<draft>

Saunders/

Nov 9 / 57

I am much obliged by y^r l^r. It is a v^y fair princ^ple t estab^sh y^t y^e ch^rge for carr^ge sh^d dimin^sh acc^g to a certⁿ scale, as the qua n^o of tons carr^d increases

It was at 1^st pposd t br^g y^e my ore by Canal to Chip^m But we find y^t 9^d a ton is asked for carriage f^m y^e Canal wharf to the railwy.

To avoid this diffic^ty I sh^d be glad t know wh^r th. is not some point on y^e railway ab^t 8 or 9 m– f^m Ch^m between it & Wⁿ Bassett, where y^e line comes so near to y^e canal that y^e ore can be shifted f^m y^e 1 to y^e o^r without at trifling expense – I am not acq^d w^th that part of y^e line myself, but think that this accommodⁿ must be the case somewh. or might easily be managed – It is a great very desirable for us to get rid of this extra charge By this means we sh^d get rid of this extra ch^ge w^ch is v^y desirable ^(K)

It is understood y^t y^e GWR have agreed with y^e G.W. Iron Comp^y / carry their ore on y^e terms of

I have not heard I know not wh^{r If} the GWR carry _^^ore for Mess^rs Sarl & Co on y^e same _^^{or similar} t^ms w^ch I have not heard mentioned, it appears to me that the carri charge for the carriage of a ton of ore f^m Chip^m to Wlhⁿ the dist^ce _^^{by the GWR} being 129 miles by the G.W.R. will am^t to 4/9

plus the terminal charges whatever they are

I request you will inform me wh^r this calcⁿ is correct, _^^or if not, what the figu in what respect it is erron^s

I have for the sake of simplicity I have made the supposⁿ that the quant^y of ore to be sent w^d equal that sent by Messrs Sarl. Of course, I understand that, in y^e case of the quant^y is smaller y^e charge will be proport^ly greater, but I want sh^d be glad to know first of all to know precisely to know precisely the charge for 129 miles railway carriage of the ore, supposing the quantity carried to be equal.

I am unable to state at pres^t the probable n^o of tons to be conveyd – I see no reason why y^e works sh^d not be carried on, on a large scale –

<at top of r/h side, passage marked for insertion>

(K) Hence I sh^d be glad of any informⁿ on this point.

<expanded version>

Saunders/

November 9, 1857

I am much obliged by your letter. It is a very fair principle to establish that the charge for carriage should diminish according to a certainscale, as the quantity number of tons carried increases.

It was at first proposed to bring my ore by Canal to Chippenham. But we find that nine shillings a ton is asked for carriage from the Canal wharf to the railway. To avoid this difficulty I should be glad to know whether there is not some point on the railway about eight or nine miles from Chippenham between it and Wooton Bassett, where theline comes so near to the canal that the ore can be shifted from one to the other without at trifling expense – I am not acquainted with that part of the line myself, but think that this accommodation must be the case somewhere or might easily be managed – It is a great very desirable for us to get rid of this extra charge By this means we should get rid of this extra charge which is very desirable. Hence I should be glad of any information on this point.

It is understood that the Great Western Railway have agreed with the Great Western Iron Company to carry their ore on the terms of I have not heard I know not whether the Great Western Railway carry ore for Mess^rs Sarl & C^{o <1>} on the same or similar terms which I have not heard mentioned, it appears to me that the carriage charge for the carriage of a ton of ore from Chippenham to Wolverhampton the distance by the Great Western Railway being 129 miles by the Great Western Railway will amount to four shillings nine pence plus the terminal charges whatever they are.

I request you will inform me whether this calculation is correct, or if not, what the figure in what respect it is erroneous. I have for the sake of simplicity I have made the supposition that the quantity of ore to be sent would equal that sent by Mess^rs Sarl. Of course, I understand that, in the case of the quantity is smaller the charge will be proportionately greater, but I want should be glad to know first of all to know precisely to know precisely the charge for 129 miles railway carriage of the ore, supposing the quantity carried to be equal.

I am unable to state at present the probable numberof tons to be conveyed – I see no reason why the works should not be carried on, on a large scale –

---

Notes:

1. Sarl & Company, London.