7 Eaton Place South
11^th Feb: 1858

My dear Sir

I wrote in answer to yours of the 8^th very hurriedly and therefore I fear somewhat abruptly – My apology must be that, unless my accidental connexion with the Seend works makes me commercial, I am in no way a commercial man, and consequently not accustomed to drive a bargain – but am used to state my opinion in such terms as the moment suggests. If I had had time I should have added what would have made my letter more intelligible – I mean now to supply the defects –

Many persons have seen your land and ore & are of opinion that it would not pay any one to work – & I should not be bold enough to put my pit Ground against theirs were it not that I, from my connexion with the Seend works, should have advantages which no one else would have – I do not rely upon Swindon as an outlet. The question therefore of the toll upon your railway does not depend upon an estimate of the difference between that toll & the canal charge – at the same time I see great mutual advantage in such a railway. It might answer your purpose well & mine too – but not at 1^s/ per Ton. It would cost me no more to send the ore to our own railway at Seend than to transmit it by yours to the Great Western; whilst the advantage of using our own line would indirectly give me a great pull. for reasons which I am not at liberty to explain. At the same time I am bound to say that your railway [missing text] a reasonable rate of toll would be preferable by far.

With respect to the quantity of land I should not at all wish to do any thing which should [illegible word] you in respect of such part as should not be required for working – but whilst the “Sand pit” would probably yield the best ore other parts, being nearer to the canal, could be worked cheapest. So that the inferior ore of the one part might be of nearly equal value with the ore from the other – & both might be worked at the same time so as mutually to benefit the Landlord & tenant – But the leaving the matter to competition is really an insuperable objection.

I ought perhaps to have said more upon the importance of the length of the Term – but it is easily understood that £10,000 or £15,000 is easily expended in tram ways – plant – trucks & canal boats & that it must take time to get it back – and of Course the quantity of land must correspond with the length of term. Time & material are in the same category –

With respect to discarding refuse ore I think you will see that that question cannot be of importance. I assume that no one would, or could expect that the expense of carriage &c &c &c (which will exceed 10 fold the amount of royalty) should be entailed in an ore which would not pay the expenses of carriage – and this much is perfectly clear that if the working the inferior ore would not pay a person working the better ore it might just as well remain in the ground, or be thrown away – being in fact valueless – at the same time I am by no means prepared to say that all the ore may not be made available at some period – This must depend entirely upon circumstances – what may be to day valueless may tomorrow become valuable & vice versa.

I am afraid you will think the writing a letter to me brings an infliction upon you in reply – in palliation of which I can only say that I hope if no mutual advantage should arise from our correspondence my “notions” may not be thrown away so far as you are concerned

yours faithfully
G Cottrell