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 27 of 55:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >  

Document number: 7570
Date: 18 Mar 1858
Recipient: COTTRELL George Edward
Author: TALBOT William Henry Fox
Collection: British Library, London, Manuscripts - Fox Talbot Collection
Last updated: 1st September 2003

Cottrell March 18/58

I rather thk yt y. are mistakn in sayg that in a formr lr y askd me to let 25 acres – I do not recollect it that y mentd any precise no <ill. del.>, & I rather thk I shd have remembd it – It apprs to me that 15 acres is are amply suffict for a lease of 21 yrs if you only raise 20000 tons per ann. (Were not 22,000 tons raisd at Seend from a quarter acre, the first that was worked? I was infirmd so). It is true You speak sevl times and confidly of raisg 50,000 tons per ann. or more at Lacock, and I hve no dbt you feel ye confidce you express but in the course of argumt you forgt that it is an assumptn & you reason upon it as if it were part of the agreemt If it were so I shd have no hesitn but to satisfy you I will agree besides lettg 10 acres at prest to hold 10 more acres in reserve, not agreeing not to work them myself nor let them or otherwise for 2 or 3 years and if during that time your all goes on as prospsly as y expect and the ore raisd by you <ill. del.> to reaches 50000 tons per ann. then to let the aforsaid lands to you for the same lease and on the same condns as the first lands – This I hope will meet your views, for if on the contrary, matters shd not turn out so favorably as hoped for & you shd limit your projectn to 20,000 tons pr ann. You in that case you wd not want the additional land and as you expressed yourself in a former letter you do not wish to fetter me in any way,

As to the other point raised <the following page has been cancelled> I thk You cannot mean to establish an unfavorable distinctn betwn fncs furnaces built on my land & others not on my land, as to the rate at wch I wd sell the ore to them, that wd be an actual bonus on <ill. del.> on thm for constructn of the fnces not and inducemt to construct the fnaces not on my land.

If “Wiltshire” is too genl an expressn for altho’ it is it wd be merely nominal as regards South Wilts, we might substitute “ore smelted (G) withi 15 miles of Lacock” – The simple The fact being is, that upon such ore the lessee’s profit must wd be considerably greater, very considble renderg it merely <equitable?> I <ill. del.> It is probable that any smelting compy (K) wd willgly give you 6/ per ton for the ore, & I am deceivd if that is not a low estimate – Once that thy have built furnaces thy must have ore, & wd pay you any purchase it at any reasonable price on the spot rather than import it fm a distce

(K) on ye banks of our canal

(G) ore sold to any smeltg compy carryig on business within 15m of Lacock.

<end of cancelled section>

Cottrell Mrch 18/58 contind

with regard to the other point raised your proposal to confine it to furnaces raised built on my own land is unsatisfy – There may never be such furnaces – The only thing that wd render it of any notice wd be the existce of if some reasble probty existed of such furnaces being built within a few years hence. A Are you moderate or low priced ore wd Encourage the such a speculatn I Are you willing therefore to agree that if parties under lease fm me build furnaces on my land or ye viciny of the canal you will supply them with the ore they require at five shillings per ton – If so, I wd make it externly known and persons who undersd such matters wd calculate wheth from the known price of Coals &c. &c. whether it wd answer to build smelting furnaces here.

Result number 27 of 55:   < Back     Back to results list   Next >