7 Eaton Place South

26^th March 1858

My dear Sir

I fear you think that my observations as to your engaging to make the rail, and paying the expenses of the transit of the ore over it, are new propositions – I have a great objection to be thought to attempt to vary a stipulation after it has once been arranged – this I think is not the case in this Instance –

Several of your letters referred to your making the railway – the only difficulty suggested being a question of Expense – when you proposed that I should bind myself to send all ores to Wales & Staffordshire over your line at a toll of 1^s/ I considered it as a stipulation on your part precedent that you should form the line –

Consider for a moment the position which a binding agreement on my part and no corresponding one on yours would place me in?

The first & most important consideration is how to get the ore to distant points at the cheapest rate – In this Item only can any saving be accomplished – and the first step would be to see if by a moderate outlay a saving of some pence per Ton could not be accomplished – if I were bound to your railway you might at a future period claim to have the ores transported on your line – but on the other hand, as the line might never be made, such a claim might never be made – Still how could I sink any money on the means of transport upon the chance of that outlay being thrown away a few days & weeks afterwards?

I think it would be far better to have no stipulation as to the railway at all – I do not sufficiently understand the locality on the railway side of the canal to know how the more distant line might be made to work – I do not see how it would possibly answer to load a boat at the canal – unload it into a truck a mile & ½ off – & reload into the Railway trucks at another mile – I do not know whether the boat would take the ore north or south – i.e. right or left of the inclined plain? It has often struck me that about half way between Lacock & Swindon a point might be found where the railway & canal all but meet & that might answer. And clearly if there is to be more than one loading the canal to Chippenham would have advantages. However upon all these points it appears to me that it must always be worth your while & mine to have your line if practicable – might there not be a tramway instead of the canal to the point whence the practicable line would start for the Railway?

Upon the Second point – viz^t your conveying the ore over your own line –

I am sure you will find in a letter of mine wherein I was considering the toll of 1^s/ that I said if that amount were to include Every Expense from the canal to the G^t Western it would not be unreasonable. Implying at least that if the contrary were the case it would not be so – But there was another reason why I did not contemplate having any thing to do with the transit – and that was that in the event of you carrying ore for any one else the interference of several persons would lead to no end of inconvenience – and in the event of furnaces being put up this observation would have great force – for as much – or rather more material 2 or 3 fold – would have to be brought to the furnaces as would be taken there from. All these matters appear to me properly collateral to & independent of the working the land – with respect to which I think the only point between us is the accommodation land to be supplied – and the Exact stop to be worked – two matters, however, of paramount importance – I do not quite understand whereabouts you have contemplated the tramway to the canal running. The shortest way would be best unless there be Engineering difficulties in the way

D^r Sir

yours truly

George Cottrell