Only the Board of Trustees would know the full story. The charity would seem to have moved from its original objects - "providing an annual supply of clothing to the needy" (see http://dmnw26769.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/acf/stock.htm).

I see that the two fields were initially purchased for £115!

I wonder if the sale is conditional on the development going ahead?

- David -

How can you buy land that`s not for sale? The Stubshaws were give to the poor people of Ashton as a gift well before the Linen & Woollen Charities existed. So when it states that The charity `purchased it that was only a paper purchase in order to balance the books and indeed the money used to buy it was actually recovered once they started charging rent for it and it took 20 years to come back to square one,The point is the land was never theirs to sell and that`s why they never sold it...When are we going to confront the trustees for the real answers?

Town: rayday505@talktalk.net

It has been suggested that the trust was bound by law to sell the fields.

I cannot believe this to be true.

Town: ebnw32487@blueyonder.co.uk

....but the trustees would have a duty to act in the interests of the charity if they were approached re selling the land.

All IMHO, of course.

- David -

This all seems a little strange doesn't it.

The trustees all have to act in the interests of the charity............

The charity was set up to act in the interests of the poor of Ashton.

It is a clear choice by the trustees.
They are more or less, by selling the land, making the decision that the development can go ahead.

From the people of Ashton that I have spoken to this is not the choice that they would make.

The people of Ashton, almost 100 percent, do not want this development.

This is not what the charity was set up to do.

Town: ebnw32487@blueyonder.co.uk

Hi Ian -

I don't see it as strange. The charity wasn't set up for the 'people of Ashton'. It was set up for the poor and needy of Ashton. How this proposed development will affect them is open to argument, and the trustees have presumably made a considered decision.

As I said before, the trustees have a duty to maintain the objects of the charity. They are not expected to follow popular opinion on decisions facing the charity.

I hope the present proposals regarding the Sapphire Park development do not succeed. However, the discussion on the Ashton Linen and Woollen Stock Charity should recognise the trustees' obligations under Charity Law.

- David -

Hello

If it is 'Charity Law ' to make a quick buck and sod the future , then the Linen and Woolen Stock cannot take the blame. I find it hard for this to be true.

It seems disgusting to me that a charity would sell the land in full knowledge of its future ie. a monstrous development that the people of Ashton dont want.

Another point is: in 1720 the Charity bought the Stubshaws fields. But who did they buy them from ?
The land was supposedly donated to the people of Ashton?

With regard to The Stubshaws fields..As a guy born in Stubshaw Cross , It feels uncomfortable to me that the place that gave our small village its name should be sold to developers, so that they may concrete over our history, our heritage , our origin.

Andrede

Town: butz65@blueyonder.co.uk

What is IMHO?

Town: butz65@blueyonder.co.uk

.

Hi DM
How do you distinguish between the 'people of Ashton' and the 'poor and needy'?

Its a charity for the people of Ashton that are poor and needy.

It will be interesting to see how many boy scout outfits they have bought.

Andrede

Town: butz65@blueyonder.co.uk

Hi Andrede -

I'm not defending the charity - I'm just giving my opinion on some of the points being raised about it. This is why there is charity law - if people disagree with the actions of a charity they can take it to the Charity Commissioners, who oversee the actions of charities. My point is that, while people may criticise the decision of the local charity to sell the land, the charity trustees are acting within the law. If you don't agree with them, then you would have to take it up with the Charity Commissioners to seek an effective objection.

All IMHO, of course.

- David -

Dave. I respect your opinion but its time we all went back to facts and all the facts are contained in the history books.The fact is that in 1692 the landowner of this area was a john Launder who was a benefactor of the poor who presented the Two Stubshaws to the benefit of the Poor of Ashton.At the same time he gave land on Golborne Rd called the Overfields.
that land was given for ever and could not be bought or sold in any circumstances.For the land to be of any use to the poor it had to be cultivated to yield income. So it remained unused for 28 years until the charity known now as the Linen and Woollen trust got wind of it because the chairman in 1720 was none other than Lord Gerard who had recovered his estate from the Crown.apart from The Two Stubshaws and other poor grounds.He made a `Paper ` sale to the Charity in order for them to balance the books. The going price was £110.20 which was actually recovered from the income by renting it to a farmer called Rosbottom. So the Charity never legally bought the land,
That,s why they have not been able to sell it for nearly 300 years.So how can they sell it now? Legally they can`t and the Charity Laws bear that out in Section 35/1. ( see the internet)How they have done it cannot be divulged in an open forum at this point but watch this space>>>>>

Town: rayday505@talktalk.net

Hi Ray -

>>all the facts are contained in the history books

Your account is an interesting addition to the debate. It would be helpful if you quoted your source(s) though - I'm sure most readers will be unaware that there is such recorded detail available on Ashton history.

On the detail: surely if "John Launder....presented the Two Stubshaws to the benefit of the Poor of Ashton", ownership of the land would have had to be transferred by deed to some person or organisation? And how could the then Lord Gerrard make a sale to the Charity of land which he did not own? Sorry to seem obtuse, but your account is intriguing me.

- David -

Hi Dave. I got most of my information from Baines`s A History of Lancashire Vol.4 printed in 1911.
It is in the History shop in Library St. and excerpts are online.

How Lord Gerard was able to `sell` the land to the Charity was conjecture on my part because as you say,where would he get the deeds from?
Of course,in those days land changed ownership constantly.You could fight for it, or lose it if you were of the wrong religion,as Lord Gerard was.
What is a fact was that the Charity had to use money donated to the poor by other benefactors.So not even the money used was theirs to spend >>>

Town: rayday505@talktalk.net

Thanks for that, Ray - I haven't read Baines History of Lancashire, although I'd heard of it.

- David -

Hi
I appreciate that the trustees have a duty to the charity. But is that duty being execised with this sale?
Patrick Properties need this land, so it seems to build this industrial estate. Would it not be in the best interests of the charity to wait and let the price rise? That is what most people do when they are sitting on a valuable asset.
Then again if they wait, the sale might fall through and Patrick Properties may try and buy the land that makes the shortest route and inconveniences far less people. that is from Golborne Rd to Locket Rd.
Perhaps, who knows? That may have been their intention all along. Do that and a great deal of opposition fades away.
As I have said before, we are dealing with proffessionals, and devious ones no doubt.
Alan

Town: ajames46@fsmail.net

This is interesting.

Under the heading "Woolen Stock Charity":

"By Indenture , bearing date 5th August 1720, Roger Rosbotham, in consideration of £115, conveyed to John Atherton, James Orrell, Thomas Richardson, Thomas Low and William Chadwick, and their heirs, two closes of land in Ashton, called the Two Stubshaws, containing by estimation four acres"

It goes on to say where the money came from to buy the land. Nearly half of it was from the £50 donated by Thomas Harrison " to be put out for the best advantage for the poor of Ashton".

Email me if you require sources.

Andrede

Town: butz65@blueyonder.co.uk

>>"By Indenture , bearing date 5th August 1720, Roger Rosbotham, in consideration of £115, conveyed to John Atherton, James Orrell, Thomas Richardson, Thomas Low and William Chadwick, and their heirs, two closes of land in Ashton, called the Two Stubshaws, containing by estimation four acres"

Were these the trustees of the Charity at that time? I'd appreciate it if you'd email me the source, Andrede. Or better still, post it here, as I think it valuable to gather together information on local history.

- David -

Town: dm@aimi.org.uk

Hi DM ,

I presume that the people mentioned are the Trustees. The excerpt is from The Charity Commision Lancashire 1908 Vol.3 available to view in the History shop Wigan.

Ray?

If John Launder “presented the Two Stubshaws to the benefit of the Poor of Ashton”
Then how could it be sold by Roger Rosbotham 28 years later?

Re: "By Indenture , bearing date 5th August 1720, Roger Rosbotham, in consideration of £115, conveyed to John Atherton, James Orrell, Thomas Richardson, Thomas Low and William Chadwick, and their heirs, two closes of land in Ashton, called the Two Stubshaws, containing by estimation four acres"

The above clearly ( IMHO ) says that the land was sold by Roger Rosbotham to the trustees?

Interwesting...

Andrede

Town: butz65@blueyonder.co.uk

I looked up some words that may help.

1. Convey or conveyance =(the legal process of transfering land or property).

2. In Consideration =(as payment or recompense for

Andrede

Town: butz65@blueyonder.co.uk

Hi Andrede. I said all along it was a paper sale by Lord Gerard.its just another piece in the jigsaw,
Rosbottom was employed by Lord Gerard as a farmer and he would have been ploughing those fields in those 28 years so to try and legitimise the sale they took the view that possession was 9 points of the law.

If he owned the land in the first place why would he sell it to a charity and then spend the rest of his life paying rent to use it?
The fact remains that Lauder made a covenant to the poor on that land and the deeds still show that the covenant remains to this day(Page 4 0n the copy that Ian gave me)Ray

Town: rayday505@talktalk.net