link to Talbot Project home page link to De Montfort University home page link to Glasgow University home page
Project Director: Professor Larry J Schaaf
 

Back to the letter search >

Result number 25 of 55:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >  

Document number: 7565
Date: 09 Mar 1858
Recipient: TALBOT William Henry Fox
Author: COTTRELL George Edward
Collection: British Library, London, Manuscripts - Fox Talbot Collection
Collection number historic: LA58-026
Last updated: 1st September 2003

7 Easton Place South

9th March 1858

My dear Sir

I am very glad you have found the opinion that in the Event of our coming to terms with reference to your land we shall be able to carry out our Engagements in an agreeable spirit – I have quite come to the same conclusion with respect to yourself – & I hope I may say for myself that I should upon all occasions try to serve your Interests in every respect where I could do so without serious prejudice to myself.

The difference of the position of landlord & tenant is very material, and this I trust will be an apology for my appearing to haggle upon the question of a few pence – The landlord runs no risk in this case – If the ore after being tried, upon a very large scale even, should turn out a failure £50 would restore the land to its original state for agricultural purposes. but the tenant would in the mean time would be bound hand & foot and lose all the capital he embarked in it – It is therefore necessary that he should see his way to a profit, however small, even 3d/ or 4d/ per Ton before embarking in it – I agree that if smelting furnaces should be put up on the Canal bank the tenant might derive a certain & quite sufficient profit – but this depends upon a problem yet to be solved, and which cannot be solved for 2 or 3 years – and no lessee would base his calculations upon such an uncertainty – at the same time I should be quite willing to make that question the subject of a separate agreement – or I should rather say, a distinct agreement – such, for example, as that in consideration of the landlord accepting a lower royalty upon the ore sold at a distance the lessee should pay a royalty of 1/6 upon all ore supplied to furnaces if put up – This would well answer the purpose of landlord & tenant – for the latter could afford to pay the higher rate on the ore so disposed of – and the former would be quite certain of getting the 6d per ton on at least 50000 Tons per annum – as furnaces if once established would take that amount –

Your argument as to the minimum of £1000 per ann: being inadequate to compensate the injury to that portion of your Estate is somewhat difficult to meet – as I feel that you must know better upon this point than myself. But I should have said that the injury would not be great – as the part of your property in question is quite an extremity – & might be severed without injury to the bulk – I most certainly if fairly worked the land when cleared of the ore would be much improved – the sandy soil being removed down to the clay – which would then be the surface & better soil for agricultural purposes – However there may be “consequential damage” of which I can hardly judge – and the point really is how the difference between us can be got over –

The addition of 8d per Ton upon the first 20000 Tons is too great –

I am however anxious to see whether at an additional 6d – on 20000 Tons it can be done –

Such addition will in fact make your minimum £15,00 a year – for certainly less than 20,000 Tons per annum could not be worked – and however many Tons may be worked this must ever remain £500 a year in favor of the landlord & against the Tenant – Still I think the addition per Ton after upon the ore sold after the first year would be so insignificant that I will should not not throw any obstacle in the way of 6d/ per Ton in addition on 7 the first 20000 Tons as proposed by you –

I think there are errors in your calculation of the costs –

The railway will not carry at 7/16 penny per mil if the distance be under 100 miles –

It is not probable that the terminal charge will be under 1d/ per Ton – as every diminution of the Terminal charge encreases the number of Tons necessary to be sent in order to make up the annual Sum to entitle the sender to a deduction –

Waggons cannot be calculated at less than 6d per Ton on the Gt Western – That company does it for you as a Favor at 9d/

As to the price of raising the ore I may remark that there must be a large amount of refuse to be removed – the cost of which, as well as that of all insaleable <sic> ore, must be added to the cost of the ore sold, & deducted from the profits of such ore

I have all my life heard a good deal of the Shrewsbury family – my Mother years ago having been intimate at <Alten?> Towers – and in more modern days I have personally known some of its members –

Yours very faithfully

George Cottrell

Result number 25 of 55:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >