K.H. Rogers, in Wiltshire And Somerset Woollen Mills, published by the Pasold Research Fund Ltd., in 1976, noted:
Corsley: Stirford
A dye-house and land in Corsley was let on lives to William Down, dyer, in 1733. He appears to have been succeeded by a son, John, who lived until 1789. John’s son, William, died without issue in 1778. He was probably occupying the dye-house, by then, for shortly afterwards it was advertised to let together with a fulling mill. No taker was found, and the business was carried on by William’s two sisters, one of whom remained single while the other married John Carpenter. Carpenter is described on his monument in Corsley Church as an eminent dyer, and his sister-in-law, Ann Down, ‘carried on an extensive and lucrative business as a wool and cloth dyer, and acquired great reputation for accuracy in matching the most difficult colours’. The business still remained in the family; the next owner was Henry Austin Fussell, husband of Hester Ann, daughter of John Carpenter. He died in 1845, when his widow and son carried on the business for a few years.
In 1853, the house and dye-house were put up for sale and valued by Francis Atwood of Salisbury. The remarkably well-built modern mansion house he rated worth £2,500, and the dye-house worth only the materials, except to no one in the trade. Adjoining land brought the value up to £5,300.
‘With reference to its contiguity to the domain of Longleat’ Atwood continued, ‘and considering that it is almost the only property in the neighbourhood not belonging to the noble owner of that princely estate, and bearing in mind also the great annoyance which an adverse owner might occasion, whether as a sportsman seeking to decoy his neighbour’s game, or as a manufacturer ready to turn to account the water power and other facilities which the place affords for carrying on an extensive trade, it would be difficult to over-estimate the value or name the consideration the proprietor of the adjoining woods and lands might not be willing to pay in order to make this tempting little estate his own, and be empowered to deal with it and its occupants after his pleasure . . . ‘
Arguments like these could not be resisted, and the leasehold was bought into hand and the dye-house demolished in 1854.
WRO, 845, lease books and valuation;
BC, 2.4.1778;
DG, 1.11.1821.