Chapter II: Part 2

If any such circumstances had existed in an agreement between private subjects, there is no question but that both the awards would have been easily set aside; but with the crown for an antagonist, and the equity side of the exchequer for the scene of action, a contest was indeed desperate, in the face of the enmity of a leading agent of the powerful party; so that after Mr. Elsee had presented a memorial to the commissioners, who were _induced probably by some misrepresentations from going into the merits of the case_; and after having disputed the validity of the general award, on the trial of an information in the nature of an action for debt, filed upon it by the Attorney General, the result was what might be very naturally anticipated, from the conditions of the agreement which he had been entrapped to sign. He was compelled to pay the sum that had been awarded, and to bear the additional expence of his useless endeavour to protect his own interests. At this period the losses of Mr. Elsee amounted to _about three thousand pounds_, but he was destined to be a still greater sufferer. We have before mentioned that the Attorney General filed an exchequer process for certain dung, claimed under the agreement, instead of the more simple, cheap, and equitable mode of sending the matter for assessment to a sheriff’s jury. Now, though Mr. Elsee had no business to have signed such a document, he was of course bound by its conditions when he had done so, and was ready to comply with them, and to carry back two loads of dung for every load of hay, and one load of dung for every load of straw carried off.—The dung was ready for the purpose; and he only waited _to know what was to be brought_, _and to obtain credit for what he had carried_, _which he never had been able to do_.

The exchequer process terminated in a reference to Mr. Bolland, whose general reputation stands on high ground; but who appears in this instance _to have wanted that degree of practical knowledge_, _which was requisite to enable a referee to appreciate the value of the testimony given on both sides of the question_; and it is difficult to guess at the principles that governed the decision, except on the supposition _that Mr. Bolland is a better lawyer than he is a farmer_.

Mr. Elsee attended to prove that he had carried _a large quantity of dung_, which he estimated, and proved by his witnesses, left 130 ton to his credit, _after deducting the quantity in return for the wheat straw_. He then shewed by his _books_, in which the accounts of every day had been regularly entered, in a way that set all contradiction and suspicion at defiance, and by the production of the market tickets, that the gross amount of all the hay carried from the farm, amounted to 119 loads; and that the account stood as follows:—

All the hay and straw taken from the farm 107 2 0 consisted of 119 loads of hay, weighing 18 cwt. per load 47 loads of straw, at their estimation, 27 5 0 weighing 11 cwt. 2 qrs. 8 lb. per load 166 loads, or tons 134 7 0

This straw was carried corn and all to Chigwell Row, at 17 loads, with three horses, but called 47 one horse or nominal loads of 11 _cwt._ 2 _qrs._ 8 _lbs._ and the quantity of dung to be returned as under stated:—

47 one horse loads, at 11 cwt. 2 qrs. 8 lbs. 27 5 0 each 119 loads of hay, at 18 cwt. each 107 0 0 Add 119 loads to make two for one 107 0 0 The whole quantity of dung due, in tons 241 5 0

The dung admitted to have been carried, consisted of 143 tons, and therefore about 99 tons in addition would have balanced the account. The value of this dung, at 5_s._ per load was 25_l._ and at _this price any quantity could be obtained at Romford_, _as Mr. Elsee proved by various respectable witnesses_. Yet after this statement, can it be believed that Mr. Bolland should award Mr. Elsee to pay the sum of 336_l._ 16_s._ 6_d._ besides _all the expences of the witnesses on both sides_, and _half the expences of the reference_! To us, this is utterly unaccountable.

Such witnesses on the other side, as Mr. Driver and Mr. Mee, _had their previous conduct to justify_, if possible; and Mr. Driver, who on a former occasion had told Mr. Elsee that he had never heard of more than 27 feet to a load of dung, stated now, upon his oath before Mr. Bolland that _fifty-four feet of spit-dung was a load_, and that too as a set off against a nominal load, namely 36 trusses, weighing 11 _cwt._ while 54 feet of dung weigh 42 _cwt._

Mr. Mee, who was said by Mr. Driver to have a way of his own when be estimated 40 feet to a load, found it necessary to _alter_, but _not to mend his ways_; for not thinking Driver’s jump from 27 to 54 feet would make out the calculation on their side, _even far the one dung-hill which they did measure_, _but never cast up the contents at the time_, he finally came to the conclusion that _sixty feet of dung made a load_!—a piece of information, we are bold to say, that no farmer ever heard of before. {65}

The absurdity and contradiction of the evidence against Mr. Elsee were really preposterous. For instance, Mr. Mee measured six stacks of hay 168½ loads, 250 feet to the load; and Mr. Harding measured the same stacks at 256 loads, 216 feet to the load.

We have already disposed of this question, in page 52, where the principle of _weight for weight_ is clearly defined; and upon this plain principle, it is submitted, _Mr. Bolland ought to have decided_. It was mere nonsense to go into any enquiry as to what was a load; there must be a _determined standard between the things_, or otherwise the condition of the agreement was a _nullity_, and Mr. Mee and Mr. Driver might with equal justice have demanded _barge loads_, or even _ship loads_ of dung, in exchange for _cart loads_ of hay. The obvious intention of the condition is to secure weight for weight for the straw, and double the weight, or two loads for one of hay. When, therefore, the weight of the hay and straw was determined, the required quantity of dung was also determined, and it only remained to be ascertained how much had been carried, and what there was still to be brought; and making every allowance for Mr. Bolland’s want of agricultural information, it is odd that he could overlook so evident a rule of conduct.

Another point to be considered, is that Mr. Elsee _was not permitted to carry the dung so improperly awarded to be due_; but _he was compelled to pay in money_, at the rate of _twenty shillings per load_, when he could have bought it at _five_, and when, besides, he had it already _provided for the purpose_; and the basis of this price was the assertion that _it would cost_ 20_s._ _to fetch a three horse load from London_! Thus the quantity is first exaggerated beyond all reason, and against the evidence of the facts, and then the dung is refused, and a four-fold price demanded in its stead. {67}

The following extract is made from Mr. Elsee’s instructions to his attorney, when the reference was proceeding, and it is inserted to demonstrate that he was desirous of nothing but an equitable adjustment:

“Every thing depends upon proving the quantity of dung, over and
above the small quantity of straw taken away, only 27 tons 13 cwt. 1
qr. 12 lbs, according to their estimation. And they take it
landlord’s measure, 20 acres, instead of 18, and make 40 nominal
loads, when in fact there were only 13. Let us only establish the
quantity of dung, and then I will make the following proposal, as I
have kept a sufficient quantity of dung always by me, on purpose to
carry, whenever I knew how much would satisfy. Let them state the
price of the dung per load, to be paid in money in one month, or the
dung to be delivered in two months, double the weight of the hay
taken a way, that is two loads for one, after allowing for what has
been carried, and let me chose which I will do, and that will save
all disputes about the value of the dung. Or if they like it better,
I will state the price, and they shall chuse either money or dung.”
{69}

In more distinct illustration of the losses of Mr. Elsee, we offer, from _indisputable documents_, _which are ready to be produced_, an abstract of the expences and proceeds, of the farm for the last year of his holding, and also an abstract of the expences consequent upon his signing the agreement prepared by Mr. Driver.

Proceeds of the whole £2606 15 0 farm Expences of cultivation, 1717 17 0 harvesting, &c. Paid Jones and Green 2066 3 10½ Three years interest on 72 0 0 the money for the hay, &c. sold to Mr. Ellis Mr. Driver’s charge for 35 7 0 oat and bean straw valued by mistake Articles that the crown 930 8 0 ought to have paid for 4821 15 10½ Deduct the proceeds 2606 15 0 And we have a LOSS of 2215 0 10½

Besides these losses, Mr. Elsee is a considerable loser by Mr. Mee’s valuing 94 acres of oat and bean straw, namely all the straw upon the farm, when no such thing was ever mentioned, or thought of, either by the new tenant or Mr. Elsee; as the wheat straw and the field are particularly mentioned in the memorandum made at the time, July 14, so that instead of making an allowance for dung upon 96 acres of wheat, at what they call a load, at 2 load to an acre, or 192 load of dung, they have deducted from the valuation of Mr. Elsee’s property 392 load of dung at 12_s._ per load, (as he has been informed) making 215_l._ 12_s._ but afterwards, when they found their mistake, and Mr. Driver and Mr. Mee were fearful that upon this and other points the award would be set aside, Mr. Driver became very cautious, and refused to interfere, saying it was all Mr. Mee’s doing, _and pretty doing it was_.

When Mr. Elsee applied to Mr. Ellis for the payment for some seed beans and land rolls, and the two stacks of hay sold him in September, he said he would pay for the things as valued by Mr. Mee. To this Mr. Elsee objected, and having found Mr. Mee in Romford Market, he told him in the presence of the new tenant that he had no right to mix the property of the crown and what had been sold to the new tenant together; and that as Mr. Ellis wanted to settle, and he wanted his money, if the umpire would look into his books, and say the value of the two hay-stacks, and the wheat straw, although valued ever so low, he would, according to his agreement, take the money, and settle with the new tenant, but that he had no right to mix the things to be paid for by the crown with the other property; and that as to the oat and bean straw, not one word had been mentioned about selling it, by any of the parties, as it was never intended to be sold, _that_ and the hay from the stacks at Windmill Hill being all the cattle had to live upon from Michaelmas to Lady-day; and that as to the award, he was confident it must be set aside, as the allowance for dung to which they had no claim amounted to more than the rent owing to them; and as he had agreed to enable Mr. Driver to fulfil his engagement with the new tenant, by furnishing him with dung for the ensuing crops, the arbitrators surely did not mean to make him pay over again in money. Mr. Mee appeared confused, _and refused to state the value of the hay and straw separately_. With respect to the oat and bean straw, when Mr. Driver found it was not intended to be sold, _he himself furnished Mr. Ellis with the amount_, _and ordered him to deduct it out of the sum to be paid_; _this Mr. Driver could do_, _independent of Mr. Mee_; _but the charge against_ Mr. Elsee _for the_ 188 _load of dung_, and the 7½ _per. cent. for making the charge unjustly_, _he entirely omitted to notice_!

The following additional particulars are to be taken into the account of the sum total of the loss sustained.

Mr. Elsee was obliged to allow for the 96 235 4 0 acres of wheat straw, sold to Mr. Ellis, no less than 392 load of dung, at 12s. per load For the hay to Mr. Ellis 123 load, at two 147 12 0 load for one, 246 load at 12s. per load For the 18 acres of wheat, taken to 50 0 0 Chigwell Row, at 13 load & 4 load of rubbish, Mr. Elsee delivered 200 dung cart load of good rotten dung and chalk, at 5_s._ per load For dung left in farm yard 100 0 0 For 119 load of hay sold, and about 6 load 284 2 0 of rubbish, tops and bottoms, taken away, Mr. Elsee paid in money by Mr. Bolland’s award Expence of award and crown witnesses 54 12 0 Mr. Elsee’s expences in the exchequer, and 320 0 0 the award Being a charge of £1191 10 0 for dung only.

Thus was Mr. Elsee, in one year, deprived of more than _three thousand pounds_, as the result of his anxious desire to oblige the Commissioners, and to accommodate the views of Mr. Driver. To this alone has this injustice—we had almost called it _robbery_—been owing. As a tenant at will, he would have been only liable to his customary rent; he could have carried off his crops, sold the dung, removed his fixtures, and left a worthless occupancy to the crown; but because he was anxious to accommodate himself to the best interests of all parties, _and incautiously put himself in the hands of_ Mr. Driver, he has been marked out for a series of wrongs and oppressions that are scarcely to be credited; but it is yet to be hoped that he may obtain redress. The _blame_ at present may rest only with the inferior agents of the crown, and the Commissioners have the means, nor shall we doubt of their disposition to do right; but if their servants can intercept the claim for justice, there is no step left but an appeal to the legislature to expose the wrong, and prove that the boast of _equal law_ is an idle mockery in England.

We shall now proceed to shew, from the quantity of meadow land, _that no such quantity of hay could have been grown_, _as that for which the dung was claimed_. This we shall do by inserting the following document, of the authenticity of which there can be no question, as it is a copy of the estimated quantity of the land, arable and meadow and pasture, made by Mr. Driver himself, and printed in the proposals for letting the farms, when they were taken by Mr. Ellis.

Particulars of Land from the letting Catalogue.

No. Names of the Fields. Arable. Mead & Pas. Land mown A. R. P. A. R. P. A. R. P. 1 House, homestead, &c. 2 3 1 2 Orchard 2 0 27 3 Plat 2 0 24 4 1 2 0 5 Barn field 13 0 5 12 0 0 6 Lodge field 16 3 32 7 Foreberry 21 3 0 20 0 0 8 Church plain 45 1 12 9 Ditto 0 3 32 10 Lower brook field 17 0 11 11 Ditto 6 3 33 6 0 0 12 Ditto 2 1 39 13 Bourn bridge mead 3 1 24 14 Ditto 13 3 19 12 0 0 15 Lower outer course 14 1 27 16 Lower inner ditto 10 0 4 17 Upper brook field 22 3 0 18 Lodge field ) in one 15 2 14 19 Shedfield hill ) in one 38 1 16 20 Middle inner field 9 3 11 21 Middle outer field 9 0 16 22 Upper ditto 6 3 32 23 Upper inner course 1 2 11 24 Upper inner course 3 3 22 25 Upper inner course 6 2 20 26 34 3 8 32 0 0 27 The twelve acres 14 3 18 28 Windmill Hill 10 2 10 29 Windmill Hill 11 1 19 30 8 0 26 31 Great sand hill 4 0 9 32 17 0 23 33 Little sand hill 9 1 1 34 Eighteen acres 20 0 18 35 Pound field 22 3 0 36 The twenty six acres 28 2 0 37 The new mead 16 2 34 14 0 0 38 The twenty acres 26 2 26 39 Williper hill 23 3 5 40 The fifty acres 46 1 3 44 0 0 The hoppet 3 0 0 392 1 13 192 2 22 143 0 0

The first column contains the quantify of arable, and the second of meadow and pasture land, estimated by landlord’s measure, that is including roads, ditches, &c. This also includes the homestead, farm-yard, &c. places which certainly could not be mowed for hay. In the third column is given the real quantity of land that was mowed, not including the _waste land_, and land newly laid down to grass.

Of the meadow laud, there were 143 acres, which was estimated by Mr. Elsee’s opponents themselves as producing 1¼ load per acre, and this would amount to about 178 loads. There were 81 acres, which was estimated to produce three quarters of a load per acre, and this amounts to about 60 loads. The waste land comprized about 56 acres, which was estimated at half a load an acre, making about 33 loads. Adding these together, we have a total of 271 loads, as the whole produce of the meadow land; and from this is to be deducted 123 loads which were valued to Mr. Ellis, and this leaves only 148 loads to be accounted for by Mr. Elsee. Of this quantity, as appears by his books he has sold 119 loads, the remaining 29 being eaten by his cattle on the premises. Nothing can be clearer than this detail, the facts and figures of which speak for themselves.

Another corroboration of this calculation is to be found in Mr. Mee’s award, (_see page_ 55) which amounts to 384_l._ 18_s._ but deducting 35_l._ 7_s._ for the oat and bean straw, 10_l._ for the chaff, 30_l._ for the fixtures, and 29_l._ 13_s._ for his expences, leaves only 279_l._ 18_s._ for 132 acres of the best meadow land, and 100 acres of wheat straw.

Supposed Expences of this 132 Acres, sold to Mr. Ellis and the Crown, in Three Stacks.

£ _s._ _d._ To bush harrowing, rolling, fencing, 33 0 0 &c. at 5_s._ per acre Mowing, making, carting, stacking, 132 0 0 thatching, &c. at 20_s._ Taxes, interest of capital, and 66 0 0 labour Forty-six acres fallowed in 1813, 138 0 0 ploughing four times, harrowing, rolling, picking, &c. at 60_s._ per acre Twenty five acres of it dunged with 250 0 0 good spit dung, 20 load per acre, at 10_s._ per load Rent and taxes in 1818 upon 46 0 0 forty-four acres Seed for one hundred acres, 250 100 0 0 bushels at 8_s._ Ploughing, sowing, harrowing, 100 0 0 preparing seed, &c. at 20_s._ Hoeing, weeding, and fencing, at 50 0 0 10_s._ per acre Reaping, harvesting, carting, 100 0 0 stacking, thatching, &c. 20_s._ Housing, threshing, dressing, and 100 0 0 carrying out, at 20_s._ Taxes at 10s. per acre 50 0 0 Expences 1165 0 0 Mr. Mee’s 279 18 0 valuation 159 580 11 0 quarters of wheat Produce 860 9 0 Total Loss £304 11 0

An Account of the Hay stacked at Windmill Hill.

£ _s._ _d._ Eighty-one acres of meadow, supposed 20 5 0 to produce one load and a quarter per acre, bush harrowing, rolling, fencing, &c. at 5_s._ per acre Mowing, making, stacking, thatching, 81 0 0 and fencing, at 20_s._ Eleven load cut from stack in 13 15 0 Havering Park in September, at 25_s._ Sixty-five acres not worth ploughing, 50 0 0 which had lain two or three years, and from which Mr. Elsee meant to get a crop of oats the last year, but Mr. Driver and Mr. Ellis both requested him not to plough it; to oblige them, therefore, Mr. Elsee mowed it, and got perhaps half a load an acre, hardly worth the labour, it being chiefly water grass and bracken. Cost of getting in Taxes upon this 146 acres at 10_s._ 73 0 0 per acre From the above produce 119 loads were 140 6 6 sold, the charges on which were as follows:—cart hire 13_s._ binding 3_s._ market hire 4_s._ 1_d._ extra expences and turnpikes 6_d._ truss of hay and feed while loading 3_s._ making together 23_s._ 7_d._ per load £378 6 6 Proceeds, 472 6 0 highest price 3_l._ 18_s._ per load, lowest price 2_l._ 6_d._—119 loads Waste hay, 46 0 0 say worth Total 518 6 0 produce Deduct 378 6 6 expences Net £139 19 6 produce

Expences upon the 20 Acres of wheat carried to Chigwell.

Fallowing in 1818, ploughing four times, 60 0 0 harrowing, rolling, picking, &c Seed wheat, fifty bushels, at 8_s._ per 20 0 0 bushel Ploughing, sowing, &c. 20 0 0 Rent and taxes in 1818 20 0 0 Hoeing, weeding, &c. at 10_s._ per acre 10 0 0 Cutting, carting, and harvesting 20 0 0 Threshing, dressing, and delivery 20 0 0 Taxes in 1819, at 10_s._ 10 0 0 £180 0 0 Produce, 30 146 0 0 quarters 1 bushel of wheat 13 load of 26 0 0 straw, at 40s. per load Loss upon 8 0 0 this twenty acres £180 0 0 Loss upon 232 304 1 10 acres valued to Mr. Ellis Loss upon the 8 0 0 twenty acres of wheat 312 11 0 Profit upon 139 19 6 146 acres of grass Net Loss of £172 11 6 398 acres

Mr. Elsee’s statement of the land mowed is in strict corroboration of the printed particular, as given in to the arbitrator, in the following document.

_Hay stacked at Windmill Hill_, _and disposed _Hay stacked at Havering Park_,
of by Mr. Elsee_. _and taken by the Crown and Mr.
Ellis_.
No. I. No. I.
_Acres_. _Acres_.
14 Bourne Bridge 12 5 Barn 12
mead
26 Long Mead 32 7 Forebury 20
27 New Mead 14 11 Brook 6
bottom
38 Part of twenty acres 4 40 Part of 28
Williper
hill
40 Part of Williper 16 — 66
Hill
44 Collier row hoppet 3
— 81
No. II. No. II.
_Waste Land_.
Windmill hill 16 41 Collier 20
row
Great sand hill 16 42 Ditto 10
Little sand hill 7 43 Part of 18
twenty
acres
Sixteen acres 16 45 Collier 29
row
Lodge Pen 4 77
Collier row 6 65 Deduct 11 66
cut of
146 132

Yet it was calculated by one Harding, who was a _jobbing carpenter_, that 256 loads were to be accounted for, besides the 123 valued to Mr. Ellis, which makes 379 loads, that is 108 loads _more than the land could produce_. The question here is, _how came this carpenter employed_? _The arbitrators and umpire_, _one would think_, _might have measured a hay-stack_, _without his aid_, _as they knew so well how to charge for doing it_.—But they perhaps wanted some one _to bear out their statements_, and the following anecdote will shew that Harding was finely adapted for their purpose.

This Harding 20 years ago lived in Hertfordshire, where he failed as a farmer, and travelling into Essex, he followed his original business of a carpenter. Mr. Elsee was building a new house near Romford, and employed him as one of the carpenters. At the same time a bricklayer named Jervis was engaged to do the plastering by the yard, and his work to a certain extent had been measured and paid for.—But some time after Jervis informed Mr. Elsee he had made a great mistake, as the work came to _three times as much as was made of it_. After some enquiry it turned out that one of the carpenters, _this very Harding_, had been measuring it for him. On this it was remeasured, and it was found to be _less than he had been paid for_; and then Harding found out that _he had measured his feet by_ 3 _instead of_ 9 _to the square yard_. They were both discharged for this, but Harding took care to measure the haystack _by himself_!

After this it may not be surprising that he should say the stacks were 15 or 16 feet high, when every farmer knows they are seldom more than 6 feet to the eaves. And as further proof of his honesty and ability he said 8 inches was the average height of a truss of hay, when some of this was of the worst quality, and the trusses measured from 14 to 16 inches. This was deposed to by the hay-binders, and all the witnesses. Williams particularly said he was obliged to borrow larger carts, as the hay was so bulky, he could not load it upon his own.

A most, impertinent attempt was made to discredit the accounts of Mr. Elsee, but they happened to be kept in an old book of trading accounts, _and were folioed from the beginning more __than 20 years ago_, so that any deception was out of the question. This impertinence is the more reprehensible, as coming from one who had not hesitated to _falsify_ the evidence of one John Young, whose statement _exactly corresponded_ with Mr. Elsee’s accounts.

Mr. Elsee is further charged with being the cause of the suit about the dung, as he refused to abide by an agreement made between him and Mr. Ellis in February, 1821, when it was agreed at Mr. Ellis’s house, in the presence of Mr. W. Masterman, that each should name a friend; _but it was particularly mentioned that neither Mr. Mee_, _nor Mr. Driver_, _should have any concern in the business_. Mr. Benton, of Hornchurch, and Mr. Carter of Chigwell were named, and the White Horse, Romford, fixed as a place to meet at when convenient. Mr. Ellis wrote a paper, and read it to Mr. Elsee; it was signed, and put into Mr. Masterman’s hands; in a short time the meeting was appointed, and the parties, with Mr. Carter and Mr. Benton, met in Romford market, and were about to go to business, but Mr. Ellis declined till a friend came whom he expected every minute. The parties waited more than an hour, _when who should arrive_, _but_ Mr. Mee _and his Son_! An altercation took place, and the business was not proceeded in, but no one was to blame for this, except Mr. Ellis, for introducing Mr. Mee contrary to the stipulation that he was to have nothing to do in the affair. Mr. Carter and Mr. Elsee were ready to meet Mr. Benton, but refused to admit Mr. Mee and his Son. Mr. Masterman then gave the paper they had signed to Mr. Elsee, who handed it to Mr. Ellis, but the latter handed it back to Mr. Elsee, as his nephew Smith had taken a copy.

In conclusion we shall merely exhibit at one view the sum total of the pecuniary injury that Mr. Elsee has sustained directly and indirectly in these transactions.

The award for Rent was 2066 3 10½ Fixtures, &c. 930 8 0 Loss on Dung only, with Law Expences 1191 10 0 Half of Appraisement, paid Mr. Ellis 14 16 6 £4202 18 4 Received from Mr. Ellis 349 11 0 TOTAL LOSS £3853 7 4½

Such a result requires no comment; but in addition to this plunder of property, there is the mental torture, and its consequent bodily suffering, which cannot be expressed.

These circumstances would have been long since laid before the public, but from various perplexities, and the very disastrous events that arose out of this ruinous litigation. For some time Mr. Elsee had hopes of being able to defend himself, as an eminent counsel told him he had a cause that would triumph in any tribunal besides the chancery side of the exchequer. And, on the reference, he was assured that nothing could destroy the decisive proof in his favor. But all this was fallacious! and only helped to involve him deeper and deeper in expensive consequences.

He has, however, though late, been able to arrange these matters for publication; and to take those steps that are yet open to him, as a British subject, to obtain redress and indemnification; and the length of time that has passed since the injury, furnishes an additional reason why justice should now be the more promptly administered.

There are various minor circumstances that accompanied this before unheard of persecution, which we purposely omit to mention, although they strongly illustrate the _system_ of vindictive and malevolent hostility with which Mr. Elsee has been pursued in the course of the transactions we have detailed; but they would extend to too great a length, and we have already made out a case which needs no farther illustration. We therefore leave it in its simple and unadorned condition, to make its own way to the conviction of the reader.—If any answer can be given to any portion of our narrative, let it be made, and we shall be ready to meet any enquiry, and to justify all that we have advanced. And if no reply to our charges should be made, nor any redress afforded for the injuries we have mentioned, the party aggrieved will at least have the consolation of knowing that he has done his duty in protesting against the wrongs which have been inflicted upon him under the mask of law, and from a quarter where he ought rather to have met with protection than plunder.

To the public, and to those who are invested with authority for the security of the public interests, the judgment is referred, without any apprehension of what the public opinion will be, whatever influence may be employed to prejudice the minds of those who have the decision in their hands, as far as the interests of the individual are concerned. To them the appeal will be forthwith made; and to complete the case, we purpose giving the result in an appendix, that a useful example may be set to other sufferers under undeserved injuries, of the advantage of a persevering pursuit of justice; or a beacon set up to warn crown tenants against putting themselves in the power of such men as Mr. Elsee has had to deal with.

Footnotes.

{8} A striking instance occurs, on the very spot where Mr. Elsee has been insulted and plundered, of the extremity to which outrage can be carried, when the poor only are concerned. About the 1st of September, 1811, Mr. Elsee expected a few friends at his house on a shooting party, and had ordered a gun to be brought from Havering Park farm to his house at Chigwell Row. One of his servants was taking the gun, in pursuance of this order, in company with another who was driving home a team of horses. While these men were thus proceeding in their lawful business, on the public road, and in the light of day, they were shot at, without any offence, without any warning, and without seeing the lurking assassins, who thought fit to sport in this way with human life, and who turned out to be John Laver, his majesty’s woodward, and John Giffin, well known on the forest as Black Jack, an under-keeper. The servant who was driving the horses was dreadfully wounded; his hand, thigh, and leg were torn by slugs and dog-shot, many of which had lodged in the flesh; and the cowardly keepers, thinking this poor fellow had suffered enough, permitted him to crawl home; but they seized the man who carried the gun, and carried him a prisoner to Hog-hill House. Mr. Elsee, after directing the man’s wounds to be dressed, procured the liberation of his other servant, and obtained a warrant against the two keepers, who were brought before the Rev. Mr. Layton for examination. The fellows admitted the servants were walking quietly along the road; but they said they had heard a gun fired about that part, an hour and a half before; a most admirable reason, it must be confessed, for shooting his majesty’s subjects in the high road! Laver admitted also that he had never seen the men before; and when the magistrate expressed some surprize at his conduct, his majesty’s woodward, who was the person who had fired the gun, coolly answered, that he knew very well when to shoot!—Laver was committed for further examination, and as there was no proof that Giffin was aiding and abetting in the murderous transaction, he was discharged. So far all was in the ordinary course of business; but the next examination was attended by Admiral Harvey, M.P. for the county, and one of the Verdurers of the Forest, who insisted upon it that the offence was bailable; and although this was pointedly denied by the Rev. Mr. Layton, his brother magistrate, the superior authority of that sapient member of the legislature prevailed, and the blood-thirsty woodward was actually bailed, and bailed too in the paltry sum of fifty pounds, to appear and take his trial for a capital offence. Here began the mockery of the law, and the conclusion was worthy of such a beginning. At the next assizes a bill was preferred before the grand jury, upon Lord Ellenborough’s act, and Admiral Harvey, being a member of the grand jury, undertook the disposal of the affair. He began by asking the man who had been wounded, and his fellow-servant, whether they had a hundred a year? The poor fellows were day labourers, and of course were obliged to answer the impartial and enlightened questioner in the negative. Upon this, the bill was thrown out, as if cutting and maiming day labourers was no sort of offence in this land of freedom; and leaving it to be inferred, by the admiring inhabitants of Hainault Forest, that persons not possessed of a hundred a year, were as fair game to the king’s woodward, and the keepers, as the vermin of the forest itself.

{15} By the exertions of Mr. Elsee, five true bills were found against the king’s woodward for stealing timber. He was convicted upon the first, and not tried upon the others. But instead of being transported, a fate which might have waited an honester man, he made interest somewhere to obtain a pardon! Nor was this all; for, in a short time he was restored to his place on the forest, as if for the express purpose of affording every facility to the progress of timber stealing. As might be expected, in the following year, as Mr. Elsee and the Deputy Surveyor were riding in the forest, they found one Wilson, who had been a witness against the convicted woodward, Cowderoy, and several others, cutting down oak pollards. In this ride alone, no less than 48 stubs, or stools, of oaks were seen, that had been recently cut down without any authority; and the Deputy Surveyor told Wilson, the way they went on outstripped all their former proceedings in this respect. Yet no notice was taken or all this; and when another person, named Smith, some time after was detected in cutting down young spear oaks, in the month of October, carting them home before daylight, and hiding them on his premises, the proper authorities were in some way or other prevented from interfering; and the law expences which were entailed upon Mr. Elsee, for his exertions to prevent such depredations, amounted to more than a thousand pounds.

{19} In the printed conditions for the letting of these farms, a very extraordinary difference was observable between that in the possession of Mr. Elsee, and the rest. This difference consisted in a stipulation respecting a certain proportion of dung to be brought in return for the hay and straw carried off the farm; a stipulation not extended to two other farms, let at the same time, and to the same person; and this stipulation had been made without consulting Mr. Elsee, although he was then merely a tenant at will, holding the land to suit the convenience of the crown, which had no claim on him for any thing beyond the rent; and as he had paid for the dung on his entrance upon the farm, it was as much his property as the hay and corn, and he had an undoubted right to take away or sell all crops, dung, &c. up to the period of his leaving the farm; nor could the crown have interfered in any way to prevent his disposing as he pleased of his own property; but Mr. Driver, under promise of some advantages and accommodations, which were never realized, induced him to sign an agreement which left him at the mercy of Mr. Driver, and the consequences were indeed disastrous to the interests of Mr. Elsee.

{23} This seems extraordinary language for the lips of an agent of a public board; and particularly after his letter, as given in page 18, where he states that he was commissioned to receive offers for the letting of the farms, which he after pretended to say had not been surrendered. Whether this was merely a contrivance to get Mr. Elsee into the dilemma in which he afterwards found himself so fatally involved, we must leave our readers to determine for themselves.

{25} The condition proposed was that two load of rotten spit dung was to be brought on to the farm for every load of hay carried off, and one load of spit dung for every load of straw carried off the farm. With this condition, as we have shewn, Mr. Elsee had no right to comply; but when he had been deceived into the signature of the agreement, he became bound for its performance, and was prepared to carry this condition into effect. He was, however, prevented from doing this, as we shall shew hereafter, by the extraordinary conduct of the arbitrators, and their umpire, and was then compelled to pay more for the dung required under this condition than the hay and straw sold for, in addition to the cost of an exchequer process. This is being a tenant of crown land to some purpose.

{26} This fact would almost afford conclusive evidence in a court of equity, that the condition about the dung was one of the meshes of the net intentionally framed to prevent Mr. Elsee from escaping the “ruin,” that had been threatened. And such a conclusion would be further strengthened, by the total disregard of every consideration and stipulation in behalf of Mr. Elsee’s interests. We shall hereafter shew the difference observed when Mr. Elsee had to pay, and when he had to receive; and if the reader be a tenant of crown lands, he may make some use of the lesson afforded him, in similar cases.

{27} This purpose, it might be harsh to guess was a determination to do any wanton injury to Mr. Elsee; but in the face of the proof that no legal proceedings were necessary to obtain possession of the farm, and that they were persisted in when the crown could derive no benefit from them, as if with no other object than to compel Mr. Elsee to sign the agreement, of which every advantage was ultimately taken against him, while he was obstinately denied, or cunningly deprived of the benefit of the trifling stipulations in his favor, there is a very strong inference that fair play was not intended, and that the power was sought, with a wish to abuse it.

{28} Private calamity weighs but little with public men; and with some persons it may perhaps appear unimportant to state, that the anxiety and enormous expences attendant on the legal proceedings into which Mr. Elsee was plunged by the natural desire of protecting his property as far as he could, preyed so much upon the spirits of Mrs. Elsee, that there is great reason to apprehend they accelerated, and perhaps occasioned the disease which carried her to the grave.

{29} The difficulty of contending with the crown is proverbial, and the reason is obvious. The crown has always a host of legal assistants arrayed on its side, and those who in any way contest the claims set up by its agents on its behalf, are looked upon rather as culprits by certain persons, than as parties in a cause. Because the crown has no interest in harrassing the subject, it is too hastily concluded that its agents are never influenced by improper, personal, and vindictive motives; and many a man has been ruined at the suit of the crown, for no other offence than that of not bowing low enough, or bidding high enough, to its servants. We have heard of an instance, in which a servant of the crown became the bitter enemy of one of its tenants, after having very freely partaken of his hospitality, because the lady of the official gentleman thought herself not treated with all the respect to which she imagined herself to be entitled, by the female portion of the family of the crown tenant, although it is possible that the lady had received as much as she could fairly claim, if all the truth were stated. Now an offence of this sort, committed hard upon the expiration of a lease, against one who had the ear of the great men, might produce a great many difficulties about a renewal that would otherwise have been the easiest matter in the world. If nothing could be said against the individual as a tenant, it might be hinted that his politics were not of the right orthodox description, and that his rent was a great deal too low for a friend of liberal opinions. And if any dispute should arise, out of which a law-suit could be picked, no better revenge could be devised, if every one were as unfortunate at law as Mr. Elsee.

{31} It may be asked, why was Mr. Elsee compelled to sign, as the action was not brought against him. The answer is, that his property was on the ground—that his crops would have been seized—that he would have had all the inconvenience to bear throughout, and all the expence in the first instance, with the difficulty of proceeding against executors, from whom he might not have been able to have recovered anything. Mr. Elsee, therefore, had no hope of escaping without injury, but by placing confidence in the professions that were made on behalf of the crown, and he was deceived.

{47} This, it is admitted, even by Mr. Driver, was not taken into any account, and he is obliged to admit that it ought to have been; yet when Mr. Elsee took him the receipts, and required to be reimbursed the money, upon the Surveyor’s own confession that it was due, he would give nothing but evasive answers. Being pressed very closely upon the subject, he said he would not pay it then, and he has taken care not to pay it since, nor has Mr. Elsee ever been able to obtain it from anybody else. This circumstance of omitting to take the land-tax into the account, proves the necessity there was for a proper enquiry, and the examination of the party, as to claims, &c. and this circumstance alone would have been sufficient to destroy the award, in the court of king’s bench, if the case could have been taken there, instead of being pounded in the equity side of the court of exchequer.

{56} In all the proceedings the dung appears to have been a favorite consideration with Mr. Driver and Mr. Mee; and by some means or other they contrived to make Mr. Elsee pay more, in dung and money, than the crops were worth; and he would absolutely have been a considerable gainer, if he had left the hay to rot on the ground, instead of sending it to market under the conditions imposed upon him.

{57} The costs of this award are also objectionable, inasmuch as the time occupied was charged, and that exorbitantly too, in the business between Mr. Elsee and the Commissioners; and if they had thrown in the latter award, late and defective, and injurious to Mr. Elsee as it was, there would have been no great sacrifice on their part; the more especially as Mr. Elsee never agreed to the introduction of an umpire, nor agreed to be bound by the decision of any person, except the arbitrators, who were merely requested for an opinion to prevent any altercation between the buyer and seller. And the parties seem rather to have been aware that some objection might be made to paying them, so they prudently contrived to pay themselves, in the following ingenious manner. Mr. Elsee had employed Mr. Peake, at the Michaelmas of that year, to sell his farming stock, and from the produce of the sale Mr. Peake deducted the whole sum, and furnished Mr. Elsee with a receipt. This was another deviation from the award, for it required each pay to half, but then they had no money in hand of Mr. Ellis’s, and the safest way was to make sure of a pay-master. The amount is only large in comparison with the duty; but it deserves notice, as one amongst many proofs that Mr. Elsee’s purse was never to be spared.

{59} The award was for 384_l._ 18_s._ but this included, as the arbitrators and umpire afterwards discovered; some oat and bean straw, not intended to have been valued to Mr. Ellis; and this was deducted, three years afterwards, by Mr. Driver’s orders, which proves the power of this gentleman to rectify any mistake that might be in favor of Mr. Ellis, although he could not interfere with Mr. Mee’s award when the object was to do justice to Mr. Elsee, even in the small matter of the land-tax. It does not appear, however, by the Inventory that the articles sold had been much over valued to Mr. Ellis; but if the Surveyor had ordered nothing to be paid, we suppose his order would have been omnipotent.

{65} Mr. Mee and Mr. Harding went to measure this stack of hay in December, unknown to Mr. Elsee. Now the hay was got in, in July and August; and the question here is, why the arbitrators and umpire did not measure the stack before the award was made, on the 29th of October, that the matter might have been adjusted at once, by stating the quantity of dung which was required to be brought. Instead of this, no account of the quantity of hay appears to have been taken, before this private measurement of Mr. Mee and Mr. Harding, which was thus clandestinely made to furnish evidence on the reference; and in point of justice Mr. Elsee ought to have been acquainted with this proceeding, that he might have had some one present on his part, to see the measurement was justly made. If the arbitrators and umpire had done their duty at a proper time, Mr. Elsee’s presence might not have been requisite; but against this underhanded proceeding at such a rime, he has a right to protest.

{67} Mr. French, in 1805, when estimating the value of farming stock, &c. in Essex, (the same county) rates the dung in the yard, as worth only 2s. 6d. per load; and when carted and turned over, at but 3s. 6d. As he was calculating the full cost of every thing, this may be taken as a fair average of the price for the county; yet witnesses were found to rate it at 20s. per load; and, what in more extraordinary, a Referee allowed it. It may be added that this estimate of Mr. French is that of a practical former, that it was made in the neighbourhood of Romford, and that the object was to shew the full extent of the expence of entering upon a farm.

{69} This candid proposition, perhaps, was not submitted to the Referee, or he could hardly have declined it. Indeed, Mr. Elsee frequently wished to address Mr. Bolland himself, and point out the very clear state of the case; but he was always prevented, by a promise of some future opportunity. And when he attempted to do so, at the close of the proceedings, he was informed it was too late, and that he must sit down. Mr. Bolland then applied himself to form his award upon some grounds that we cannot understand; and arrived at the wonderful conclusion that the dung was worth considerably more than the hay fetched at market!