Mr. Williams, in _Our Iron Roads_, gives much interesting information
upon the subject of compensation for land and buying off opposition to
railway schemes. He says:—“One noble lord had an estate near a proposed
line of railway, and on this estate was a beautiful mansion. Naturally
averse to the desecration of his home and its neighbourhood, he gave his
most uncompromising opposition to the Bill, and found, in the Committee
of both Houses, sympathizing listeners. Little did it aid the projectors
that they urged that the line did not pass within six miles of that
princely domain; that the high road was much closer to his dwelling; and
that, as the spot nearest the house would be passed by means of a tunnel,
no unsightliness would arise. But no; no worldly consideration affected
the decision of the proprietor; and, arguments failing, it was found that
an appeal must be made to other means. His opposition was ultimately
bought off for twenty-eight thousand pounds, to be paid when the railway
reached his neighbourhood. Time wore on, funds became scarce, and the
company found that it would be best to stop short at a particular portion
of their line, long before they reached the estate of the noble lord who
had so violently opposed their Bill, by which they sought to be released
from the obligation of constructing the line which had been so obnoxious
to him. What was their surprise at finding this very man their chief
opponent, and then fresh means had to be adopted for silencing his
objections!
“A line had to be brought near to the property of a certain Member of
Parliament. It threatened no injury to the estate, either by affecting
its appearance or its intrinsic worth; and, on the other hand, it
afforded him a cheap, convenient, and expeditious means of communication
with the metropolis. But the proprietor, being a legislator, had power
at head-quarters, and by his influence he nearly turned the line of
railway aside; and this deviation would have cost the projectors the sum
of _sixty thousand pounds_. Now it so happened that the house of this
honourable member, who had thus insisted on such costly deference to his
peculiar feelings respecting his property, was afflicted with the dry
rot, and threatened every hour to fall upon the head of its owner. To
pull down and rebuild it, would require the sum of thirty thousand
pounds. The idea of compromise, beneficial to both parties, suggested
itself. If the railway company rebuilt the house, or paid £30,000 to the
owner of the estate, and were allowed to pursue their original line, it
was clear that they would be £30,000 the richer, as the enforced
deviation would cost £60,000; and, on the other hand, the owner of the
estate would obtain a secure house, or receive £30,000 in money. The
proposed bargain was struck, and £30,000 was paid by the Company. ‘How
can you live in that house,’ said some friend to him afterwards, ‘with
the railroad coming so near?’ ‘Had it not done so,’ was the reply, ‘I
could not have lived in it at all.’
“One rather original character sold some land to the London and
Birmingham Company, and was loud and long in his outcries for
compensation, expatiating on the damages which the formation of the line
would inevitably bring to his property. His complaints were only stopped
by the payment of his demands. A few months afterwards, a little
additional land was required from the same individual, when he actually
demanded a much larger price for the new land than was given him before;
and, on surprise being expressed at the charge for that which he had
declared would inevitably be greatly deteriorated in value from the
proximity of the railway, he coolly replied: ‘Oh, I made a mistake
_then_, in thinking the railway would injure my property; it has
increased its value, and of course you must pay me an increased price for
it.’
“On one occasion, a trial occurred in which an eminent land valuer was
put into the witness box to swell the amount of damages, and he proceeded
to expatiate on the injury committed by railroads in general, and
especially by the one in question, in _cutting up_ the properties they
invaded. When he had finished the delivery of this weighty piece of
evidence, the counsel for the Company put a newspaper into his hand, and
asked him whether he had not inserted a certain advertisement therein.
The fact was undeniable, and on being read aloud, it proved to be a
declaration by the land valuer himself, that the approach of the railway
which he had come there to oppose, would prove exceedingly beneficial to
some property in its immediate vicinity then on sale.
“An illustration of the difference between the exorbitant demands made by
parties for compensation, and the real value of the property, may be
mentioned. The first claim made by the Directors of the Glasgow Lunatic
Asylum on the Edinburgh and Glasgow railway is stated to have been no
less than £44,000. Before the trial came on, this sum was reduced to
£10,000; the amount awarded by the jury was £873.
“The opposition thus made, whether feigned or real, it was always
advisable to remove; and the money paid for this purpose, though
ostensibly in the purchase of the ground, has been on many occasions
immense. Sums of £35,000, £40,000, £50,000, £100,000, and £120,000, have
thus been paid; while various ingenious plans have been adopted of
removing the opposition of influential men. An honourable member is said
to have received £30,000 to withdraw his opposition to a Bill before the
House; and ‘not far off the celebrated year 1845, a lady of title, so
gossip talks, asked a certain nobleman to support a certain Bill, stating
that, if he did, she had the authority of the secretary of a great
company to inform him that fifty shares in a certain railway, then at a
considerable premium, would be at his disposal.’
“One pleasing circumstance, however, highly honourable to the gentleman
concerned, must not be omitted. The late Mr. Labouchere had made an
agreement with the Eastern Counties Company for a passage through his
estate near Chelmsford, for the price of £35,000; his son and successor,
the Right Honourable Henry Labouchere, finding that the property was not
deteriorated to the anticipated extent, voluntarily returned £15,000.
“The practice of buying off opposition has not been confined to the
proprietors of land. We learn from one of the Parliamentary Reports that
in a certain district a pen-and-ink warfare between two rival companies
ran so high, and was, at least on one side, rewarded with such success,
that the friends of the older of the two projected lines thought it
expedient to enter into treaty with their literary opponent, and its
editor very soon retired on a fortune. It is also asserted, on good
authority, that, in a midland county, the facts and arguments of an
editor were wielded with such vigour that the opposing company found it
necessary to adopt extraordinary means on the occasion. Bribes were
offered, but refused; an opposition paper was started, but its conductors
quailed before the energy of their opponent, and it produced little
effect; every scheme that ingenuity could devise, and money carry out,
was attempted, but they successively and utterly failed. At length a
Director hit on a truly Machiavellian plan—he was introduced to the
proprietor of the journal, whom he cautiously informed that he wished to
risk a few thousands in newspaper property, and actually induced his
unconscious victim to sell the property, unknown to the editor. When the
bargain was concluded, the plot was discovered; but it was then too late,
and the wily Director took possession of the copyright of the paper and
the printing office on behalf of the company. The services of the
editor, however, were not to be bought, he refused to barter away his
independence, and retired—taking with him the respect of both friends and
enemies.”