Forms of Compensation to Land Owners in Victorian Times

[Andy873]

If you wished to build a new railway line in Victorian times, the chances of having to go through a Lord's or Baron's land was high if not impossible to avoid.

To that extent, what sorts of compensation did these land owners receive / insist on?

You would have to agree on a price for the land the line was to run on.
This meant splitting in many cases several / many fields usually run by local farmers on your land.
And then there are the wood's / plantations which you might have to go through.

These plantations were there to supply wood, many had saw mills nearby. Then there's the wildlife, pheasants, etc.

Lastly, you could demand your own halt / station...

So my question(s) is / are, have I missed anything (probably!)?
What other forms of compensation did these land owners insist on?
Did they sell the land required at a much higher rate than it was worth?

Thanks,
Andy.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Presume in inner city places like Camden in North London, the slum tenants received no compensation whatsoever and just got turfed out / evicted and it was the landlords who received the compensation (if any)?

 

[Gloster]

This is a question with a thousand answers. Some landowners, a few, were generous and gave the the land to the company or accepted only a token sum. However, most would try to push the builders to buy the land as at as high a price as possible. Others would do their best to have the line diverted or stopped, although this had to be done while it was going through the parliamentary process, and they sometimes succeeded. Even so, they could still be downright obstructive during construction. Demanding your own station or that you could have any train stopped at your demand at a normal station, or even private waiting rooms, the right to approve staff, etc. also appeared.

You could also require, and this was a standard requirement, for bridges or crossings to be built between the halves of a property that had been divided: these still exist as Occupation Crossings or Bridges. That might apply for the most unimportant farmer, but much of the rest depended on how much clout you had.

As far as the products of the land were concerned, that would be included in the calculation of the purchase price. I have read of cases where a whole property would be purchase if it would no longer be viable due to the loss of land when the railway was built: whether this was standard practice or something that could be put in during the parliamentary process I do not know.

Presume in inner city places like Camden in North London, the slum tenants received no compensation whatsoever and just got turfed out / evicted and it was the landlords who received the compensation (if any)?

Indeed. The landlords got the money and the tenants got the boot. There were cases where the railway did build housing or supply land cheap as part of the deal, St Pancras or Marylebone were examples, I think. The cynic in me wonders if this was the nobs worrying that a shortage of housing might result in a shortage of wage-slaves and them having to pay, horror of horrors, a better wage.

 

[Morayshire]

Also worth bearing in mind that not all land was bought outright. Up in Scotland some railways used long term feuing (think that is the term) of the land where the landowner retained ownership but the railway got to build its line on it. Which potentially makes life interesting once line closures or rebuilds happen. The Great North of Scotland Railway (GNoS) used this method (source is David Ross in his history of the GNoS) and I think others did as well.

 

[Merle Haggard]

There was no compulsory purchase in the early days of railway development. In the case of the London & Birmingham the Grafton Estate (Catlethorpe - Roade area, I think) was amenable to sale but from Blisworth Northwards the number of Pendos' Tilts in alternate directions is indicative of the unwillingness of the landowners in that area to sell, resulting in a zig-zag route around unwilling landowners.

At Ashton, part of the Grafton Estate, the L&B's embankment went through the centre of the village. Some houses were obliterated under the embankment and others were reversed; the road they faced was now beneath the embankment and their former backs were converted to fronts, facing a new road probably built by the L&B. One farmhouse in the path of the embankment was replaced, and a new one was built to the East - this was to Grafton standard design but presumably paid for by the L&B. Roads became dead ends including one for which the L&B built a pointless bridge, because the road now petered out in a field. Presumably the Grafton Estate thought that they could receive financial compensation if not profit from being acquiescent. A curious coincidence, or possibly not, is that the current Duke of Grafton's residence is Euston Hall (nowhere near either Grafton Regis or London Euston!).

 

[Haywain]

It's also notable that much of the railways was built on low value land, alongside rivers, estuaries and the coast because this wasn't farmland. So routes were not just selected according to the terrain but also the willingness of landowners to sell and the price they demanded.

 

[Helvellyn]

Some landowners would try to re-parcel land to avoid farms being split by the railway. This was repeated with Motorway building in the Twentieth Century. I believe the Lowther Estate (Earls of Lonsdale) did this when the M6 was being built and may have done similar when the Carlisle and Lancaster Railway was built.

 

[Rescars]

Some landowners agreed only once appropriate civil engineering arrangements (even including tunnels) had been agreed so as not to spoil the view.

The Duke of Sutherland paid for much of the Far North line and in return got a private station at Dunrobin and agreement to run his own train on the line. Others will know more, but IIRC the cab of the loco was rather more lavishly appointed than most to make it more comfortable for the Duke when he chose to travel on the footplate.

Indeed. The landlords got the money and the tenants got the boot. There were cases where the railway did build housing or supply land cheap as part of the deal, St Pancras or Marylebone were examples, I think. The cynic in me wonders if this was the nobs worrying that a shortage of housing might result in a shortage of wage-slaves and them having to pay, horror of horrors, a better wage.

With regard to St Pancras, the was public outcry about the chaotic destruction of Old St Pancras churchyard. Thomas Hardy (prior to becoming famous as a novelist) was involved in bringing some order and respect to the reinterments. Amongst various unexpected happenings was the case of a coffin which broke open to reveal one body and two heads!

 

[Snow1964]

With regard to St Pancras, the was public outcry about the chaotic destruction of Old St Pancras churchyard. Thomas Hardy (prior to becoming famous as a novelist) was involved in bringing some order and respect to the reinterments. Amongst various unexpected happenings was the case of a coffin which broke open to reveal one body and two heads!

By the time Waterloo was about to be rebuilt (1899 onwards), they respected the poor living in slums more. The expansion was 6.5 acres and took in 6 streets, and part of at least 2 other streets, and included demolition of All Saints Church. To house the displaced, 6 large blocks were built housing 1750, which was more than displaced number. It's a while since I read up on Waterloo but think these are off Westminster Bridge Road

 

[etr221]

There was no compulsory purchase in the early days of railway development.

My understanding is that the enabling acts for the construction of lines included compulsory purchase powers. And the terms of these varied, being part of the give and take of getting the relevant bill passed - if you were a (land owning) peer who stood to lose a lot you were able to argue strongly against it, so it was worth the company 'buying' you off.

As stated above many of the later urban projects had conditions in their acts over regarding rehousing, etc, those whose homes were demolished. The Great Eastern in particular had onerous requirements over provision of workmen's trains at very low fares from places like Walthamstow, for those evicted when Liverpool Street Station was constructed. But the conditions of the labouring class were such that 1d or 2d a day was more than they could afford, making the inner East End slums even more overcrowded.

Such workmen's trains were reasonably common on many railways lasting (as early morning return fares) well into British Railways era (c 1960?)

 

[Merle Haggard]

My understanding is that the enabling acts for the construction of lines included compulsory purchase powers. A into British Railways era (c 1960?)

I'm still not convinced - see the 'Battle of Saxby' involving 'Lord Harborough's Curve' - in summary, the Midland Railway's surveyors met with stiff opposition from the landowner eventually escalating to a pitched battle. For years afterwards the Midland route described a crescent around the property.
In the case of the L & B Bill; for example the opposition to the Bill in the House of Lords by Lords Clarendon and Essex was dropped when the alignment was re-routed to avoid their land. Remember that the construction of a railway involved the passing of the Bill for it receiving the approval of the two Houses, and particularly the Lords was composed in a major part of landowners. It would be interesting to know why the Duke of Grafton was so enthusiastic towards it, but he might have been a shareholder, or a better negotiator of compensation.
With the wonders of the web details of the to-ing and fro-ing to transform Bills to Acts can all be read. I haven't included links because the results are verbose, but enquiries such as 'opposition to the London & Birmingham Railway by landowners' or 'the Battle of Saxby' produce contemporary reports and documents.

 

[DarloRich]

you could always offer Lord Snootington his own private station by way of a backhander such as at Broomielaw on the Darlington and Barnard Castle Railway!

 

[RT4038]

By the time Waterloo was about to be rebuilt (1899 onwards), they respected the poor living in slums more. The expansion was 6.5 acres and took in 6 streets, and part of at least 2 other streets, and included demolition of All Saints Church. To house the displaced, 6 large blocks were built housing 1750, which was more than displaced number. It's a while since I read up on Waterloo but think these are off Westminster Bridge Road

When Marylebone Station was built, the residents of the slums were moved to 6 (?) large blocks of flats known as Wharncliffe Gardens, at the junction of Lisson Grove and St. John's Wood Road, near the GCR Marylebone Coal yard. (1st Earl of Wharncliffe was chairman of board when the London Extension was started - there is a Wharncliffe Road at the side of Loughborough Central station too).

 

[Haywain]

When Marylebone Station was built, the residents of the slums were moved to 6 (?) large blocks of flats known as Wharncliffe Gardens, at the junction of Lisson Grove and St. John's Wood Road, near the GCR Marylebone Coal yard. (1st Earl of Wharncliffe was chairman of board when the London Extension was started - there is a Wharncliffe Road at the side of Loughborough Central station too).

The Wharncliffe Estate can still be found at that same location and, notably, features a Henderson Drive through the middle of it (Henderson having been chairman of the GCR).

 

[Rescars]

Naming parts of the railway estate after directors and other notables was quite widespread - the Verney's did rather well with a whole junction in their name. Sometimes it was rather more modest recognition, such as the name of a banqueting suite in a hotel (eg the Abercorn Rooms at Liverpool Street), or of course locomotives. Usually something reasonably impressive (eg the GCR's Butler Henderson). Collett's little pleasantry of suggesting naming his archaic looking Dukedogs after earls on the GWR board seemed to leave some of the directors unamused!

 

[alf]

One of the conditions for acquiring the land for High Level Station Savernake(on the proposed line from Andover north west to Andoversford via Swindon) was that the land owner, the Marquess of Ailesbury(yes Ailesbury), was to be built a private waiting room on the Andover & LSWR direction south bound platform.

When the M&SWR line closed pre Beeching, BR wrote a begging letter to the then current Marquis of Ailesbury asking if he would be prepared to buy the station buildings, the signal box, the water tower & the three acres back for £600.
He graciously agreed.
He converted the private waiting room into a garden shed for lawn mowers & it is now the garage for the station house.

An acquaintance of mine bought the lot from the subsequent Marquis of Ailesbury for £28,000 in 1977.
£28,000 bought a decent sized terraced house in Fulham London in 1977.

 

[Andy873]

Thanks for all the replies.

I've taken a couple of days to read and digest the replies and decided to go back and look at maps, re-read the L&Y's Acts of Parliament...

Firstly, all the L&Y Acts dating from around the mid 1860's did have included in them the compulsory purchase clause should it be needed.

Secondly, some Lords were indeed hostile to the idea of a line coming though their land, but some welcomed them.

Sorry I have to go back to the North Lancashire loop line again but it gives you an idea of what may have happened time and time again around the country.

This branch line was only nine miles and yet as I count up the L&Y had to deal with at least five major land owners all of which were at least Lords and some were Barons. These influential people were all pro railway in this case. There was only three stations on the line but all of them are no more than about 1 mile away from three estates. One of these Lords even proposed (with others) to build this line before the L&Y which got the railway company "hoping mad" as it was in part of their heart land.

Please bare with me on this - this line was submitted to Parliament in two bills (no one knows why!) however the second bill extending the line from Padiham to Rose Grove included a one furlong branch off this new line right into Lord Shuttleworth's estate (Gawthorpe Hall) - compensation perhaps? In the end, Parliament granted the rest of the line but not this short stretch into the Gawthorpe estate.

One bit of compensation Lord Shuttleworth received was for a bridge which was in the way and it is reported he was "amply compensated" for its removal.

This line by the way cut through no less than six woods / plantations - Am i right in thinking the land owner would want more money for doing this? And just when (as a railway company) do you enter into negotiations with the land owners?

 

[Merle Haggard]

I did hear a story about an unfortunate experience of a member of the Landed Gentry which might be apocryphal - I found it sad but amusing.
The gentleman in question had land close to the route of the London & Birmingham. The only other railway at the time was the G.W. so people didn't know what to expect.
When the line opened the passage of trains irritated him to the extent that he sold up. To make sure he didn't have the same problem again he looked at all the maps and decided on a pleasant area where no railway could possibly be built.
The place he chose? A quiet backwater with a wonderful coast. A few hundred yards inland. Dawlish.

 

[Rescars]

I did hear a story about an unfortunate experience of a member of the Landed Gentry which might be apocryphal - I found it sad but amusing.
The gentleman in question had land close to the route of the London & Birmingham. The only other railway at the time was the G.W. so people didn't know what to expect.
When the line opened the passage of trains irritated him to the extent that he sold up. To make sure he didn't have the same problem again he looked at all the maps and decided on a pleasant area where no railway could possibly be built.
The place he chose? A quiet backwater with a wonderful coast. A few hundred yards inland. Dawlish.

Must have seemed a pretty sensible decision at the time. I mean, why would anyone choose to build a railway along the side of a storm-prone tidal estuary........? An atmospheric location in every sense, not just the original choice of traction!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Must have seemed a pretty sensible decision at the time. I mean, why would anyone choose to build a railway along the side of a storm-prone tidal estuary........?

A question which has quite possibly been asked just about every single winter in the 175+ years since.

 

[Andy873]

Question please - What does "Revival of powers for the compulsory purchase of lands" mean in the context of a proposed bill to Parliament?

I've looked at a few railway bills and they tend to be placed in those proposed bills for extension of time to build line X.

 

[Gloster]

Question please - What does "Revival of powers for the compulsory purchase of lands" mean in the context of a proposed bill to Parliament?

I've looked at a few railway bills and they tend to be placed in those proposed bills for extension of time to build line X.

I think that when various powers related to the construction of a line in the Act we’re passed by Parliament, they had a specific time limit in which the purchases or powers were to be used. If the company failed to do all that was required within the time given, the powers lapsed. So they had to apply for an extension of the time limit in order to be legally able to carry out or complete the process. I presume that this was to avoid planning blight or corrupt speculation.

 

[Rescars]

No doubt there would also have been delays (and the risk of the powers lapsing) if the required capital was not as forthcoming as rapidly as had been anticipated initially by the promoters.

 

[Eyersey468]

When the York to Beverley line was built it only got as far as Market Weighton at first as the then Lord Hotham refused to sell land to the railway, eventually he agreed on the condition a station was built for him, this became Kiplingcotes station

 

[stuving]

I've been looking for examples of land acquisitions in my usual source*, the minutes of the RGRR board. The editor of the book comments that the RGRR was relatively well-run and well funded; its directors were mostly businessmen in London, locally, or both. They were able to employ competent contractors, as well as land agents and solicitors for their land dealings.

The Railway's act gave it powers but they were expected to negotiate a deal with the landowner. This process started before the act was passed, and many landowners would submit petitions to Parliament against the act as proposed. Some were "genuine NIMBYs", who had (or felt they had) good reasons to fear the railway being built. Some were just causing a fuss as a tactic to extract a better price.

The company wanted to get most of these contrary petitions withdrawn early in the Parliamentary process, so in some cases would offer a price well above market rates. In other cases they felt they could overcome the objections, and offered less. The asking price was often nearly twice what was offered.

In many cases no agreement was reached, and some form of arbitration was used to fix the price. This might be the type commonly used in business - one assessor from each party and a mutually acceptable umpire. In the majority of cases it was a jury that set the price, and there are also a few references to "the justices" being called on (I think to provide a valuation where the owner could not take part).

These procedures were set out in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (1845 CHAPTER 18), which starts with "An Act for consolidating in One Act certain Provisions usually inserted in Acts authorizing the taking of Lands for Undertakings of a public Nature." The RGRR's first act was passed in 1846, so they would be working to these rules.

One particular case on the RGRR was Reigate Lodge. Robert Stevenson was appointed as consultant to oversee the company's own engineer (Francis Giles) and in his survey (presumably the pair of them walked the whole route!) he observed that the line would be so close to this house that they would have to offer to buy it, and thus the whole estate. This they did, reselling it for a loss (their net acquisition cost).

But Smith was hardly a NIMBY. He was a director of the London & Birmingham Railway, as was Ross Donelly Mangles MP, Guildford banker and director of the RGRR. Both of them were listed as promoters of many other railways during the 1840s. So he was quite happy to sell in 1847 - he'd only bought the place in 1840 - but they still had a rather tetchy wrangle about the terms of the arbitration process.

* I should perhaps cite the book (I've referred to it before): Minutes of the Board of Directors of the Reading, Guildford, and Reigate Railway Company; edited by Edwin Course; Surrey Record Society Volume XXXIII, 1987 ISBN 0 902978 08 X. Currently £5.60 from AbeBooks, if you're interested (and have any shelf space left).

 

[Pigeon]

I'm still not convinced - see the 'Battle of Saxby' involving 'Lord Harborough's Curve' - in summary, the Midland Railway's surveyors met with stiff opposition from the landowner eventually escalating to a pitched battle. For years afterwards the Midland route described a crescent around the property.

AIUI he was especially concerned about one particular subsection of the land which the originally-proposed course of the railway went very close to, on an alignment more similar to the current one or possibly even gentler. So the railway's first idea was to put it in a tunnel. But the local geology was not conducive to having a big long hole made in it while retaining its stability, and the consequent landslide fairly thoroughly rogered the special section of land that he had been so concerned about in the first place. Which made oi larf.

Despite the land now being rogered, though, the railway still didn't use that route. Instead they changed it to the cse of old rly as shown on OS maps that we are familiar with, no doubt partly because of the amount of steam coming out of his ears but also partly to avoid building the line through the unstable bit.

 

[Merle Haggard]

AIUI he was especially concerned about one particular subsection of the land which the originally-proposed course of the railway went very close to, on an alignment more similar to the current one or possibly even gentler. So the railway's first idea was to put it in a tunnel. But the local geology was not conducive to having a big long hole made in it while retaining its stability, and the consequent landslide fairly thoroughly rogered the special section of land that he had been so concerned about in the first place. Which made oi larf.

Despite the land now being rogered, though, the railway still didn't use that route. Instead they changed it to the cse of old rly as shown on OS maps that we are familiar with, no doubt partly because of the amount of steam coming out of his ears but also partly to avoid building the line through the unstable bit.

Interesting, thanks.

On the subject of not upsetting the neighbours purpose of the legislation requiring railways to be fenced - which was to be put up as the first stage of construction - was not what you might guess. It was to keep the railway workers inside the site and not trespass on the adjoining land. A recently published book, Cutting Remarks - the story of Roade's Railways gives an interesting insight into what happens when a large gang of railway navvies arrive at a small village - in this case, to dig a deep cutting.

 

[Andy873]

Yes, @Pigeon's post is very interesting as is @stuving's.

The Railway's act gave it powers but they were expected to negotiate a deal with the landowner. This process started before the act was passed, and many landowners would submit petitions to Parliament against the act as proposed. Some were "genuine NIMBYs", who had (or felt they had) good reasons to fear the railway being built. Some were just causing a fuss as a tactic to extract a better price.

The company wanted to get most of these contrary petitions withdrawn early in the Parliamentary process, so in some cases would offer a price well above market rates. In other cases they felt they could overcome the objections, and offered less. The asking price was often nearly twice what was offered.

In many cases no agreement was reached, and some form of arbitration was used to fix the price. This might be the type commonly used in business - one assessor from each party and a mutually acceptable umpire. In the majority of cases it was a jury that set the price, and there are also a few references to "the justices" being called on (I think to provide a valuation where the owner could not take part).

These procedures were set out in the Land Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (1845 CHAPTER 18),

Thanks for that, it helps me visualise the process at lot clearer. As for a landowner demanding their own halt or station, I think most of us would agree it was a common practice of the time.

Question - As a railway company, did you have the right to cross a landowner's fields etc in order to do a survey?

The reason why I ask if the L&Y had to survey part of the land needed to build my branch line of interest, however, this landowner was part of a group of other landowners, Lords, Earls etc whom proposed to build this branch line first... They submitted a proposed bill to Parliament, just four days later the L&Y did the same thing!

How would you survey a proposed line so quickly when you need to go onto lands owned by a potential rival?

 

[infobleep]

When Marylebone Station was built, the residents of the slums were moved to 6 (?) large blocks of flats known as Wharncliffe Gardens, at the junction of Lisson Grove and St. John's Wood Road, near the GCR Marylebone Coal yard. (1st Earl of Wharncliffe was chairman of board when the London Extension was started - there is a Wharncliffe Road at the side of Loughborough Central station too).

Interesting that they named them after someone living. I work in street naming and numbering and we no longer permit buildings or roads to be named after living people. Local councillors can overrule us, though, on this.

I know when the section of line between Lewes and East Grinstead was first closed, it then had to be reopened as the original act required certain stations to have a service.

They only reopened those named in the act though. Then it eventually closed after going through the correct procedures in parliament.

 

[Tester]

I know when the section of line between Lewes and East Grinstead was first closed, it then had to be reopened as the original act required certain stations to have a service.

They only reopened those named in the act though. Then it eventually closed after going through the correct procedures in parliament.

The 'Sulky Service'!

Edited:

Which, I'm impressed to see, comes top of an online search therefor.