Early Days of Rail - Poor Rate

[White Ant]

This is one for the rail historians from the early days of the London to Birmingham link. There is an article in the Railway Times of 30th December 1848 which discusses the London and North Western Railway appealing a Poor Rate for the village of Church Lawford, near Rugby - the Railway passes through a deep cutting there. I don’t really understand if this suggests the rail companies had to pay towards the Parish rate in some way. Hopefully the clip will attach here.

 

[Taunton]

It's long been tax law that railway installations are exempt from business rates and their predecessors (which is what this is). Only the actual railway part, so viaducts are exempt but not businesses renting the arches underneath - although the S&T storing items in the next arch would be.

In passing those annual amounts shown above seem extraordinarily high for a rural parish in 1848.

 

[stuving]

It's long been tax law that railway installations are exempt from business rates and their predecessors (which is what this is). Only the actual railway part, so viaducts are exempt but not businesses renting the arches underneath - although the S&T storing items in the next arch would be.

In passing those annual amounts shown above seem extraordinarily high for a rural parish in 1848.

What is "long" compared to the age of the railways? There were similar arguments going on much later, even well into the 20th century. Here, for the town (really a village) of Fowey in Cornwall, figures quoted in 1939 for then and for 1915 show rateable values and rates bills of:
1915: RV £4557 for railways out of £16110 total, rates £1671 out of £5907
1939: RV £850 for railways out of £16746 total, rates £619 out of £12210

So the commercial value of the railways - what rent you could charge for using one - had dropped a lot, too much to be offset by the doubling of the rates poundage. Going back to 1840, what was the going rate for a railway company to pay the company that built the railway? This was common early on, though usually the railway was bought soon after. By 1915 the rental values were theoretical, of course.

I suspect the initial charge was based on the cost of buying the land and building the railway, which was very high (railways were built as a "licence to print money"). How much of the railway was leased after the 1870s? I imagine not a lot so, in the absence of real rents, the old ones were used and kept RVs high.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

So, what exactly was a "Poor rate"? Some welfare-related / poor relief levy Imposed on property owners by a local parish, ostensibly to pay for the cost of alleviating poverty in the area?

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

What is "long" compared to the age of the railways? There were similar arguments going on much later, even well into the 20th century. Here, for the town (really a village) of Fowey in Cornwall, figures quoted in 1939 for then and for 1915 show rateable values and rates bills of:
1915: RV £4557 for railways out of £16110 total, rates £1671 out of £5907
1939: RV £850 for railways out of £16746 total, rates £619 out of £12210

So the commercial value of the railways - what rent you could charge for using one - had dropped a lot, too much to be offset by the doubling of the rates poundage. Going back to 1840, what was the going rate for a railway company to pay the company that built the railway? This was common early on, though usually the railway was bought soon after. By 1915 the rental values were theoretical, of course.

I suspect the initial charge was based on the cost of buying the land and building the railway, which was very high (railways were built as a "licence to print money"). How much of the railway was leased after the 1870s? I imagine not a lot so, in the absence of real rents, the old ones were used and kept RVs high.

Fowey is probably a bad example - the Cornish mining industry had largely collapsed by the 1880s, together with the consequent rail traffic. The 1920s revaluation reflected the new situation - it was not until the '30s and the heavy GWR investment that china clay traffic boomed.

 

[stuving]

Here's an example of how railway leases were costed at the start, from the RGRR (now the North Downs Line). This cost £800,000 to build, and the SER backed the project with a promise to lease the line for 5.5% on the first £600,000 and 4% on the final £200,000. That gave total of £41,000 for the whole line which was 45 miles long.

When the SER bought the line in 1852 they gave shareholders £1 6d in perpetuity per £20 share, which would be rather higher. However, it was not 100% guaranteed if the company made no profit; this was rare with SER. So the rental income per mile was about £900, not out of line with the £750 or £500 in the Church Lawford example.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Feb 2026 ==

So, what exactly was a "Poor rate"? Some welfare-related / poor relief levy Imposed on property owners by a local parish, ostensibly to pay for the cost of alleviating poverty in the area?

Mainly it paid the operating cost of the Poor Law - running workhouses, including staff and feeding and clothing the inmates, and any out relief that went on after the 1834 act (which was meant to stop that). The 1834 act led to unions of several rural parishes to build and run a workhouse jointly, administered by a board of guardians.

There were other rates as well, levied by other bodies, such as sanitary, police, or county rates. The cost of these went up during the 19th century, and into the 20th. Eventually these were combined into the "rates" - which was a plural a result.

 

[ThirteenArches]

So, what exactly was a "Poor rate"? Some welfare-related / poor relief levy Imposed on property owners by a local parish, ostensibly to pay for the cost of alleviating poverty in the area?

I think some unpleasant sort of prejudice is showing through in this comment. As well as evidence of not listening in school.

Read Oliver Twist. The "poor rate" was what it cost to buy Oliver gruel under Bumble the Beadle's "care". And to keep granny in the workhouse when she was finally beyond working. You'd find crippled ex- labourers there too. Perhaps grandad, but couples were kept separately. It was more like jail for being desperate than "alleviating poverty". People would starve rather than apply for it.

 

[LickeyIncliner]

So, what exactly was a "Poor rate"? Some welfare-related / poor relief levy Imposed on property owners by a local parish, ostensibly to pay for the cost of alleviating poverty in the area?

Adding to the posts from @stuving : the "rate" was so called because it was (and for business rates, still is) defined as a proportion of the assessed value, which was (and is) based on what the property in question might be leased for. The proportion was usually defined as so many shillings and pence to be paid each year per pound of assessed value. So if the rate was one shilling in the pound, the LNWR would have had to pay £25 per year for each mile assessed at £500 per mile. (If they had to pay - @Taunton post #02 suggests not.)

 

[Mcr Warrior]

I think some unpleasant sort of prejudice is showing through in this comment. As well as evidence of not listening in school.

Nope. Just ignorance. Simply hadn't heard of the term before.

Understanding context is important to avoiding misinterpretation.

 

[LickeyIncliner]

I think some unpleasant sort of prejudice is showing through in this comment. As well as evidence of not listening in school.

That's unnecessarily unpleasant in itself. I for one went to an excellent school, but the history I was taught covered nothing more recent than the Tudors. And contemporaries who continued with history were much more likely to be taught about the growth of the British empire during the nineteenth century than about the treatment of the poor at home

 

[stuving]

Railways certainly did pay rates! Even during WW1, when they were under government control and allowed an income based on their 1913 profits (which involved a large subsidy.), they paid based on pre-war valuations.

Then the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act 1930 took "railway hereditaments" out of the standard valuation process (local valuation committees) and created the Railway Assessment Authority to do it instead. This did a valuation on standard principles (based on net receipts) of each railway as a whole, which could then be divided up between the rating bodies so the total was right. In its first year the authority used financial data for 1928 and 1929.

So note that the "big four" were still paying rates at what was arguably the traditional level. But if they started losing money their rates would, presumably, eventually fall to zero! This system did, I think, continue through WW2, no doubt with fictitious numbers. Then, at nationalisation, their rates were replaced by a central government grant, and then became part of the support grant system. From then on the railway itself was not rated.

Non-railway properties owned by railways - houses, hotels, refreshment rooms etc. - were valued and rates were paid like any such properties.

 

[Elecman]

Railways certainly did pay rates! Even during WW1, when they were under government control and allowed an income based on their 1913 profits (which involved a large subsidy.), they paid based on pre-war valuations.

Then the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Act 1930 took "railway hereditaments" out of the standard valuation process (local valuation committees) and created the Railway Assessment Authority to do it instead. This did a valuation on standard principles (based on net receipts) of each railway as a whole, which could then be divided up between the rating bodies so the total was right. In its first year the authority used financial data for 1928 and 1929.

So note that the "big four" were still paying rates at what was arguably the traditional level. But if they started losing money their rates would, presumably, eventually fall to zero! This system did, I think, continue through WW2, no doubt with fictitious numbers. Then, at nationalisation, their rates were replaced by a central government grant, and then became part of the support grant system. From then on the railway itself was not rated.

Non-railway properties owned by railways - houses, hotels, refreshment rooms etc. - were valued and rates were paid like any such properties.

The railways in the early 1970s till privatisation had a Cumulative rating set by government thst was used by companies such as the water board to establish thier entitlement to a water rate for Signalboxes/PWay cabins and Track Sectioning cabins where they had a water supply

 

[WesternLancer]

So, what exactly was a "Poor rate"? Some welfare-related / poor relief levy Imposed on property owners by a local parish, ostensibly to pay for the cost of alleviating poverty in the area?

Yes. Exactly that.

The levy on local rate payers to provide for workhouses and ‘poor relief at home’ ie dole money but then as now largely money for the elderly who were poor in an era before any state pension. Relief at home being far cheaper than keeping people in a workhouse.

It’s basically the pre 1948 social security system which was pretty residual and fell back on parish rate payers based on the poor laws originally passed during the reign of queen Elizabeth 1.

A system that became increasingly unsustainable as uk moved from an agricultural to industrial economy thanks in part of course to the railway.

Some principles of it still exist. Most obviously local councils providing or paying for care for people with limited funds or savings, either care support at home or care home fees. Funded via the council tax and the ballooning costs of which are driving many or even most councils towards ‘bankruptcy’.

 

[Brightonboy]

Mainly it paid the operating cost of the Poor Law - running workhouses, including staff and feeding and clothing the inmates, and any out relief that went on after the 1834 act (which was meant to stop that). The 1834 act led to unions of several rural parishes to build and run a workhouse jointly, administered by a board of guardians.

Each union was only required to support the sick and poor of the parishes that formed that union. My own great grandmother was admitted (with 3 very young children) to a union workhouse in Sussex where the Guardians assessed that she had no legitimate claim on any parish in that union, so she (and the surviving children - 1 died in the workhouse) were forcibly removed back to the workhouse covering her birthplace in Kent.

 

[WesternLancer]

Each union was only required to support the sick and poor of the parishes that formed that union. My own great grandmother was admitted (with 3 very young children) to a union workhouse in Sussex where the Guardians assessed that she had no legitimate claim on any parish in that union, so she (and the surviving children - 1 died in the workhouse) were forcibly removed back to the workhouse covering her birthplace in Kent.

A sad story but I suspect it untypical.
And again with its modern equivalent

If you present yourself as homeless to a local council today they will assess your ‘local connection’ according to a set of standard criteria. If the deem you not to have a local connection they will send you off to another council where they think you do. In some cases they might even happily pay the bus fare to move you on.
Local councils today perform the role that parish unions once performed.

 

[Pigeon]

A railway company whose line happened to pass through a parish otherwise inhabited by one farmer and two crows could easily be the largest ratepayer in that parish as a result, and the total for all such parishes they passed through could be quite a large sum; they were often complaining about it and trying to get it reduced on the grounds of it being disproportionate.