[draft:]

Cottrell
March 4 / 58

I fear we sh^ll h^{dly shll not} be able t come to a n _^^satisfy agr^mt at pres^t, ∵ our opin^s w^th resp^t to y^e val. of y^e ore, are diff^t

If so, I sh^ll regret it, ∵ I th^k we sh^d get on v^y well together in y^e relatⁿ of lessor & lessee ; Whatev^r terms I agree to I sh^ll endeav^r t cary out fully on my part & I have no doubt y. w^d do y^e same

So m^ch y^e more ∴ do ^But these terms require a _^^very careful considⁿ _(K) If ever the ore comes to be smelted on y^e spot, i.e. on y^e banks of y^e canal, by an indep^t Comp^y, it is manifest y^t y^e lessee of y^e ore will derive a v^y large profit

But suppos^g such comp^ny not to be formd, at least not for some years, do me y^e favor to cast your eye on the annex’d calcⁿ of the cost of transpt^g y^e ore to a distant market, upon w^ch my opinⁿ is founded

If there are any errors in it please to point them out as of course it alters the questⁿ if the facts are erron^s.

(K) I think that in an affair of this kind the landlord and lessee sh^d derive someth^g like an equal pecun^ry adv^tage, but acc^g to y^r plan y^e lessee w^d get y^e lion’s share

		Obsns
raisg ye ore & bringg down to Canal, 1s or say	1.6
loading on barges	3
carriage to Swindon (Z)	2.6	contract offer’d to me, on those terms
Railwy carriage thro’ Glocester to Newport, Monmsh. 82 miles at 7/16d	3.0	from informn of Mr Saunders Secy GWR
terml charges on rlway	9
Wear & tear of waggons	3
other casualties	3
(W)	8.6

(Z) includ^g load^g on railway trucks.

Altho’ you only engage to raise 20000 tons ann^lly, y sp^k rath^r confid^y of its reach^g 50,000 tons or more. Of course, if a greatly enlarged qu^ty is raised, that is a good reason for accept^g a lower royalty, – But we cannot afford to deal w^th uncertⁿties

But this prospect is quite uncertⁿ and on y^e other hand

It is poss. y might not go beyond y^e strict terms of y^r agreem^t

Alt and In that case the sum rec^d by y^e lessor w^d be only lessor w^d only rec^ve £1000 p^r ann f^m y^e w^rkg of y^e mines and this I must say is inadqte to y^e value of y^e property

For ^{in ye 1st place you} from it must be deducted ^{deduct from it} the compensⁿ _^^payable to the tenant farmers, the & _^^then you might also Set ag^st it, the inconv^ce of a gen^l change of system on that part of y^e estate & the disturb^ce of the prop^y – the land being _^^probably left at y^e expir^atn of y^e lease suppos^g _after the ore is work’d out in a very doubtful _deteriorated state, at least I apprehend so; – W^d it as far as I can judge of it

[new sheet; boxed off at top right] 2

Cottrell March 4. 58

For these reas^ns I th^k _^^that y^e sum ment^d by you _^^is inadeq^te & that it w^d not be w^rthwhile

At y^e same time I _^^shall propose _ask noth^g exaggeratd & if y will make raise y^r offer £1500 per ann – a few hundreds by modifying y^e royalty I will accept it – The modificⁿ to be as follows – The royalty to be _^^{my estimate} ⅛ p^r ton upon the first 20,000 tons raised in each y^r reck^g f^m the 1^st Jan^y – at that point, the royalty to drop to one shill^g p^r ton during the remainder of y^e year whether you raise 50,000 tons or any other number. I need not trouble you w^th y^e calc^ns It is evid^t that y^e larger _greater y^e n^o of tons raisd y^e less this differs f^m y^r own proposal, on an average of y^e whole q^y rais’d.

W) Suppos^g ∴ ^if the ore to be sold at

Newpt for	15s	there is a profit of	6.6 pr ton
if for	13	– –	4.6
if for	11	– –	2.6

Minus the royalty – w^ch has therefore to be estimated on fair grounds

[on right hand page]

Thanks for the interest you manifest in my researches in the Shrewsb^y peerage claim – I have really become exceedingly interested ab^t it & h^ve found some good evid^ce ab^t this – espec^ly ab^t y^e pedigree of W^m Talbot B^p of Durham (ancest^r of Earl Talbot) – The oppos^g Counsel have started a most extraord^y objectⁿ namely that _{to the tablet} w^ch that B^p rais’d in 1724 to his father’s Mem^y in Kinver church Staff^dsh. – They say that the B^p may possibly have rais’d that tablet to y^e mem^y of M^r W^m Talbot _^^{of Kinver} as his father, well know^g that he was not his father, who was another M^r W^m Talbot quite diff^t and _^^perhaps no relation of the Shrewsbury family – To which it may be replied, first, that Bish^ps do not _never do that sort of thing – and secondly that the deeds preserved at Lacock Abbey seem to leave no doubt whatever that the Bishop’s parentage was what he asserted. I believe the betting is in favor of Earl Talbot, but his case will be thrown back by losing his leading Counsel Sir F. Thesiger, and also I suppose Sir F. Kelly, who as Att^y Gen^l ought to watch y^e case on y^e part of y^e Crown –

I remain
D^r Sir
Y^rs truly

[expanded version:]

Cottrell
March 4, 1858

I fear we shall hardly shall not be able to come to an satisfactory agreement at present, because our opinions with respect to the value of the ore, are different.

If so, I shall regret it, because I think we should get on very well together in the relationship of lessor and lessee ; Whatever terms I agree to I shall endeavour to carry out fully on my part and I have no doubt you would do the same.

So much the more therefore do But these terms require a very careful consideration. I think that in an affair of this kind the landlord and lessee should derive something like an equal pecuniary advantage, but according to your plan the lessee would get the lion’s share. If ever the ore comes to be smelted on the spot, i.e. on the banks of the canal, by an independent Company, it is manifest that the lessee of the ore will derive a very large profit.

But supposing such company not to be formed, at least not for some years, do me the favor to cast your eye on the annexed calculation of the cost of transporting the ore to a distant market, upon which my opinion is founded. If there are any errors in it please to point them out as of course it alters the question if the facts are erroneous.

		Observations
raising the ore and bringing down to Canal, 1s or say	1.6
loading on barges	3
carriage to Swindon (Z)	2.6	contract offered to me, on those terms
Railway carriage through Gloucester to Newport, Monmouthshire 82 miles at 7/16d	3.0	from informion of Mr Saunders Secretary GWR
terminal charges on railway	9
Wear and tear of waggons	3
other casualties	3
(W)	8.6

Supposing therefore if the ore to be sold at Newport for 15s

Newport for	15s	there is a profit of	6.6 per ton
if for	13	– –	4.6
if for	11	– –	2.6

Minus the royalty – which has therefore to be estimated on fair grounds 8.6

Although you only engage to raise 20,000 tons annually, you speak rather confidently of its reaching 50,000 tons or more. Of course, if a greatly enlarged quantity is raised, that is a good reason for accepting a lower royalty, – But we cannot afford to deal with uncertanties But this prospect is quite uncertain and on the other hand It is possible you might not go beyond the strict terms of your agreement. Alteratively and In that case the sum received by the lessor would be only lessor would only receive £1,000 per annum from the working of the mines and this I must say is inadequate to the value of the property. For in the first place you from it must be deducted deduct from it the compensation payable to the tenant farmers, the and then you might also Set against it, the inconvenience of a general change of system on that part of the estate and the disturvance of the property – the land being probably left at the expiration of the lease supposing after the ore is worked out in a very doubtful deteriorated state, at least I apprehend so; – Would it as far as I can judge of it.

For these reasons I think that the sum mentioned by you is inadequate and that it would not be worthwhile. At the same time I shall propose ask nothing exaggerated and if you will make raise your offer £1,500 per annum – a few hundreds by modifying the royalty I will accept it – The modifiation to be as follows – The royalty to be my estimate one shilling eight pence per ton upon the first 20,000 tons raised in each year reckoning from the first of January – at that point, the royalty to drop to one shilling per ton during the remainder of the year whether you raise 50,000 tons or any other number. I need not trouble you with the calculations. It is evident that the larger greater the number of tons raisd the less this differs from your own proposal, on an average of the whole quantity raised.

Thanks for the interest you manifest in my researches in the Shrewsbury peerage claim ^<1> – I have really become exceedingly interested about it and have found some good evidence about this – especially about the pedigree of William Talbot, Bishop of Durham (ancestor of Earl Talbot) ^<2> – The opposing Counsel have started a most extraordinary objection namely that to the tablet which that Bishop raised in 1724 to his father’s Memory in Kinver church Staffordshire – They say that the Bishop may possibly have raised that tablet to the memory of Mr William Talbot of Kinver as his father, well knowing that he was not his father, who was another Mr William Talbot quite different and perhaps no relation of the Shrewsbury family – To which it may be replied, first, that Bishops do not never do that sort of thing – and secondly that the deeds preserved at Lacock Abbey seem to leave no doubt whatever that the Bishop’s parentage was what he asserted. I believe the betting is in favor of Earl Talbot, but his case will be thrown back by losing his leading Counsel Sir Frederick Thesiger, ^<3> and also I suppose Sir Fitzroy Kelly, ^<4> who as Attorney General ought to watch the case on the part of the Crown –

I remain Dear Sir Yours truly

---

Notes:

1. Henry John Chetwynd Talbot, 18^th Earl Shrewsbury, 5^th Baron Talbot (1803–1868), succeeded Bertram Arthur, the 17^th Earl, after the latter’s death 10 August 1856. The succession was contested by James Robert Hope Scott and Lord Edmund Bernard Fitzalan Howard (by his guardian Hon. Albert Henry Petre) in the Court of Chancery in January and February of 1858, and Lord Talbot’s Petition of Appeal was brought before the Committee of Privileges in the House of Lords 12 March 1858, and resolved in the summer of that year. [See Journals of the House of Lords, v.90].

2. Sir Frederick Thesiger, 1^st Baron Chelmsford (1794–1878), had become Lord Chancellor in February 1858.

3. Sir Fitzroy Kelly (1796–1880), Attorney-General February 1858 through June 1859.

4. Right Reverend William Talbot (ca.1658–1730), Bishop of Durham