Volume Eight - Pre-Victorian to the present day - more aspects - To dredge the River Ely - 1860's

- nevertheless I consider the Company has been in no way inconvenienced - but on the contrary much benefited by the delay, for most assuredly, had that portion of the River been deepened as intended - the Embankment on the other side would have been in the River before this, severely injuring the Harbour - and as you do not now in consequence, require the Contract fulfilled - and although I have as before stated expended more than the Contract sum on the worth, I do not expect to be paid the whole - but consider that I am intitled (entitled) to be paid for 13,000 Yards @ 1/- = £650 - or at least the ammount of my agreement with Mr. Mitchell to complete the work.

I have given you Gentlemen as far as I know the facts of the case - and beg that you will be kind enough to accede to them - for my losses by this Contract have been of nervous consequence to me - and Cash at present is much required.

The response from the Board dated 29th July 1862 is not in to be found within the file from the National Archives, however, it seems that they were entirely unsympathetic to Mr. Hardie's claim for payment, indeed they appear to blame him entirely for his non-fulfilment of the Contract. Subsequently, a reply dated the 9th August 1862 from Mr. Hardie in reference to their letter states:

'I beg to differ with the opinion therein expressed - that the Contract had been broken by me - so far from that being the case - your notice of the 8th of August 1860 stated that unless I forthwith proceeded with the work - that you would do so and charge the expense to me - as you did not proceed with the work yourselves . . .'

Mr. Hardie enclosed his revised statement of account and ends the letter 'An early payment will oblige.'