 9 years, and (on behalf of Thomas Boulsover) nominated the son
of Sarah Hutton of Sheffield, aged 11 years.  Also (by desire of Anthony
Thompson, of Whiteley Wood) he nominated for his one share Benjamin Thompson,
his son, aged 5 years. John Read nominated his son Joseph, aged about 4 years.
John Winter nominated his nephew, John Roberts, aged 25 years, son of Samuel
Roberts, silver plater, of Sheffield. Kenyon Parker made nominations for his two
shares in favour of his sons Francis and William. John Curt's nomination was in
favour of his daughter Elizabeth, aged 3‡ years. Gamaliel Milner nominated his
son of the same name, aged about 5‡ years. John Morewood's nomination was John,
son of Thomas Sanforth, of Newbould, in the parish of Chesterfield. Samuel
Broomhead nominated Samuel Broomhead Ward, son of Joseph Ward, of Sheffield,
cutler, aged 15 years. Joseph Clay nominated Francis Foxlow, of Staveley, 13
years old. George Townsend nominated Charles Nathaniel Eyre, son of Vincent
Eyre, aged 6 years. Benjamin Broomhead nominated his daughter Elizabeth, aged 3
years, and (on behalf of his brother Joseph) nominated his daughter Arabella,
aged 10 years. Jonathan Watkinson's nomination went in favour of his daughter
Hannah, aged about 10 years. James Wheat nominated his son James, aged 7 years,
and (under the authority of John Sparrow, of Wincobank) his grandson, John
Sparrow Stovin, aged 13 years. George Greaves nominated his son George Bustard
Greaves, aged about 25 years. Thomas Rawson nominated the son of Thomas Steade,
of Hillsborough, in the parish of Ecclesfield, aged 15 years. Ben Blonk, on
behalf of Joseph Ibberson, nominated Henry Bright, aged about 3 or 4 years,
second son of Paul Bright, of Hinckersall, yeoman.     George Brittain nominated
his son Frederick, aged 15 years. On behalf of the Rev. James Wilkinson, Vincent
Eyre nominated Barbara Isabella, daughter of the late Ellen Clarke, of Gray's
Inn, London, and now called Barbara Isabella Wilkinson, aged about 16 years.
Samuel Phipps cast his nomination in favour of his own life. The two shares of
Benjamin Blades Thompson found nominees in his second son Henry, aged 8 years,
and his third daughter Ann, aged about 6 years. The nomination of Robert Athorpe
Athorpe was in favour of his son Henry, aged about 4 years. Nominations for his
two shares were given by John Parker in favour of his elder son Hugh, aged 13
years, and his younger son George, aged 11 years. John Froggatt nominated his
son Thomas, aged 9 years, and Joseph Hawksley cast his nomination in favour of
his son James, aged 17 years. The last entry in connexion with the proceedings
in the first part of this book bears date 26th October, 1792, and it was then
resolved that the premises should be immediately advertised to let in the
General Evening Post, Lloyd's Evening Post, the Manchester, York, Nottingham,
Leeds, and both the Sheffield newspapers, and that the committee should have
power to let the said house belonging to the proprietors for any term of years
at their discretion, not exceeding twenty-one years.

AN INTERVAL OF FORTY-SIX YEARS. Between that entry and the succeeding one, dated
January 24th, 1838, a period of 46 years elapses, and, as is inevitable, the
personnel of the proprietors undergoes great change.  The first entry in this
second period is dated January 24th, 1838, and is in the form of a requisition
signed by "Thomas Pearson, of Sheffield, gentleman, and Thomas Newman Bardwell,
of Sheffield, auctioneer," calling for a meeting of the proprietors, at which a
committee of management shall be appointed for discussing the amount of rent to
be paid by the tenant of the inn, Mr. Bickley, and for appointing a treasurer.
The requisition was addressed to Mr. Thomas James Parker. The meeting was held
in Mr. Parker's offices on February 5th, 1838, and it is interesting to read the
names of the proprietors present, these being Thomas Parker, William John
Bagshawe, Gamaliel Milner, Thomas Pearson, Henry Thorpe Skelton, Adamson George
Parker, George Rodgers, Jonathan Marshall (on behalf of Misses Ann and Charlotte
Thompson), Bernard John Wake (on behalf of Michael and Edward Jones), Thomas
Newman Bardwell, and Benjamin Burbeary on behalf of Henry Howard. When the
meeting was convened Mr. Parker was asked to intimate to the proprietors that it
would be much better if, on receipt of the notice, they would "convey their
sentiments on the various points on the agenda rather than that they should
remain to be inferred by their silence." A very important meeting was held at
The Tontine Inn on March 1st, 1838, at which considerable business was done.  It
may be inferred from the wording of the requisition just mentioned that, to some
extent, the affairs of The Tontine had been allowed to get out of hand, and at
this March meeting it was resolved that the rules and regulations of the
institution should "be allowed and amended," and that Hugh Parker, William John
Bagshawe, William Parker, and James Wheat be requested to draw up a new code to
govern the proprietors in future, and to submit it to a future meeting.  It was
specially pointed out to the gentlemen mentioned that an original rule having
reference to forfeiture of unclaimed dividends required "amendation or
amelioration."  It was also resolved that a sum of £158 15s. 6d. then in the
hands of the executor of the late treasurer, Mr. Thomas J. Parker's father, as
being dividends unclaimed by the late Rev. James Wilkinson and his
representatives, should be paid to the latter. Mr. Thomas James Parker was also
asked to take over the duties of treasurer of the institution. With regard to
the rent of the inn, it was resolved that it and the other premises should be
offered to Mr. Bickley for a term of ten years at the rent of  three  hundred 
and  fifty  pounds  per  annum, and  that  a  lease  should  be granted to him
containing several covenants as to duties taken over by the tenant and his
landlords. Difficulties cropped up now and then, and under date 14th March,
1842, a note in copperplate handwriting is to be found reading as follows: "The
efforts made to obtain the arrears of rent owing by Mr. Bickley having proved of
no avail, I have to request your attendance at a meeting of the trustees  at  my
 office on  Tuesday,  the  22nd  instant, at  11  o'clock  in the forenoon, to
decide on the course under these circumstances to be pursued." That was signed
by Thomas James Parker as Treasurer. Grace was given to the tenant at the
ensuing meeting, but he failed in his promises, and at a general meeting of the
proprietors held on May 28th, 1842, Mr. Bickley attended and declared his total
inability to pay the rent reserved by the lease of the Inn to him, and produced
to the meeting a statement showing great diminution which had taken place in the
business of the Inn, through the fact that the line of the North Midland Railway
had been made through Rotherham instead of Sheffield, and through other causes,
and that it would he utterly out of his power to continue the business unless
his rent should be reduced to £200 per annum from the original figure of £350. 
The meeting was entirely sympathetic to the tenant, and it was unanimously
decided that, without prejudice to the lease, his rent should be reduced to
£200, as requested, though only for one year. That mention of the North Midland
Railway was the first time that The Tontine Inn had been brought into touch with
the big things outside the cramped town in which it stood, save that, from its
institution, it had been the recognized hostel for travellers of all degrees in
life, and had been much in use at elections. However, the Inn soon became a
storm centre as will be seen from the following requisition dated November 19th,
1845.  It was signed by William John Bagshawe, William Parker, T. Pearson and J.
N. Bardwell, and asked that a meeting of the proprietors should be called "in
consequence of the intended application to Parliament of the Manchester,
Sheffield and Midland Junction Railway, which Company contemplates taking a
portion of the Sheffield Tontine property and which Company has given an
authority to purchase the entire property conditionally upon their Bill
obtaining the sanction of the Legislature; and also of another intended
application by his Grace the Duke of Norfolk, for the purpose of making
additional markets and applying for powers for the compulsory purchase of lands
and houses in the Township of Sheffield, and to vary and extinguish all rights
and privileges therein which would in any way interfere with the objects of the
said Bill which will also affect our said property."

It was shown at a meeting of the Manchester, Sheffield and Midland Junction
Railway, it had been resolved that Mr. Overend, Chairman of Committee, be
authorized to purchase The Tontine Hotel on behalf of the Company, with the
reservation as to the Company's Bill already referred to.

The result was a meeting at Mr. Parker's office, on December 18th, 1845, at
which it was resolved that Mr. Overend and two gentlemen of the Committee, Mr.
Thomas Creswick and Mr. Henry Wilkinson, should enter into an agreement
individually and not as agents, for the purchase of the residue on the term of
years and interest of the proprietors in The Tontine Inn and premises,
conditionally, that the Act for the Manchester, Sheffield and North Midland
Junction Railway be obtained within the next ensuing session of Parliament; and
further, that the price to be paid for the property should be ten thousand
guineas. It was further resolved, that a sum of £500 as deposit should be paid
down by the Railway Company as purchasers, which, in the event of the said Act
not being obtained in the next session of Parliament, should become the absolute
property of The Tontine proprietors.

The matter at issue brought up several meetings, alike of The Tontine
proprietors and of the Railway Company, and eventually, Mr. Wilson Overend
reported that the Railway Company did not object to the price of ten thousand
guineas, but contended that they could not properly accede to the proposal of a
deposit of £500 and its forfeiture in the event of the Bill for the Railway not
being obtained. Thereupon the proprietors decided to reduce the proposed deposit
to half the original amount, with a similar provision as to forfeiture, though
this was only carried by a majority of five votes.

On January 9th, 1846, Mr. Overend wrote, stating that the proposition respecting
the deposit had been laid before the Company's Solicitor, who strongly objected
to the Company involving itself in any act which was not positively legal, and
which he said the payment of a deposit subject to forfeiture would not be.  Mr.
Overend added that the Railway Company remained quite ready to complete the
conditional purchase of the property for ten thousand guineas.

All this aroused the greatest interest amongst the proprietors, and a further
meeting held on March 6th, 1846, brought together probably the largest
attendance, either personal or by proxy, that had been known since the
commencement of the century.  It was then decided that the proposals of the
Railway Company should be accepted without any mention of deposit and
forfeiture, and it was further decided--one does not care to think wholly
because of the excellent bargain which was being made--that the Chairman, Mr. W.
J. Begshawe, should sign on behalf of the proprietors, a petition to Parliament
in favour of the Bill for the Manchester, Sheffield and North Midland Junction
Railway, Mr. Thomas James Parker alone dissenting.

It was at this meeting that Mr. William Wake, who attended on behalf of Michael
and Edward Jones, accepted the suggestion of the Chairman, that he should not be
present during the discussion as he was Solicitor for the Bill respecting the
Markets, which was being promoted by the Duke of Norfolk. On a previous
occasion, on the same matter coming under discussion, Mr. Wake had himself
suggested that he should not be present, and on this later occasion he readily
agreed with the Chairman's suggestion. In  his  absence, in  addition  to  the 
resolution  respecting  the  sale of  The Tontine to the Railway Company, a
further one was passed relating to the Duke's Markets Bill.  This was to the
effect that a petition be prepared for presentation to Parliament, unless the
promoters of the Bill should agree to abandon so much of it as affected The
Tontine and premises.

The text of these resolutions was duly forwarded to Mr. Wake, as representative
of Michael and Edward Jones, and in reply, that gentleman wrote at length to Mr.
Parker, now referred to as "Clerk to The Tontine," first dealing with the fact
that Michael and Edward Jones had been deprived of representation through his
(Mr. Wake's) withdrawal at the Chairman's suggestion, then protesting against
their being asked to pay any expenses arising out of resolutions passed at the
meeting at which they had been unrepresented, further stating that he still
adhered to the legal soundness of the vote he gave at a previous meeting in
favour of the Railway Company being called upon to pay a deposit, and finally
mentioning the fact that the two gentlemen he represented had each signed a
consent as proprietors in The Tontine, to the application by the Duke of Norfolk
with regard to the Markets Bill. In his reply--and each of these communications
was couched in terms of extreme and pleasant courtesy, which was characteristic
of the age; Mr. T. J. Parker said he was shortly issuing to the proprietors a
copy of the agreement with the Railway Company, asking them to sanction it. That
was a variation of the resolution of March 6th, 1846, which instructed Mr.
Parker to prepare the agreement and submit the same for settlement to Mr.
Bagshawe, Chairman, and afterwards to "be good enough to sign the same for
himself and his co-proprietors in The Tontine."  Mr. Parker added in this letter
to Mr. Wake, that he also proposed to state in his circular letter to the
proprietors, that the promoters of the Markets Bill had given out that they
meant to give for The Tontine premises not one half of what the Railway Company
had offered. On December 7th, 1846, Mr. Parker called a further meeting, and, in
the notice convening it, said that the proposed Manchester, Sheffield and
Midland Junction Railway had been abandoned by the promoters.  Thus the ten
thousand guineas appeared to have vanished into thin air!  The meeting took
place on December 23rd, of the year when it was resolved that a petition against
the Sheffield Markets Bill should, at the proper time, be presented to
Parliament, and that such petition should contain a prayer to appear by Counsel.
 This was subsequently modified, it being decided that the Treasurer's
Parliamentary Agent should appear in support of the petition, and that the
Institution should not go to the expense of Counsel or witnesses. In due course,
the Duke of Norfolk's Markets Bill passed through Parliament, and in July, 1848,
Mr. T. J. Parker informed the proprietors of receipt of a notice under the new
Act, requiring them to state their claims and to treat for sale of their
interests. The meeting was held on August 7th, 1848, and the notice above
mentioned was fully discussed, and a Case and opinion of Counsel which had been
taken, as to his Grace's power to compel the proprietors individually to sell
their respective interests, and whether he could, without all the proprietors
concurring, break up The Tontine interest of the parties, were read. The
Counsel's opinion was, that the Duke could compel sale of the property by the
proprietors and call upon the Trustees for a conveyance, but that it was no part
of the Sheffield Markets Act to break up the joint or tontine interest of the
parties, and that they were entitled to have the balance of it ascertained in
the usual way, and the account paid into Court and invested, and the dividends
thereof distributed in lieu of the rents, and that no number of the proprietors
short of the whole could compel a payment of the capital, but that they might by
agreement amongst themselves make a division. It was unanimously decided  that
the Treasurer should prepare an answer to the Duke's notice, and that Mr.
William Flockton of Sheffield, architect, should make a valuation of The Tontine
property, to enable the proprietors to state a price in their answer. The
valuation was duly obtained, but Mr. Flockton's figures do not appear on the
minutes. On September 9th, 1848, after a very full discussion, it was
unanimously resolved, that the sum of ten thousand guineas claimed by The
Tontine proprietors to be paid by the Duke of Norfolk, for The Tontine Inn and
buildings, and compensation for the taking of the same, be referred to
arbitration under the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, and that
Christopher Paver of Peckfield, near Ferrybridge, be appointed the Arbitrator on
the part of The Tontine proprietors. All the proprietors or their proxies duly
signed the claim, and it was delivered to Messrs. W. & B.Wake, the Duke's
solicitors, whilst, with Mr. Paver declining to act, Mr. John Stewart was
appointed as Arbitrator. A Committee was also appointed to carry out the wishes
of the proprietors, this consisting of William John Bagshawe, H. T. Skelton,
Thomas Pearson, Albert Smith and Dr. M. M. de Bartolome, and on August 21st,
1849, these gentlemen issued their report. It stated that the services of Mr.
John Stewart of Liverpool, "a gentleman whose skill and ability in such matters
it is difficult to overrate," had been secured as Arbitrator, and then the aid
of several first rate valuers and architects had been secured as witnesses.  Mr.
Marcus Smith of Sheffield had been appointed as Arbitrator on behalf of the
Duke, and Mr. John Frederick Foster of Manchester, Barrister-at-Law, was
appointed to act as Umpire. It turned out that the Arbitrators could not agree,
and on the 18th and 19th of May the reference was fully gone into and Mr. Foster
published his award on August 9th. Thereby he directed that the sum of £7,720
should be paid by the Duke of Norfolk for purchase of the leasehold interest of
the proprietors, and a further sum of £284 12s. 0d. for costs incident to the
reference, umpirage and award.  This report was signed by each member of the
special Committee. Here, of course, was a great disappointment to the
proprietors who, at one time, had seemed assured of a sum of ten thousand
guineas from the railway company and lost a quarter of that sum through the
arbitration.  It was decided to call a special meeting to consider whether this
sum of £7,720 should continue in the way of a tontine upon the like trusts as
those on which The Tontine premises had been held, or whether the same should be
divided, and, if so, in what manner amongst the several Tontine proprietors
beneficially entitled thereto or interested therein. To his notice convening
this meeting Mr. T. J. Parker appended a brief resume of the proceedings,
stating the amount to be paid into Court and invested and continued in the way
of a tontine in the like manner and on the like trusts as The Tontine premises
were held, unless all the proprietors, then only sixteen in number, should agree
to a partition of the money amongst them, a majority of the proprietors having
already expressed themselves desirous that the latter course should be adopted. 
This meeting was held on Sept. 6th, 1849, at which the question was very fully
discussed; but in consequence of the refusal of Miss Ann Thompson, one of the
proprietors, to divide or do away with the tontine, and also of Miss Charlotte
Thompson (for the former of whom Mr. W. P. Milner appeared as proxy), and the
representative of George Rodgers not being present or represented by proxy, the
question of division was at once put an end to, and it was resolved that the
Treasurer be authorized to carry out the award of Mr. J. T. Foster. Efforts were
made subsequently by Messrs. W. & B. Wake, acting for the Duke of Norfolk, to
prevent the capital sum being paid into Court and for it, as an alternative, to
be paid to the Trustees, so that the Duke's agents might obtain immediate
possession of The Tontine premises.  However, though a meeting was called to
consider this proposal, nothing was done, and on Jan. 24th, 1850, Messrs. Wake
wrote as follows: " Since the last meeting that we attended of The Tontine
proprietors two of the present Trustees, Mr. Bagshawe and Mr. Pearson, have
apprised us that they shall decline acting as Trustees of the purchase money;
and, altogether, so little assistance has been rendered us in our endeavours to
keep the money out of Court, a matter in which the proprietors are as much
interested, or more interested, than our client, we have come to the
determination to pay it in next week. It has become important that possession
should be given, and as the proprietors have not faith enough in the Duke of
Norfolk and those acting for him to accept the effort made on His Grace's
behalf, they will only have themselves to blame if, as we doubt not will be the
case, they at a future date regret that the money ever got into Court." Five
days later a meeting of the proprietors was held, presided over by Mr. W. J.
Bagshawe. A very long discussion ensued, the question finally resolving itself
into whether the strictly legal course of paying the purchase money into Court
should be pursued, whereby a very serious loss and considerable trouble would
inevitably accrue to The Tontine proprietors; or whether the Trustees would take
upon themselves the risk, if such it could be called, of receiving the purchase
money and investing it so as to make a better rate of interest than could be
made by investing it in the Funds, and so avoid the loss and trouble consequent
upon the former course.

Mr. Albert Smith argued that the Trustees should act strictly, and inspired one
or two of them with a fear of incurring risk if they acted other; but a large
majority of the meeting was decidedly averse to the money being paid into Court,
and it was suggested that if the existing Trustees had any fears of the
consequences there were other proprietors who had no fears on the subject, and
who were ready to become Trustees in the room of any who might wish to retire.  
Mr. Wm. Wake, who again appeared as representing Michael and Edward Jones, said
that the Duke must have possession of The Tontine premises and that therefore,
unless that was given, he must that night order the money to be paid into Court.

It was eventually decided "That the proprietors now present do not see any
objection to Mr. T. J. Parker giving possession of the premises on the Duke of
Norfolk's solicitors or agent giving such an undertaking respecting the purchase
money and interest as he may consider satisfactory." It was agreed that on the
requisite undertaking being forthcoming, possession should be given to the Duke.
That meeting was held on January 29th, 1850, and apparently the resolution did
not commend itself to the representatives of the Duke, as will be seen from the
notice convening a further  meeting on June 21st of the same year. This read as
follows:--

"The meeting is for consideration of the best course to be pursued with
reference to the investment of the purchase money or sum of £7,720 which, having
been paid into Court by the Duke of Norfolk, is at present unproductive, and
especially a suggestion by Mr. Chapman Barber, the conveyancer, in an opinion
recently given by him on the question as to laying out the money in purchase of
an annuity for 33 years--the unexpired Leasehold Interest of the proprietors in
the Tontine premises- such annuity to be divided, as the rents of The Tontine
premises had they not been sold would have been, amongst those proprietors whose
respective nominees from time to time shall be surviving until all the nominees
but one shall have died, when the proprietor whose nominee shall be last the
survivor shall become absolutely entitled to the annuity, as he or she would
otherwise have been to The Tontine premises, for the remainder then to come and
unexpired of the said term of 33 years." It was unanimously decided that Mr.
Parker should ascertain whether Government would, in exchange for the £7,720,
grant an immediate annuity to continue for 33 years and, if so, what would be
the amount of the annuity, and also that Mr. Parker should ascertain, by taking
the opinion of an actuary, how much of the Stock, supposing the money to be then
invested in the Funds, would have to be sold out and divided each half year so
as to exhaust the capital at the end of 33 years.

Four months later Mr. Parker supplied the information asked for. It was that
Government would grant an annuity of £372 9s. 6d., Consols being at 96æ, and he
also added the reply of the actuary of the Legal and General Life Assurance
Society as follows:-- "The calculation indicated requires to be based on two
assumptions, both of which are objectionable. It will be necessary to assume
that the price of Three per cent Consols will vary little from the present price
during the 33 years, and that in any part of that period the price will not rise
so high as to enable the Government to reduce the interest, say, from 3‡% to
2‡%. Assuming the present price of Government £3 per cent Stock to be permanent,
the portion of Stock to be sold in each of the 33 years ought to be such that
the produce of the sale, added to the year's interest on the residue of the
capital, may together make up the sum of £378." At the meeting at which the
above was read three methods of employing the sum of £7,720 were discussed,
these being (1) by investment in Government Stock and making annual sales of so
much of it with the year's interest or dividend on the residue of the capital as
will raise the sum of £378, which, in 33 years would exhaust the capital; (2) in
the purchase of a Government annuity for 33 years which would produce the same
amount, or (3) the placing of the money in the names of the Trustees on
mortgage.

The first of these proposals met with little favour, and it was agreed that the
opinions of the proprietors should be obtained respecting the other two, and on
November 30th, 1850, the following resolution was passed:- That on obtaining the
concurrence of Mr. T. J. Eyre (as to which his proxy, Mr. Parker, thought there
need be no doubt) and that of the party entitled to the share of the late Miss
Thompson, the Treasurer immediately take such steps as he should deem necessary
for having the £7,720 invested in a Government annuity payable during the
residue of the term of 99 years granted by the lease from the late Earl of
Surrey to the late Rev. James Wilkinson of the land on which The Tontine Hotel
and premises were built, such annuity to be in the names of the existing
"Trustees, viz., Hugh Parker, Wm Jno Bagshawe, Wm Parker, Thomas Pearson, and
James Wheat, to be held by them and upon and for the like trusts intents and
purposes as The Tontine premises were held by them prior to the purchase of them
by the Duke of Norfolk or as near thereto as the change occasioned by their sale
to the Duke admitted of." The voting between these two suggestions was as
follows:--For the mortgage proposal, Michael Jones and Edward Jones (represented
by Mr.Bernard Wake) and Thomas Joseph Eyre (represented by Mr. T. J. Parker). 
For the Government annuity:--Miss Irwin, Miss Ann Thompson (represented by Mr.
W. P. Milner), Wm. Parker, James Wheat, Vincent Henry Eyre, John Sparrow Stovin
(represented by Mr. Albert Smith), John Parker, Wm. Jno. Bagshawe, Thomas
Pearson, and the representatives of the late George Rodgers. In March it was
decided that, in accordance with Mr. Chapman Barber's suggestion, a fresh deed
of trust be signed by the proprietors before any application was made to the
Court of Chancery for payment of the £7,720  for the  purpose  of  being  issued
 in  a  Government  annuity,  and  a draft of the proposed new trust deed was
read and approved. On the same date Mr. Parker reported the decease of Miss
Charlotte Thompson, whose mental infirmity had rendered the payment of the
purchase money into Court necessary. On August 19, 1851, new trustees were
appointed in the persons of W. Leonard, G. Bagshawe, and Thomas James Parker, to
take the place of trustees recently deceased, and in October it was reported
that the total number of nominees had been reduced by death to twelve persons.
Fifteen months later an Indenture was signed by the executors of the Wm. John
Bagshawe and Henry Edmund Watson, investing the latter with all the rights in
the deceased's share as proprietor and which share had acquired by Mr. H. E.
Watson at auction.  The Indenture recited that since  the  death  of  Wm.  John 
Bagshawe,  which   took   place  on  June   1st, 1851, namely on or about
December 3rd, 1851, £7,650, part of the purchase money paid by the Duke of
Norfolk, was by the then existing body of proprietors paid into the National
Debt office for purchase of an annuity, terminable at the end of 30 years, of
the annual value of £376 4s. 0d., expiring on October 10th, 1883.  And that when
the Share or Life numbered 21 was offered by public auction it was purchased by
Henry Edmund Watson for the sum of £200. This appears a rather curious matter,
inasmuch as the previous minute shows that there were then only twelve
proprietors living, including Mr. Bagshawe, and that the annuity would produce
for each a sum of £37 per annum.  The Indenture referred to was a transfer from
the executors of Mr. Bagshawe to Henry Edmund Watson, his executors and assigns,
all their interest whatsoever in the Share or Life No. 21 thus sold by auction.
However, on December 20th of the same year we find another Indenture or
transfer, this being between William Leonard G. Bagshawe and Henry Edmund
Watson, whereby the latter sold and the former bought for the sum of £200 the
Share No. 21, so that it once more went into possession of Mr. W. J. Bagshawe's
family, and thus it appears that Mr. Watson's purchase was probably intended as
in form only and without any intention on his part to hold his purchase.

In the early part of this abstract of the old minute book reference was made to
the fact that the first subscription brought in a total of 33 persons, who took
amongst them 41 shares of £100 each, those holding more than one share
subsequently nominating other persons for the second and third shares.  At the
very outset of the second period with which the book deals, that is to say, the
transactions of the 19th century, we find that at a meeting of proprietors,
Jonathan Marshall appeared for the Misses Ann and Charlotte Thompson, presumably
daughters of Benjamin Thompson, who when five years old, and on September 5th,
1785, was declared nominee to the share then held by Anthony Thompson of
Whiteley Wood.  Miss Ann Thompson, one of these sisters, survived as one of the
three remaining proprietors when Mr. Parker's final entry took place in 1861, 76
years after the allocation of the shares.  Her residence was at Kenilworth, and
the others were Francis Westby Bagshawe, of The Oaks, Norton, and Thomas Joseph
Eyre, of Pulteney Street, Bath. There is but little information in the book
relative to the dates of subscriber's deaths, or the way in which various shares
got into different hands, but a memorandum of March 25th, 1844, speaks of an
indenture or transfer from the Rt. Hon. Charles John Howard, commonly called
Viscount Andover, Henry Howard, and Philip Henry Howard (executors of Henry
Howard), whose share No. 4 had as nominee Martha (wife of Richard McNally of
Warwick), formerly known as Martha Jessett. This transfer was in favour of T. J.
Parker. Then an indenture dated April 2nd, 1845, is referred to between William
Smith, Thomas Dunn and J. Towlerton Leather and George Wm. Freeman of the one
part, and T. J. Parker of the other.  This was respecting a share of which Hugh
Parker was nominee.

Mrs. Arabella Pearson, formerly Arabella Broomhead, nominee for share No. 33,
died on January 14th, 1853, whilst the probate of the will of Captain Edward
Jones was registered on July, 1854, and that of W. L. G. Bagshawe on August 25th
of the same year.

On October 27th, 1857, notices of meeting were sent out to eight surviving
proprietors, these being F. W. Bagshawe, Robert Sorby Jr. (executor of George
Rodgers), John Sparrow Stovin, Thos. Joseph Eyre, Miss Mary Irwin of Shelfanger,
Diss, Hugh Parker, J. T. Parker, and Miss Ann Thompson. A year later this list
had been reduced by the death of Mr. Stovin, and on April 15th, 1861, word was
received of the death of Miss Irwin, leaving only five survivors. A further word
respecting Miss Ann Thompson may be added.  At several meetings she was
represented as proxy by Mr. Jonathan Marshall, by Mr. Wm. Pashley Milner, and
then by Mr. Wm. Smith, Junr., whilst on October 2nd, 1858, Mr. T. J. Parker
places a memorandum in the book stating that he had received word from Mr.
Thomas Thompson, of Welton, nr. Hull, a solicitor, stating that Miss Thompson
had become mentally deranged and was subject to religious mania and delusions,
which led her to believe that her tontine and copyhold properties were not
properly conveyed to her and that it was sinful for her to profess to be the
owner of them.

One other note remains, a form of receipt signed by W. P. Milner and dated the
20th day of October, 1871, and acknowledging receipt of a sum £368 7s. 4d. from
Mr. Parker, honorary treasurer and sole surviving trustee of the Sheffield
Tontine, being the amount payable in respect of the only existing share in the
said Tontine, of which the said Ann Thompson was the nominee and proprietor. The
deed was an Annuity purchased in December, 1851, terminable in 33 years, so that
it appears Miss Ann Thompson and her assigns would benefit from it solely, to
the extent of about £360 a year up to the year 1884, or for at least thirteen
years. Really The Tontine had been a very good thing in every way.  It had
furnished the town with a commodious and up-to-date inn, which became much more
than locally celebrated, and it had secured to the shareholders and their
nominees handsome returns on their capital.   There is no record of dividends
being paid during the years 1841 and 1842, and no records whatever of the
earlier period between 1782 and 1792, but the property of The Tontine was
complete fairly early in that period and must have been paying its way at least.
In subsequent years the dividends were very high, as the following record
proves:-May, 1839, £9 14s. 10d. per share; October, 1840, £11; October, 1843,
£12; November, 1844, £9 15s.; December, 1845, £14; December, 1846, £10 10s.;
December, 1847, £10; August, 1848, £9 9s.; September, 1849; £19 14s.; June,
1850, £13; October, 1852, £27 (this being immediately after the purchase of the
Government annuity); November, 1853, £16 11s.; May, 1854, £16 12s.; November,
1854, £17 15s. (when there were only ten survivors);  June, 1855, £17 14s.; 
December, 1855, £23; May,1856,£25; October, 1856,£25; Apri1,1857,£25; November,
1857, £25 17s.; June, 1858, £26;  November, 1858, £26; May, 1859, £28 17s.;
October, 1859, £29 10s. ; April, 1860, £30 12s.; October, 1860, £29 10s.; April,
1861, £34 14s.: and October, 1861,;£36. In estimating the size of such dividends
it is worth while remembering that each share meant the expenditure of no more
than £100.