[draft]

Cottrell

March 24 / 58

I cannot give an ans^r today ab^t the alder coppice, I must first get an ^{ask the} opinⁿ ab^t it of some compet^t p^son I shall willingly accede to y^r proposal, to allow land enough on the bank of the canal for digging a basin, provid^d the canal comp^y consent, w^ch I suppose of course they would _^^do – _^^And I w^d not object to allow land on the hill wide enough for a double tramway, except, for about 1 furlong where I c^d only allow width for one, in order not to encroach upon the ord^y public roadway –

It w^d be bad economy for [illegible deletion] any persons building smelting furnaces, to establish a tramway of their own, up to your quarries. It w^d be much better at once to sa put the price at 5/6 inst^d of 5/ and let the ore be deliv^d at _^^{or near} the canal _^^(K) omitting the clause & to omit omitting – & to omit the clause about the best ores, and _^^to say ing a fair average of the ores. Because I fear such a_n selectⁿ _{exclusn ^}^{of the best ores} w^d give rise to contin^l misunderst^gs. With respect to a tramway or r^lwy to join the G West I have all along stated you introduce a new condition viz. that the ore sh^d be carried on it at my expense, if I understand you – Of course this cannot be acceded to on my part – The ores cannot be placed under a divided authority & management; to not to say that it w^d cost more ( M) ^{That wd never do. (M)} What I w^d do, w^d be to provide the means of communⁿ w^th the GWR just as I provide the land at Nethermore It w^d be for you to avail yourself of that land, & of that communicⁿ I have all along stated that the formatⁿ of a tramway w^d be a matter of great doubt & diffic^y – owing to the sit circumst^ce that there is much ornamental land intervening & land belonging to other proprietors, with whom of course I have not yet communic^d & they may refuse or be _^^unable to sell, or grant a right of way – I explained in a former letter that on the whole, it would be the easiest plan to transport the ores by the canal ¾ ^{abt 1½} mile to another part of my property from _^^{beyond the ornaml part} & land them at a wharf from whence I a line c^d be made to the G Westⁿ with tolerable facility – I sh^d only have to purchase 1 field, from a man who I think w^d sell it –

As to the expense of transport of ores from on this raily ^{loop line} from ^the canal to the GWR, it may be _^^{1d or} 2^d a ton, altho’ I sh^d think rather in my ^{as far as I can form an} opinion ^For, You may put the cost of transport in a cart on a common road at 9^d per ton per mile – on a tramway a horse can draw 3 or 4 times as much, w^ch diminishes y^e expense in y^e same proportⁿ – A Stat^y engine w^d diminish it m^ch more, & soon repay the cost of constructⁿ. But these are matters for more properly for an Engineer to consider (N)

I do not see that it makes any mater^l diff^ce whether I reserve 10 acres _^^{for 2 or 3 years} or include them in y^e orig^l lease, Your understand^g not to execute any works in them during that time

If therefore it w^d be a more regular proceeding, I w^d accede to it

I _^^{But I am ready to} agree to the clause “3 years f^m 1 Jan^y 1859.” –

These I believe are the most mater^l points to w^ch y. adverted to in your last letter –

( M^N) I th^k it will be better not to change _alter the agreem^t to reserve ^hold 10 acres “in reserve” – This ^It has the advant^ge of being clear & unambig^s. If certain events take place _^^{then the} 10 acres are to be leased – & if not, not.

(K) whence of course a short tramway w^d be made to the furnaces.

(M) and Suppose I were to neglect my duty, and leave the ores on the line there w^d be a pretty fix as the Yankees say – But perhaps I misunderstand you. What I w^d do

[expanded version:]

Cottrell

March 24, 1858

I cannot give an answer today about the alder coppice, I must first get an ask the opinion about it of some competent person. I shall willingly accede to your proposal, to allow land enough on the bank of the canal for digging a basin, provided the canal company consent, which I suppose of course they would do – And I would not object to allow land on the hill wide enough for a double tramway, except, for about one furlong where I could only allow width for one, in order not to encroach upon the ordinary public roadway –

It would be bad economy for [illegible deletion] any persons building smelting furnaces, to establish a tramway of their own, up to your quarries. It would be much better at once to sa put the price at five shillings six pence instead of five shillings and let the ore be delivered at or near the canal whence of course a short tramway would be made to the furnaces. omitting the clause and to omit omitting – and to omit the clause about the best ores, and to say ing a fair average of the ores. Because I fear such an selection exclusion of the best ores would give rise to continual misunderstandings. With respect to a tramway or railway to join the Great Western I have all along stated you introduce a new condition viz. that the ore should be carried on it at my expense, if I understand you – Of course this cannot be acceded to on my part – The ores cannot be placed under a divided authority and management; to not to say that it would cost more and Suppose I were to neglect my duty, and leave the ores on the line there would be a pretty fix as the Yankees say – But perhaps I misunderstand you. That would never do.

What I would do, would be to provide the means of communication with the Great Western Railway just as I provide the land at Nethermore. ^<1> It would be for you to avail yourself of that land, and of that communication I have all along stated that the formation of a tramway would be a matter of great doubt and difficulty – owing to the situation circumstance that there is much ornamental land intervening and land belonging to other proprietors, with whom of course I have not yet communicated and they may refuse or be unable to sell, or grant a right of way – I explained in a former letter that on the whole, it would be the easiest plan to transport the ores by the canal three quarters about one and a half miles to another part of my property from beyond the ornamental part and land them at a wharf from whence I a line could be made to the Great Western with tolerable facility – I should only have to purchase one field, from a man who I think would sell it –

As to the expense of transport of ores from on this railway loop line from the canal to the Great Western Railway, it may be one shilling or two shillings a ton, although I should think rather in my as far as I can form an opinion For. You may put the cost of transport in a cart on a common road at nine pence per ton per mile – on a tramway a horse can draw three or four times as much, which diminishes the expense in the same proportion – A Stationary engine would diminish it much more, and soon repay the cost of construction. But these are matters for more properly for an Engineer to consider. I think it will be better not to change alter the agreement to reserve hold ten acres “in reserve” – This It has the advantage of being clear and unambiguous. If certain events take place then the ten acres are to be leased – and if not, not. I do not see that it makes any material difference whether I reserve ten acres for two or three years or include them in the original lease, Your understanding not to execute any works in them during that time If therefore it would be a more regular proceeding, I would accede to it I But I am ready to agree to the clause “three years from 1 January, 1859.”

These I believe are the most material points to which you adverted to in your last letter –

< hr>

Notes:

1. Nethermore Farm and Wood, Lacock, Wiltshire.