7 Eaton Place South

23^rd March 1858

My dear Sir

I am obliged by your letter of the 21^st which concisely puts the heads of the agreement – & correctly states the terms with some variations –

I purposely used the term “inferior” ore for the purpose of excluding the ore of the best quality which it is not reasonable should be supplied at 5^s/ per Ton – “average” ore excluding the first quality I see no objection to – The difficulty may be got over by a clause authorizing me to cull from the ores supplied to the furnaces at 5^s/ per Ton all ore yielding upwards of 40 per <unit?> of Iron; The inferior ores will amply pay furnaces on the spot at the price – and it will of Course be open to the owners of the furnaces to make a special agreement as to such of the ore as shall exceed 40 per <unit?> – & of course I should be <too?> happy to meet them liberally.

Instead of my supplying the ores at the canal the furnaces should have their own tram way to the spot where the ore is rased <sic> from – & I should only have to place it in their waggons – This is what we do at Seend – and the reason is that if the furnaces take the amount of ore which to make them pay they must do – one tramway would not do that

work & the general trade – and it would not answer to lay down a fresh line at 5^s/ per Ton –

I would suggest that the 25 acres of land should be included in the lease in the first instance with power for you to remove possession of 10 acres in case 50,000 Tons should not be raised & disposed of in their same period of 12 months during the 3 years of the term computed from the 1^st January 1859

I never understood that there was to be any doubt of your laying down the loop line from the canal to the G. W. Railway. I understand that if I would engage to send the ore at 1^s/ per Ton you would engage to make the line – You speak <illeg> of a tramway not railway – This will make a material difference perhaps – as the companys engines would be unable to come up to the canal – However as the 1^s/ per Ton will include the cost of transit from the canal to the G. W. Railway this is a matter for your consideration more than mine –

The encrease of the 6^d/ per Ton on the first 20000 Tons will have the effect of raising the minimum rent to £1500 per annum which, coupled with the doubt of your laying down the line from the canal, makes the matter much more serious – of Course if the ore answers it will not be material – but on the other hand if it fails if will be of great importance to me – I trust therefore you will give me every facility as to working the ore; and the surface land to be granted will very much affect this point – Sufficient land for a double line of tramway should be granted – which after all will be very narrow – There should also be a sufficient plot of land on the Banks of the canal to dig out a basin for loading barges – especially if the rail be not made – Then there should be an outlet at the Larch Wood for getting rid of the Sand & refuse – This is of importance to the estate and it appears to me that the miry pit wherein alders must grow would be the spot for this purpose – I have no doubt that pit was formed by the Romans digging ore there & it is only right that we should repair the injury they did to your estate by filling it up again at the expiration of a couple of thousand years, with a material ejusdem generis

I hope your next letter will settle all <these?> preliminaries in which case I would, with your permission, run down the first week in April & discuss any matters which require discussion

Dear Sir

y^rs faithfully

George Cottrell