Now! Then! The Leeds and Liverpool Canal appeals the prices illegally set by Bingley landowners for the compulsory purchase of their ground

22 April 1771: The Leeds and Liverpool Canal appeals the prices illegally set by Bingley landowners for the compulsory purchase of their ground

H.F. Killick. 1900. Notes on the Early History of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. Bradford Antiquary, Vol. 1 (New Series). Ed. Charles A. Federer. Bradford: Bradford Historical and Antiquarian Society. Get it:

Excerpt

Mr Ferrand was naturally well satisfied with his own valuation of his own compensation [£90-160 per acre], and he treated the demand of a jury with scorn, put it in his pocket and pretended that it was not proper. The commissioners adjourned and decided to take the opinion of counsel on the subject, and as counsel advised that the company were acting legally they very reluctantly issued a warrant to the sheriff to summon a jury for the 22nd April, at the Queen’s Head, Bingley. By this time, no doubt, public interest had been excited in the conflict between the company and the landowners, and the attendance was so large that the accommodation afforded by the Queen’s Head proved inadequate, and the commissioners for greater convenience adjourned to the Methodist chapel. The landowners raised technical objections which were overruled, and the jury were sworn and the proceedings were adjourned again to the Queen’s Head, when a shower [one who shows] was appointed, after which the lands were viewed by the jury. The proceedings seem to have lasted two days, and to have been partly conducted at the inn and partly at the chapel. The jury awarded as follows: Mr Starkie from £75 to £85 per acre; Mr Thomas Busfield £50 to £90 per acre; Mr Fell from £30 to £75 per acre; Mr Rhodes and Mr Staveley £75 per acre; Lord Bingley £75 per acre; Mr Ferrand £75 to £80 per acre; Mr Smith £80 per acre; Bingley School Trustees a rent charge of £4 per acre. There was thus a substantial reduction by the jury of the commissioners’ figures, and the appeal of the canal company was successful.

Order the book

Subscribe to the free daily email

To facilitate reading, the spelling and punctuation of elderly excerpts have generally been modernised, and distracting excision scars concealed. My selections, translations, and editions are copyright.

Abbreviations

Comment

To be fair, who was on the jury, and did they have an interest in the success of the canal?

Something to say? Get in touch

Original

We will now return to Yorkshire and pursue the history of the dealings between the company and the hard-hearted landowners of Bingley who “was” desirous, as Mr. Garforth plaintively reports, of giving all the trouble they could. The commissioners, after several adjournments, met at the Elm Tree Inn, Bingley, on 20th March, 1771, and the committee of the company attended the meeting. The minutes of the committee tell the story very simply and graphically. The obstructive landowners seem to have been Edmund Starkie, Esq., Mr. Abraham Broadley, Mr. Timothy Lister, Thomas Busfield, Esq., Solomon Fell, Esq., Mrs. Rhodes, Mr. Staveley, Lord Bingley, Benjamin Ferrand, Esq., The Rev. Mr. Smith, and the Trustees of Bingley School. The minutes state that “the commissioners for valuing the ground for the canal in the Parish of Bingley being met at the place above-mentioned, and no agreement being likely to be come to with the landowners, and the majority of the commissioners present being chiefly landowners on the line of the canal, and it being given out that an extravagant price, would be fixed on such ground, it is ordered by this committee that notices be prepared in readiness in case such an extravagant price should be fixed by the commissioners, requiring a jury to inquire and assess the lands to be cut through. And in the evening of the same day the commissioners made a report of the value of such lands as they had gone through, and which appeared, and truly was a most extravagant price. And the said committee then ordered the notices to be delivered, and demanded a jury, which was accordingly done, but the commissioners not giving orders for such warrant, the committee then ordered a warrant to be prepared and offered to the commissioners, which Benjamin Ferrand, Esq., one of the commissioners then present, put in his pocket pretending it was not a proper one.” The conduct of Mr. Ferrand on this occasion was certainly open to hostile criticism. He had qualified as a commissioner by taking the necessary oath at the Elm Tree Inn, Bingley, on 13th February, 1771, when the commissioners had adjourned to March 20th, and thus thought it proper to do so when the value of his own lands was one of the questions which the commissioners met to decide. He had previously been favorable to the scheme, had subscribed £10 10s. 0d. to the expense of the survey, and was a member of the committee appointed at Bradford in January, 1769. I do not find, however, that he subscribed for any shares, and he is certainly not named as a shareholder in the act. Be that as it may, he thought it right as a commissioner to sit in judgment upon the assessment of compensation to himself and his neighbours, and that although the Act (s. 75) provided that no person should act as a commissioner where he was concerned in the matter in question. The minutes of the commissioners themselves shew that the commissioners present were Robert Arthington, Benjamin Dickinson, Joshua Hartley, Henry Waugh, Samuel Hutton, Johnson Atkinson, William Dixon, Roger Swire, Robert Stansfield, and Benjamin Ferrand, who had already qualified, and James Lister, John Smyth, Richard Clayton, Henry Hemingway, and John Cockshott, who qualified at the meeting. Mr. Peter Watkinson and Mr. Joseph Mason had previously qualified and had been objected to as interested, but the objection was now over-ruled and they were allowed to act in the matter in question. They viewed the lands and assessed the compensation as follows:—

Mr. Starkie from £76 to £86 per acre; Mr. Broadley £80 per acre; Mr. Timothy Lister £80 per acre; Mr. Busfield from £78 to £100 per acre; Mr. Fell from £25 to £80 per acre; Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Staveley from £80 to £90 per acre; Lord Bingley from £70 to £80 per acre; Mr. Ferrand from £90 to £160 per acre; Mr. Smith £140 per acre; Bingley School Trustees £140 per acre.

These figures, as the minutes of the canal committee shew, excited their indignation and led them to demand a jury. The valuation was signed by Mr. Ferrand, Mr. Swire, Mr. Watkinson, Mr. Johnson Atkinson, Mr. Stansfield, Mr. Cockshott, Mr. Lister, Mr. Mason, and Mr. Dixon. In the cases of Mr. Broadley and Mr. Timothy Lister, the canal committee seem to have decided to accept the commissioner’s valuation of £80 an acre, and then so far as they were concerned the matter ended. Mr. Ferrand was naturally well satisfied with his own valuation of his own compensation, and according to the minutes of the committee which I have already quoted, he treated the demand of a jury with scorn, put it in his pocket and pretended that it was not proper. The commissioners adjourned and decided to take the opinion of counsel on the subject, and as counsel advised that the company were acting legally they very reluctantly issued a warrant to the Sheriff to summon a jury for the 22nd April, 1771, at the Queen’s Head, Bingley.

By this time, no doubt, public interest had been excited in the conflict between the company and the land-owners, and the attendance was so large that the accommodation afforded by the Queen’s Head proved inadequate, and the commissioners for greater convenience adjourned to the Methodist Chapel. The landowners raised technical objections which were over-ruled, and the jury were sworn and the proceedings were adjourned again to the Queen’s Head, when a shewer was appointed, after which the lands were viewed by the jury. The proceedings seem to have lasted two days, and to have been partly conducted at the Inn and partly at the chapel. The jury awarded as follows: —
Mr. Starkie from £75 to £85 per acre; Mr. Thomas Busfield £50 to £90 per acre; Mr. Fell from £30 to £75 per acre; Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Staveley £75 per acre; Lord Bingley £75 per acre; Mr. Ferrand £75 to £80 per acre; Mr. Smith £80 per acre; Bingley School Trustees a rent charge of £4 per acre.
There was thus a substantial reduction by the jury of the com- missioners’ figures and the appeal of the canal company was successful.
The minute of the canal committee recording their meeting at the Elm Tree, at Bingley, on this April 22nd, 1771, is as follows:—
“The commissioners met this day and impannelled a jury for settling the value of the ground to be cut through for the use of the canal, belonging to Edmund Starkie, Esq., Thomas Busfield, Esq., Solomon Fell, Esq., Mrs. Sarah Rhodes, and Miles Staveley, Lord Bingley, Benjamin Ferrand, Esq., the Rev. W. Smith, and the Trustees of Bingley School, and the jury going to view the lands, and it being apprehended they could not finish such view before to-morrow night, the commissioners adjourned until Wednesday morning. Ordered that Mr. Leach, Mr. Blakey, Mr. Balme, and Mr. Garforth be requested to attend during the jury’s taking their view, so that the landowners or any other persons do not interfere with them, and the bailiffs take care to execute the charge given them.”

1165 words.