disputes it; and they ultimately agree upon the full amount to be paid and all that is to be done by the company for the landowner. However destructive to the comfort and happiness of an individual it may be to have a railway pass rather close to him, unless it goes over land that belongs to him, he has no kind of claim?--I think it is so. I know that a case has occurred under our railway acts of Parliament where damage was done to an adjoining owner; but he was not actually on the line; he was not in the book of reference. We had nothing to pay him for going over his land; we simply passed by him; and, in making a bridge approach, the road in front of his house was much raised, and we put him to positive inconvenience. I remember this case where the road was thus raised in front of a gentleman's house:-He used to go from his garden to the road upon a level, but after this alteration he had to come out of his garden-gate, and walk up three or four steps to reach the road. He was not an owner upon the line, and he contended unsuccessfully before arbitrators that the company were bound to pay him compensation. But I know that since that case the courts of law have construed the railway acts so that any person placed in a similar position is entitled to compensation, and that he can go to a jury to settle what the compensation to be paid him should be (a). But if a gentleman's house is merely injured by the noise, or in respect of the sight of the railway, in matters of that kind I doubt very much indeed whether the act of Parliament would, give compensation to such a party: you must have something more close in point of injury than that as to groundwork for compensation. In the case I have mentioned the raised road was quite close to the person's dwelling, and was an evident and palpable mischief to him; but in the case of the sight of the railway, or the noise of the railway trains or engine, or matters of that kind, those injuries are too far off from compensation for the acts of Parliament to reach them; at least I apprehend so. I apprehend, that, unless the owner of a house situated in the position of being annoyed by the sight or noise was an owner upon the line, he would not be able to recover compensation.

You have as good a right to erect an embankment opposite a person's house, upon land which belongs to you, as any other owner would have to erect a house there?-Yes, for the public object sanctioned by act of Parliament.

Report and Evidence on Compensation.

(a) See ante, 213.

You say that you paid five or six and twenty years' purchase for a house: if you take the whole house and premises, are any additions made to the value for annoyance of removing?—Yes; we always ascertain what fixtures are destroyed.

Is any addition made for the annoyance of a person being compelled to change his domicile?—That is covered by the number of years' purchase. We give a higher rate than the market value, to cover the compulsory sale and the annoyance of moving.

You said just now that the average rate was twenty to twenty-six years for buildings: is that a rate which you consider higher than the market price?-Certainly it is, upon our line, where property is of a very low class indeed.

What should you consider the average market price?—It depends upon the class of property. I am speaking of houses in London; down in Shoreditch and Spitalfields, and thereabouts.

Can you state how many years, in addition to what you consider the market price, you are in the habit of giving for house property? -I believe, that, to cover the compulsory sale and annoyance, and so forth, something like five or six years' purchase is added to the actual market value of the house.

Then the market value, according to that rate, would be about fifteen to twenty years' purchase?-It depends upon the property the railway goes through. In the property which the Eastern Counties Railway goes through at Shoreditch the houses are of a very low description, and in those cases the property is not worth above fourteen or fifteen years' purchase.

And it depends also upon the state of repair of the property?— Certainly.

Do you think, that, upon the average, the houses of the workmen in Spitalfields are not worth more than from fifteen to eighteen years' purchase?—I am not competent to give an opinion on that point.

In the case of large houses in the country, that certainly would not describe their value?-It would not. It depends upon the class of tenants, and whether there is a lease. There are a great many details which must be looked at in the valuation of a house. If the house has not had a tenant for three or four years, you cannot get the same for it as you can if a tenant has a lease of it for fourteen years, who is a responsible tenant.

Besides which, is not it the fact that a large country house never

pays a rent equal to its cost? For example, suppose a house cost 10,000/., it would not let for above 2007. a year in the country?Very likely not.

Therefore thirty years' purchase upon such a rent as that would be a very inadequate sum to pay?-There is no doubt, that, if a railway company takes a house that has cost 10,0007., they do not pay 10,0007. for it; they only pay what could be got for it, what it would sell for, together with the additional compensation for taking it compulsorily.

But supposing you turn the proprietor out of his house?—Parliament does it.

Ought you not to pay him for it?-We do compensate him to the full extent of its value, and a good deal more. If he wants to preserve his house, and to prevent its being taken for a public work, he must go to Parliament, and beg their protection for his house. Parliament gives the company leave to go through it, on paying what it is worth.

Then his only way of protecting himself is to get the bill thrown out?-To get the bill thrown out, or to make the company deviate. He may be quite certain that you will not pay the full value of the house?-We will not pay what it cost. There would be no end to that; we might pay the most fanciful prices.

Supposing a person had spent 10,000l. upon building a house, and he had not been able to live in it since he had built it, but that he had let it to a tenant, and he had not been able to get for it, at the end of five or six or ten years since it had been built, more than 100%., 2007., or 3007. a year, should you compensate him upon the principle of taking the value of the property at what it had cost him, namely, 10,000l., or should you compensate him upon the principle of taking the value of the property at the sum it let for, whether it was 100%., 2007., or 300l. a year?-There is no doubt that we should take it upon the latter principle, adding anything to the price that we thought ought to be paid; and if we are in error there is a tribunal to appeal to, namely a jury, to settle whether he is right, or whether the company be right. The jury give him as much as they think fit, and we are obliged to pay what the jury award. If, upon the evidence given, they choose not to adopt our valuation, but instead that of the house owner, we are obliged to submit to the verdict; but he is obliged to submit to it if the jury take the company's view.

In a case where a railway goes in front of an old ruin, for instance,

Report and Evidence on Compensation.

Report

and Evidence on Compensation.

Gervoise Abbey, or Bolton Abbey, or any other well known abbey, and goes near it, so as to spoil entirely the picturesque effect of the abbey, on what principle do you compute your compensation?—I am not aware of any such case; but I rather think the company would be advised, and that they would consider that the public utility must prevail, and that they should pay nothing for any loss of beauty, or anything else. If a company went through the grounds of the proprietor to whom the abbey belonged, or if they went so near the ruin as to prevent the erection of a house on the same spot if that was contemplated, if the course of the line would touch his pocket injuriously, we should have to pay for that; but I think that for the mere destruction of an object of beauty or interest we should not have to pay anything. If a party went before a jury, and there was any claim set up of that kind, we should fight it very resolutely.

On the ground that the party was entitled to no compensation for injury to a ruin?—Yes; that it could be no injury to his pocket, and therefore, he had nothing to receive.

However hallowed the ruin might be in his estimation?—That is so. He must come to Parliament, and pray of Parliament not to grant a bill for a railway to run near so beloved a place. But if it was a beautiful spot, he should get a station made near it, and turn it into building land.

Mr. John Clutton examined:

Are you one of the solicitors of the South-eastern Railway Company?—I am land agent of the South-eastern Railway Company.

Can you give any information to the Committee respecting the price which has been paid for the land taken by that railway company, including the price of the land, compensation for severance and other damages?-Each case has depended upon its own merits entirely; I think the total sum is about £600,000.

For how many miles of railway is that?—They have on the whole about 120 miles, including works in course of construction.

That is, upon the average, 6000l. a mile?—Yes.

Does that include a great deal of house property?—It includes the Bricklayers' Arms branch and the Dover terminus. I think those are the largest portions of house property taken by the Dover Railway. The London terminus is the joint terminus of the three companies, the Dover, the Croydon, and the Brighton.

Then 6000l. a mile would be considerably larger than what may

be considered as having been paid for land?—Yes; I should state that about 30007. a mile would be the average upon the Dover Railway, including the branches, for land simply.

How many acres a mile?—It varies so much. On many of the branch lines it has not exceeded ten acres a mile. Upon the main line, where the works are much heavier, I suppose the quantity has been at least fourteen to fifteen acres a mile. I am merely giving opinions now; I have not gone into the figures precisely.

Can you give to the Committee more detailed and accurate information?-If your Lordships desire it. I am now purchasing land for the Dover Railway Company, which would cost, I suppose, about 30007. a mile.

That is mere land?-Nearly so.

That comprises both the severance and compensation?—Yes; that is upon the Canterbury and Ramsgate and Margate branch. I can give accurate information as to those two branches, because they are more particularly in my recollection.

In some part of the Dover Railway is not the quantity taken less than ten acres to a mile?-I do not think we take so little as that anywhere.

Not near the coast?-In many places near the coast we have taken a great deal more than that. In all the part between Folkestone and Dover I should think it would be double that amount, because the cuttings and embankment are very heavy indeed there.

What is the usual width you can be content with?--I never saw it taken at less than a chain wide, and that would give eight acres to a mile: that we always take without cuttings or embankments.

How many years' purchase are given?-I have universally given, since the funds have been at their present price, thirty-three years' purchase to begin with.

How many years' purchase for severance?-That must depend upon the amount of damage done.

How many years' purchase have yo ever given for severance?Many hundred per cent. in some cases. I will mention a case, in which twenty-five acres of land were valued at 25007., and the amount given was upwards of 10,000l. That would be 4007. per cent. upon the value of the land for severance and consequential damage.

In the ordinary case of going through a farm, where you cut a field in half, and pay 1007. an acre for thirty-three years' purchase

Report and Eridence on

Compensation.