The Project Gutenberg eBook of Statement of Facts, on the Injurious Treatment of J. Elsee, Esq This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. Title: Statement of Facts, on the Injurious Treatment of J. Elsee, Esq Author: John Elsee Release date: November 9, 2016 [eBook #53488] Language: English *** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STATEMENT OF FACTS, ON THE INJURIOUS TREATMENT OF J. ELSEE, ESQ *** Transcribed from the 1826 Wooler edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org Statement of Facts, ON THE _INJURIOUS TREATMENT_ OF J. ELSEE, ESQ. _Late Tenant of a considerable Portion of Havering Park Farm_, _in the Forest of Hainault_, IN CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WITH THE Commissioners of Woods and Forests, AND THEIR AGENTS. * * * * * _Compiled in support of_ A RENEWED MEMORIAL TO THE COMMISSIONERS, AND PETITIONS TO PARLIAMENT. * * * * * TO WHICH ARE ADDED _NOTES_, _In Illustration of the Gross Abuses of the Forest Laws_. * * * * * WOOLER, PRINTER, GOUGH SQUARE. 1826. * * * * * STATEMENT, &c. THE statements which will be found in this pamphlet, will probably startle the minds of most persons who may give them a perusal; reflecting as they do upon the administration of justice, and the conduct of an official board, which is invested with the power of transacting certain business in the name of the crown, and on behalf of the nation. In such cases, the highest degree of liberality might reasonably be expected. Those petty interests that sow dissentions between individuals _ought not_ to exist in transactions between individuals and the representatives of the national authority; and, certainly, no _prejudiced motives_, or _personal feeling_, should be permitted to operate to the prejudice of the weaker party. Unfortunately, however, persons who ought to rise infinitely superior to all paltry hostility, and mean jealousies, do not always separate their prejudices from their duties; and they are also often led by the nose by impertinent and interested servants, who, in reality, become the masters of their nominal superiors, and dictators to those whom it is their business to obey. Much injustice is frequently occasioned in such manner; but after a perusal of our narrative, we think we may fairly challenge the production of any instance in which so much pecuniary injury has been sustained, accompanied by so much outrage to the feelings of a respectable, unoffending, and highly meritorious individual;—upon one, who, during a long and active life, in public and private, has conducted himself in the most exemplary manner; against whose reputation no one has ever dared to point the finger of reproach, and who having gained a considerable fortune by his own unaided exertions, the most persevering industry, and the most scrupulous integrity in his dealings, had an undoubted right to expect the protection of his interests by persons who were acting as trustees for the nation; instead of being insulted, and entrapped into legal difficulties by their agents, and plundered of a large sum of money, without the slightest pretence for, or justice in, such an outrageous attack upon the sacred right of private property. And when, in addition to this, the reader shall reflect, that these occurrences took place within a very few miles of the metropolis, and were directed against an individual well-known and highly respected, both in his own neighbourhood and the metropolis itself, the scene of his prosperous exertions for so many years, the astonishment will be proportionately encreased; for if the rapacity and insolence of the servants of a public board can be audaciously exhibited towards an individual so situated in life, what misery and ruin may they not have entailed upon the poor and defenceless, who are prostrate at the feet of such oppressors. Mr. Elsee, to whom our narrative relates, has fortunately escaped the _total ruin_, with which he was unblushingly threatened—but the sacrifices which he has been compelled to make, might have _broken the hearts_, and _exhausted the means_, of hundreds who would have thought themselves possessed of a competency for the wants of a respectable subsistence. {8} With these requisite preliminary observations, we shall proceed with our narrative, premising also, that these pages are written in illustration and support of _memorials to both the houses of parliament_, as well as to the commissioners of woods and forests, for such redress as Mr. Elsee has yet a just right to expect will be afforded to him, if the honest attention of the principals in the latter office can be drawn to the subject; for the agents of government can have no true or lasting interest in the injury of any one of his majesty’s subjects; and the liberal principles lately adopted by some of the most influential of his majesty’s advisers, encourage a hope that their liberality may be extended to the actual administration of impartial justice, and not be confined to empty parliamentary professions. Mr. John Elsee, at the period to which this narrative refers, was a gentleman residing on his own freehold estate, at Chigwell Row. He had been many years in business as a wholesale stationer, in Queen-hithe, in the premises now occupied by the Lord Mayor, and this part of the city became the market for paper by the exertions of Mr. Elsee. Having realized a considerable property, he retired from business, and having spent the earlier portion of his life in agricultural business, he purchased a freehold in the neighbourhood before mentioned, and became also the lessee of part of Havering Park farm. This farm, containing altogether about 1000 acres, was held under the crown, by a lease granted in the time of King William and Queen Mary, to John Hampden, and Thomas Lovell, at a nominal rent; it afterwards became the property of the Ladbrook family, and was divided into two farms, one being let by Ladbrook to a Mr. Thomas Hall, and the other to Mr. Elsee, whose lease expired in 1815, and he continued as _tenant at will_ to Miss Ladbrook, three of the family which had granted his lease having died during its continuance; and Miss Ladbrook told Mr. Elsee that she did not intend to apply for a new lease. Mr. Elsee, therefore sent in a memorial in the usual way, having been told at the office that Miss Ladbrook’s lease would expire at Lady-day, 1818, _but to such memorial Mr. Elsee never received any answer_; though _it had been the usual practise_, _for many years_, _on the part of the commissioners of woods and forests_, _and land revenues_, _to signify by printed papers_, _affixed in their public offices_, _and in other ways to make it publically known_, _that if no application was made __by the tenants holding under lease of the crown_, _two years before the expiration of their old leases_, _to renew their holding_, _the commissioners would consider themselves open to receive proposals from any other persons_, _to treat for a lease or leases of such premises_. In the summer of 1817, Mr. Edward Driver, the surveyor to the land revenue department, informed Mr. Elsee that he was not to pay any more rent to Miss Ladbrook’s executors, that her lease had expired at Lady-day _then last past_, and that in future the rent must be paid to the crown. From this Mr. Elsee conceived the hope of obtaining the lease himself, the more especially as Mr. William Masterman, _had been in a situation precisely similar_, _on the expiration of his landlord’s lease_, and the commissioners had granted him a new lease for 31 years, charging him for the interval between the expiration of the old lease, and the day of his entering upon the new one, _only the same rent which his former landlord had paid to the crown_. At this time, Mr. Driver said he was going to seize the other part of the land comprized in the lease of Miss Ladbrook, and held by Mr. Hall, for dilapidations. Mr. Driver subsequently _made this seizure_; and then _requested Mr. Elsee to take Mr. Hall’s farm into his hands_, until the final decision of the commissioners respecting the disposal of the land was made known, it being then uncertain whether it would be let or sold. Mr. Elsee declined this proposal, being every year a considerable loser by the part he held, and only retaining it in the expectation of having _his rent reduced_, and obtaining a lease _on such terms as might warrant him in the outlay necessary to afford a prospect of an adequate return_; and in the intention of becoming a purchaser, if the commissioners should decide upon the sale of the land. Besides this, Mr. Elsee felt that he had strong personal claims to fair dealing, if not to liberal treatment, from the commissioners; as, at their request, he had exerted himself in the protection of crown rights in the forest, which were grossly infringed by their own servants. He had assisted to detect and bring to justice the _under-keeper_, the _king’s woodward_, and others, _for stealing timber from the forest_, a practice then carried on to a great extent. {15} Under all the circumstances, therefore, Mr. Elsee had a right to expect something like _justice_, if not liberality, on the part of the commissioners; and if he had been in their hands, instead of _the hands of their servants_, he probably might have obtained it. While in this state of suspense respecting a new lease, Mr. Driver repeatedly informed Mr. Elsee, that he had received offers for the farm previously occupied by Mr. Hall, at three times the rent which Mr. Elsee considered it to be worth, and three times as much as it was afterwards let for to a Mr. Ellis. This statement, whether true, or otherwise, had the effect of preventing Mr. Elsee from making any further offers, _particularly as his previous application for a lease remained unanswered_; and he urged Mr. Driver to get the amount of the rent fixed which he was to pay to the crown, for the time after the expiration of Miss Ladbrook’s lease, _and to name any period when the crown wished to take possession of the land_. Mr. Driver replied, that _if Mr. Elsee would continue to hold the farm until Michaelmas_, 1819, (that was another year) _he trusted that all would be settled by that period_, and he would very shortly let Mr. Elsee know the amount of rent that he was to pay, _but which was never done_. Some time elapsed without an arrangement and from the harsh conduct of Mr. Driver to Mr. Hall, and other crown tenants, when circumstances had placed them in his power, Mr. Elsee became uneasy, and _wrote to request positive information as to how_, _and when_, _he was to settle with the crown_, _and surrender possession of the farm_. In answer to this letter, Mr. Driver referred Mr. Elsee to Mr. Pillar, the chief clerk; and on application to that gentleman, he said, _he was surprized that Mr. Driver sent to him_, _as he did not think that the commissioners would object to any arrangement that Mr. Driver might think proper to make_; from which it may be inferred, that the affair was left entirely to that gentleman, from whom, in a few days, Mr. Elsee received the following letter. New Bridge-street, Oct. 12, 1818. Dear Sir, I have been out of town the whole of last week, or I intended to have written to you, on the subject of the farms at Havering. I now beg to inform you the Commissioners have not come to any determination as to the time of letting either of the farms, only they are to be let, and not sold; and have desired me to obtain offers from any person desirous of treating with me for a lease of either of the farms. I shall therefore feel myself happy to receive in writing any proposal that you may be disposed to make, and it shall be forwarded in the proper way, in the same manner as some other offers already made will be forwarded. I shall be prepared very shortly to make some agreement with you, as to your present holding, and, for your continuing until Michaelmas next, before which time I hope and trust the whole of those farms will be disposed of in some way or other. I am yours, most truly, E. DRIVER. The farms not being to be sold, as Mr. Elsee had been induced to hope they would be, and the conditions in some printed particulars forwarded to him by Mr. Driver, not appearing to leave room for any advantageous holding under the crown, he declined making any proposals, and was only anxious to get extricated as speedily as possible from the farm, _which he had continued to hold at the earnest request of_ Mr. Driver, _and with a view to facilitate any arrangements on the part of the crown_; _as every day’s holding was injurious to_ Mr. Elsee, _when he ceased to have the prospect of being either the purchaser or lessee_. {19} The farms, however, were let before the Christmas of 1818; and Mr. Elsee requested Mr. Driver to inform the gentleman who had taken them, and had entered upon that of Hall, that Mr. Elsee was desirous of letting him have possession of the other, and to sell him any thing upon the premises, whenever it would suit him. Mr. Driver promised to communicate this offer to the new tenant, and then, for the first time, said, “_he had not yet done with Miss Ladbrook’s executors_; _that he meant to make them pay_, _double the rent that Mr. Elsee had paid them_, _for the time he had held the_ _farm_, _since her lease expired_, _as she had never __given the crown possession of that part of the land_.” Mr. Elsee thought it impossible the Surveyor could be in earnest, in such a monstrous and ridiculous proposition; and replied, “_surely_, _you obtained possession_, _when you entered on Hall’s part_; _for at the time you surveyed Hall’s part of the farm_, _and took possession of that_, _you also went over and surveyed the part held by me_; _and you know very well that possession has been offered to you again and again_. _You have also given me directions to get boards painted and fixed up at different parts_, of both farms, _to warn people from sporting and shooting_, _and you have afterwards paid me for these things_, _while I have done every thing in my power to accommodate you_, _by staying on the farm at your own particular request_.” This reply should have been conclusive, for if the crown were not in possession, the fault rested only with its own Surveyor. No wish to hold over was entertained either by the executors, or by the tenant at will; nor was there, in fact, any holding over, for Mr. Driver had taken actual possession, had directed the rent to be paid to the crown, and acted as the possessor of the property on behalf of the crown. It was therefore a paltry quibble, and a meanness of which any landlord should have been ashamed, to have taken advantage of a mere informality, if it had existed, which however does not appear to have been the case, _as the land had only been held at all at the Surveyor’s own particular request_. Mr. Driver, however, for some purpose of his own, thought proper to disregard the justice of the case, and replied that “Mr. Elsee was not the tenant of the crown; that Miss Ladbrook’s executors had behaved very ill; that there was no complaint whatever against Mr. Elsee, who could come upon the executors for any injury that he might sustain; that he (Mr. Driver) was determined to bring an action of ejectment against the executors; that Mr. Elsee’s crops would be seized on the premises the next summer, and that he might sue the executors for the damages.” {23} Mr. Elsee, who saw in the consequent expence nothing but mischief to all parties, except Mr. Driver, if the threat were really carried into execution, waited upon the solicitors of the executors of Miss Ladbrook, informed them what had passed, and begged them to see Mr. Driver, and make an arrangement to prevent the seizure of the crops, and the unpleasant results of such a litigation.—These respectable solicitors, Messrs. Windus and Holtaway, were not to be frightened; they knew the man they had to deal with, and after some severe remarks on the Surveyor’s conduct, they declared that they would have nothing to say to him, that they had never held over, and that he might do his worst. With this answer Mr. Elsee returned to Mr. Driver, who had left word that the report was to be made to Messrs. Jones and Green, the solicitors to the office of woods and forests, to whom Mr. Elsee repaired, and _was then informed by Mr. Jones that he did not_ think _the crown would require more rent than had been paid to_ Miss Ladbrook; but that he would see Mr. Pillar, and make enquiry at the office, and acquaint Mr. Elsee with the result; which, by the bye, he never did. The Surveyor proceeded as he had threatened he would, with his action of ejectment; and during its progress, he forwarded a long agreement to Mr. Elsee for his signature, the effect of which was to put him in the place of the executors, when judgment should have been obtained against them, and leave him entirely at the mercy of the crown. This agreement, too, had been framed without any consultation with Mr. Elsee, upon its conditions, some of which were contrary to the custom of farming leases, and all of them framed in opposition to the situation and interest of a _tenant __at will_, which the Surveyor had declared him to be, _and not in any way a tenant of the crown_. This attempt to encrease the responsibility of Mr. Elsee was answered, of course, by a refusal to sign it; the agreement was returned, and Mr. Elsee waited upon the Surveyor, and pointed out to him that he was not liable to _any conditions_, and still less to the unreasonable ones attempted to be imposed upon him—that there was no legal claim upon him for dung {25}—that he had paid for it on his entrance upon the farm, and it would be his property when he should give up possession. To this the Surveyor replied, _that he had let the farm on such conditions_, _and the new tenant was to do the same during his lease_. It was then enquired by _what right_ the Surveyor made such conditions with respect to _this farm in particular_, since _he had not made them with respect to Heaton’s_? The Surveyor made answer, that they “_would be made to leave all their dung_,” which, however, _was not the case_, for in the following summer the crops of that farm, and _also the dung_, _were sold by the owner_. {26} It was further remarked to the Surveyor in this conversation, that _spit dung_ was specified, and that it was not always to be procured; to which the Surveyor said it was so stated in all leases, meaning that, or an equivalent in other manure. Mr. Elsee again insisted that the dung was as much his property as the hay and corn; and further objected to the expence of the agreement as _unnecessary_, as the Surveyor _knew_ he was ready to quit the farm at any time. The Surveyor, notwithstanding all this, held to his purpose, {27} and pretended that the thing must be done _regularly_; that the whole of the expence would not be more than 60_l._ or 70_l._ that the crown would pay half, and would further give time from Michaelmas 1819, to the following Lady-day, to thrash out the corn, and otherwise dispose of the property to the best advantage—that the crown besides would pay for all _improvements_, _laying down ploughed fields to grass_, _&c._ In spite of these temptations Mr. Elsee refused to sign; had he remained firm in this refusal, and acted upon the advice of his friends, many of whom recommended him not to put himself in the power of the Surveyor by his signature, he might have saved himself some thousands of pounds, and a degree of personal and family anxiety even more to be deplored than his pecuniary loss. {28} In this time the Surveyor had proceeded in his action of ejectment, and as the day for the service of the declaration approached, Mr. Elsee was applied to for his final decision as _to signing the agreement_; and he found himself compelled to submit, even as it was, with a reference to arbitration as to terms, &c. or to close the doors upon all reconciliation, and entail upon his property the disastrous consequences of _a law-suit_, _with the crown for an antagonist_. {29} In this dilemma, the agreement, in an unfortunate moment, _was signed_, and the consequences proved still more mischievous than those which the signing was intended to prevent; Mr. Elsee being soon plunged into the legal embarrassments that it had been his earnest hope, and most anxious desire to avoid, by the very act that involved him. {31} The leading articles of this fatal agreement, were, that Mr. Elsee, _against whom the action neither was_, _nor could have been brought_, should sign a Warrant of Attorney in ejectment, _he_, _moreover_, _having been throughout anxious to quit_; and for thus burthening himself with a responsibility apparently attempted to be saddled on the executors of Ladbrook, it was stipulated that he should have the land without rent from Michaelmas, 1819, to Lady-day, 1820—to be paid for seed sown upon not less than 40, nor more than 60 acres—to leave 60 load of hay, and all the fixtures in the house—to be paid for laying down ploughed land to grass, and his other improvements—to be accountable for dilapidations, if any, since the termination of Ladbrook’s lease—and arbitrators to be appointed to ascertain what rent should be paid for the 2½ years since the expiration of the lease: and out of this sum the agreement set forth, as under, the sums due to Mr. Elsee should be deducted, and allowed to him. “And the said W. Huskisson, W. Dacres Adams, and Henry Dawkins, do hereby agree for and in behalf of his Majesty, to and with the said John Elsee, his executors, and administrators, to submit to, and abide by the decision and determination, so to be made as aforesaid, and that whatever sum or sums of money shall be so as aforesaid awarded to be paid by them to the said John Elsee, for the value of the said fixtures, seeds, and the hay to be left as aforesaid, and as a compensation for laying down any of the lands as aforesaid, shall be allowed to be retained by him, his executors, administrators, and assigns, out of any sum which shall be awarded to be paid by the said John Elsee to them, for the use and occupation of the said premises, or for any other of the matters aforesaid.” Mr. Driver and Mr. R. Peake were the parties appointed as arbitrators, to settle the matters at issue, the former acting for the crown, and the latter for Mr. Elsee. On the 14th of July, 1819, they met, and rode over the farm, and took an account of the house fixtures. They next went into the stack-yard, and the Surveyor agreed to take for the crown, for the 60 load to be left by the agreement, a stack that the men were just finishing, and the first made that season, the price to be fixed by the arbitrators. Mr. Elsee proceeded with these two gentlemen to Mr. Ellis, the new tenant, and Mr. Elsee offered to give up the farm at that time, and to sell the in-comer any thing upon it.—Mr. Ellis declined this offer, but wished to treat for some fields, which lay convenient to those he had entered upon. These were ten fields, containing 108 acres of unmowed grass, with the use of 17 acres of fallow in addition. The two arbitrators were to fix the value, and they left the room for that purpose, but returned without agreeing, as Mr. Driver would allow the fields _to be worth no more than ten shillings an acre_, _although the grass fields contained the whole years crop_. Yet this same gentleman, required from _these very fields_, _so valued by himself at ten shillings an acre_, a return in dung and rent of _about five pounds an acre_!—So different were his powers of appreciation, when employed for and against Mr. Elsee. It was, however, agreed at this meeting, that Mr. Ellis should buy five fields of wheat straw, there being none in the farm upon which he had entered, which was to be paid for at Michaelmas, 1819; and as the straw was required in part for thatching the stacks of the season, Mr. Elsee, being anxious to accommodate the new tenant, agreed to commence thrashing as soon as the harvest was got in. All matters were to be left to the arbitrators, as Mr. Elsee supposed, in a friendly way; and the new tenant having agreed, on the proposition of Mr. Driver, to take the stack of hay previously reserved for the crown, Mr. Peake’s clerk, to prevent any misunderstanding, drew up the following. Memorandum. Mr. Elsee 9 3 11 proposes to carry the corn (wheat) from the two courses, No. 20 No. 23, 24, & 10 2 2 25 _Acres_ 20 1 13 And also No. 27, beans 14 3 18 _Acres_ 35 0 31 And to allow Mr. Ellis, an equivalent in good rotten dung, in lieu of the straw of the before mentioned, to be delivered upon the bean-field, No. 27, at the rate of so many cubic yards, to be ascertained after it is in a proper heap. Mr. Ellis to purchase the straw of the following wheat crops, due allowance being made for the dung which must be brought in lieu of it, if removed from the farm by Mr. Elsee. No. 8, Church plain 20 0 0 Brook field 22 3 0 Shed field 32 0 0 Lodge field 11 0 0 Ditto 16 3 22 _Acres_ 102 2 22 Mr. Ellis takes the green stack of hay which is now finished stacking this day, at the value as per agreement, (that was at the same price the crown paid Mr. Elsee.) The crops of corn to be thrashed out by Mr. Elsee, by the 25th of March; and he to commence and continue thrashing immediately after harvest, and the straw to be bound if required, at the expence of Mr. Ellis. Mr. Ellis to have the liberty of taking away the thrashing machine by the 25th of May. Mr. Elsee to have the use of one stable, and the barn for thrashing, and accommodation for the carman, and the present tenant and family in the house, until Lady-day. Mr. Elsee to have the barn field until Christmas next. The dung to be valued by measure. Mr. Elsee to pay all rent, taxes, and outgoings up to Michaelmas. As soon as the beans are off any field, Mr. Ellis is to enter if he pleases to broadshare, and Mr. Elsee to put his stock upon it. The chaff to be divided equally between Mr. Elsee and Mr. Ellis. R. Peake and E. Driver to value all the above, and if they should disagree, Mr. Edward Mee to decide between them; and the two former to meet within one month, to ascertain the quantity of straw, and the value thereof to be fixed, and paid for at Michaelmas next. Signed, JOHN ELSEE. JAMES ELLIS. Witness, R. DAVIS. This agreement, of course, was not made in the most distant intention of invalidating the original agreement with the commissioners, nor could it legally have any such effect, the commissioners not being in any way parties to it; yet such an effect was produced by the arbitrators, to the serious injury of Mr. Elsee; _for they left him to seek payment from the new tenant for the hay_, _fixtures_, _&c. which it was stipulated should be deducted from the rent due to the crown_; _and the crown was made to demand in a most peremptory manner_, _the whole of an enormously unreasonable award in its favour_, _when Mr. Elsee_, _if he had been fairly dealt with_, _even according to the conditions of the agreement_, _which he had signed without any business to do so_, _would have been a_ creditor, _instead of a debtor of the crown_. Upon the memorandum we have quoted, it is necessary to remark, that the two fields of wheat which was carried to Chigwell Row, contained only 18 acres tenant’s measure, and the whole produce was carried at 13 loads, with three horses. The weeds and rubbish of the bean field was four loads, _the bean crop having entirely failed_, making together 17 loads. Mr. Elsee took these crops for the straw, and proposed to bring back all the spit-dung in his yard at Chigwell Row, and lay it in a proper heap for measurement; and whatever excess of quantity there might be in reference to the wheat straw, was to be set off against the dung to be brought on account of the hay that might afterwards be carried from the farm. This was agreed to, and a place pointed out for its being brought to. About a month from this date, the arbitrators met, and rode over the farm, to view the crops, and see the dung that had been carried. They measured one dung-hill, 75 feet long, 11 wide, and 3 deep. There was a second behind the hedge, but they were so very zealous in the discharge of their duty, and so very clever, _they thought it unnecessary to measure it_. They then proceeded to the 26 and 16 acre field, and looked at the dung and chalk rubbish which had been carried there; and went on to Havering to dinner. Neither on this occasion, nor on the 14th of July, did they attempt to go into any business, nor did they give Mr. Elsee any opportunity, as he had a _right to expect_, _of proving by several respectable farmers_, _who had long known the farm_, _the value of the respective crops in every field_; _and of the improvements that had been made_. It was impossible to arrive at any just conclusion, _without giving Mr. Elsee an opportunity of stating his own claims_, _and of knowing the nature and extent of the claims preferred against him_, _on many points of which explanations would be necessary_. This reasonable expectation, however, was totally disappointed; and Mr. Elsee heard nothing from the parties who had thus assumed to themselves _the right of disposing of his property without enquiry_, until the 29th of September, _the time when Mr. Ellis was to have paid Mr. Elsee for what he bought_; but instead of receiving his money from Mr. Ellis, he only received information _that the time for the settlement of matters between the commissioners and himself had been extended for a month_. In the mean time, Mr. Ellis had completed nothing on his part of the agreement; _but he had taken away a large quantity of bean straw_, _sent his teams and people to take possession of __the farm_, _pitched his hurdles_, _and put his large flocks of sheep into the barn mead_, _and continued to fold them in the very field which he had agreed_ Mr. Elsee _should hold possession of till Christmas_, _and for which the new tenant was to receive half the wheat chaff_. Mr. Ellis kept continually fetching the straw, hay, and chaff, _though it had not been appraised_, and his taking possession of the field which Mr. Elsee should have had until Christmas, drove the cattle of the latter _into the stable_, _and they consumed the oat and bean straw_, _chaff_, _&c._ In this situation of affairs, and _the new tenant being a total stranger to Mr. Elsee_, he wrote to his attorney to ascertain in which way he should act, _as the agreement seemed null and void_, _or held in defiance by the other party_, _and as much neglected by the referees_. While in such suspense, in the _November_ ensuing, without any more communication with the arbitrators, or any acquaintance with their proceedings, except that Mr. Driver and Mr. Peake could not agree, Mr. Elsee received an award to pay to the crown the enormous sum of £2066: 3_s._: 10½_l._ without any allowance whatever, and without any reference to the credit side of Mr. Elsee’s account. We subjoin the award, that the document may assist the commentary. To all to whom these presents shall come, I the within named Edward Mee, sending greeting, Whereas the within named Edward Driver, and Robert Peake could not agree upon the premises within referred to them, and make their determination in regard thereto in writing under their hands, on or before the first day of September now last past, so that it devolves upon me, the within named Edward Mee, as umpire within mentioned, as appears by a memorandum in writing, made and written at the foot of the within agreement or submission, and signed by the said Edward, Driver and Robert Peake, NOW KNOW YE, that I, the within named Edward Mee, having taken upon myself the burden of the said umpirage, and having duly weighed, considered, and examined the several matters and things so in difference, and agreed to be referred as with to mentioned. DO, by this my award, umpirage, and final determination in writing, between the parties in difference, of and concerning the premises within agreed to be referred, award and determine in manner and form following, that is to say. That the within named John Elsee do at the office of Messrs. Jones and Green, between the hours of ten and twelve o’clock in the forenoon, on Monday, the 29th day of November next ensuing, pay, or cause to be paid, unto the within named William Huskisson, William Dacre Adams, and Henry Dawkins, or the commissioners for the time being of his Majesty’s woods, forests, and land revenues, the sum of 1,888_l._ 9_s._ 10½_d._ of lawful money of Great Britain, in full of all claims and demands of them the said commissioners, on behalf of his Majesty, or otherwise howsoever against the said John Elsee, his executors, or administrators, of or touching, or in any manner whatever concerning, or having relation to the matters in difference, and agreed to be referred as within particularly mentioned, save and except that the said John Elsee, his executors, administrators, and assigns, shall and will bring back and lay upon the farm and land stated and referred to in the within written agreement, or submission, in a husbandlike manner, two cart load of good rotten dung, or an equivalent proportion of other equally good manure, for every load of hay which has been, or may at any time hereafter be carried off and from the said farm and lands as aforesaid, from the 15th day of February last past, by the said John Elsee, his executors, administrators, or assigns, without claiming, or requiring any compensation for the same. I, the said Edward Mee, having had due regard to, and having made just allowance for any permanent benefit, which may have been done by him to the estate, by laying down any of the arable land, and converting the same into meadow or grass land. AND I do further award, and determine that the said John Elsee, his executors, or administrators, do at the same time and place aforesaid, pay, or cause to be paid unto the said William Huskisson, William Dacre Adams, and Henry Dawkins, or the commissioners for the time being of his said Majesty’s woods, forests, and land revenues, the sum of 177_l._ 14_s._ of like lawful money, as the said John Elsee’s proportion, or moiety, of all and singular the costs of the ejectment, and of preparing the within mentioned agreement, expences, costs, charges, and expences, as well of the said Edward Driver, and Robert Peake, as of me, the said Edward Mee, In witness whereof, I the said Edward Mee have hereunto set my hand, this 30th day of October, 1819. Signed, EDWARD MEE. Witness, THOMAS BRACE, Surrey-street, Strand. THOMAS SELBY, jun. same place. Such an award as this, when Mr. Elsee _expected to receive_, _rather than to pay_, it will be allowed was enough to startle any man; and we do not doubt of convincing every unprejudiced reader, that more atrocious injustice was never perpetrated under the form of legal proceedings. In the first place, the umpire says, “_he has __duly weighed and considered the matters in difference_.” To this the short answer is, that _he did not_; and for as short a reason, viz. that _he could not have duly considered the matter_, _without an examination of witnesses_, _and an enquiry into facts_, _which were never made_, _either by the arbitrators_, _or by himself_. It does not appear, that the umpire ever made any proper survey, nor that he ever in any mode acquainted Mr. Elsee with any part of his proceedings; and yet he asserts that he had _duly considered everything_! He cannot even pretend that he gathered his information from the arbitrators, which he had no business to take, if they had been ever so well qualified to give; _but the arbitrators had been equally regardless of their duty_; they had done nothing themselves, but left every thing in confusion, and could only tell Mr. Mee that _there was a difference between them in the slovenly estimate they had made_. This difference it was the duty of the umpire to have settled by a proper enquiry, _which the umpire did not make_, and therefore he did not _duly_ consider the case. Mr. Mee also says that he has made _just allowance_ for the _improvements_, _&c._ of _Mr. Elsee_. We shall presently _shew_ that he has _not_ made _any_ allowance; but, on the contrary, that he has enormously overcharged Mr. Elsee in the matter of rent, and made no deduction whatever. Besides, we submit, that the umpire ought to have set forth the articles that he estimated, and their amount; the rent at which he valued the land; and every other particular as fully as he sets forth the dung which was to be brought by Mr. Elsee. If the umpire had ventured to do this, _if he could have done it_, his _award_ must have looked so palpably preposterous, that an ideot might have been ashamed of it. The only explanation we can offer of the affair is, the supposition that the umpire, instead of examining into the difference between the arbitrators, took Mr. Driver’s word, and made up this precious award under his direction. The rent that Mr. Elsee would have had to pay the executors of Miss Ladbrook, at 375_l._ per annum, deducting the land-tax at 40_l._ 4_s._ in two years and a half would have amounted to 937_l._ 10_s._ This was all that was due to the crown, according to the _usual mode_ of dealing with crown tenants; and in the case of Masterman before quoted, the commissioners did not charge him even the rent he had paid under his own lease, but merely the rent paid by his landlord under the old lease. The case then stood as follows:— Mr. Elsee was £937 10 0 indebted to the crown And Mr. Elsee had the following claims, under the agreement which he had been entrapped to sign. A new shed £50 0 0 over the thrashing machine, made of oak from the Chigwell Row estate, and which Mr. Driver requested might be left New brick 150 0 0 brew-house, copper, oven, &c. Paid for 20 0 0 enclosing the waste at Romford Paid for the 48 0 0 crown towards the new market-house, Romford Carried £268 0 0 forward _Brought_ £937 10 0 forward, Mr. Elsee, Dr. _Brought_ £268 0 0 forward, Mr. Elsee, Cr. Laying down 360 0 0 to grass 120 acres _of ploughed_ land, as by the agreement Stack of hay 175 0 0 chosen by Mr. Driver for the crown, and sold by Mr. Driver to Mr. Ellis Fixtures 30 0 0 valued by Mr. Driver Land-tax {47} 97 8 0 paid by Mr. Elsee 930 8 0 Balance in £7 2 0 favor of the crown This account leaves a balance of _seven pounds_ against Mr. Elsee; and yet the arbitrator makes him debtor, costs included, in _more than two thousand pounds_, and that too after professing to have made _due allowance_ for the admitted claims of Mr. Elsee!!! who did not in any fair view of the question owe 10_l._ and with the additional expence of endeavouring to obtain something resembling justice against this award, Mr. Elsee has been a loser of near _four thousand pounds_! _where he did not owe in justice even ten pounds_. The first questions that arise are, how this sum could be made out?—upon what grounds the arbitrators could have proceeded?—and what _could be_ the _basis_ of the calculation?—We have before seen that Mr. Driver estimated the _whole produce_ of 108 acres of some of the best land on the farm, _at only ten shillings per acre_. This was about the rent paid by Mr. Elsee to Miss Ladbrook; and this serves to prove, that _even in Mr. Driver’s opinion_, the land was then let at its full value; and indeed the rent was fixed by valuation by parties for Miss Ladbrook, at a period when hay was at from 6_l._ to 8_l._ a load, and was therefore a rack rent in every sense of the word. But if the rent were _doubled_, and the fair allowance made, the sum due to the crown would have been only 945_l._ instead of nearly _two thousand_! And surely the _doubling of the rack rent might have satisfied the consciences of any arbitrators and umpires_. But no—it is only by supposing that _this rack rent was trebled_—_that land the produce of which was only valued at ten shillings an acre_, _was charged a rent of thirty shillings an acre_—we can arrive at something like the calculation of the umpire! Is not this _a most wretched mockery of arbitration_? It would be difficult to find any words to characterise it, and it shall be left to the reader, as it is. The _costs_, perhaps, merit a word or two. In order to colour the _modest charge_ of _three hundred and fifty-five pounds_, _eight shillings_, for _two rides over a farm_, _measuring one dung-heap_, _and looking at another_, by Messrs. Driver. and Peake, (what _trouble_ Mr. Mee took _not being in evidence_) the costs are said to include _the expences of the ejectment which had been so wantonly and unnecessarily incurred_, _and with which Mr. Elsee had nothing to do_. Besides, as the crown neither pays nor receives costs, _by what right did Mr. Mee pretend to assess them_? How came they into his umpirage?—We should like to see how they were carried to the credit of the crown. The expence of the agreement may be admitted, but the odd 55_l._ 8_s._ would have been an exhorbitant charge for it; so that we shall have the remaining 300_l._ to divide amongst the parties _for not doing their duty_! We have heard of such matters, as making up a sum for the sake of the _per centage_, but we make no such charge; we are not conjurers enough to define motives—but we repeat, that either from _sheer ignorance and gross neglect_, or _a wilful disregard_ of the interests of Mr. Elsee, he has been injured to the amount of _several thousands_. Another circumstance occasioned Mr. Elsee to be still more astonished at the award; and that was, _he had heard_ Mr. Mee _declare some years before_, _and when hay was selling at_ 6_l._ _and_ 8_l._ _per load_, _instead of from_ 2_l._ _to_ 4_l._ _the price when the award was made_, _that he would not work such a farm as_ Mr. Elsee’s, _if he could have it rent free_! Yet being umpire, he could _treble the rent_, _when produce was lowered one half_, _and rents were being lowered by every landlord in the country_. On receiving the award, Mr. Elsee waited on Mr. Driver, to remonstrate, but the Surveyor refused to interfere, as Mr. Mee had made his award; although he admitted that the land-tax had not been credited to Mr. Elsee, which circumstance alone called for a second reference to the umpire, but the Surveyor evaded the question, and could not be induced even to pay back this sum, which is too clearly due to Mr. Elsee to admit of any dispute. Mr. Elsee also pointed out to Mr. Driver, that no credit was given him for the dung he had already carted on to the farm; to which Mr. Driver replied, _he supposed_ it was left to set off against the wheat straw which had been carried away; and being told that there was an excess of 130 ton over what was necessary in return for the wheat straw, he _very significantly remarked_, _that the umpire had a different way of estimating dung to what he had ever seen before_; as he called 40 feet of spit dung a load, while he (the Surveyor) had never heard of a load being more than 27 feet. Mr. Elsee reminded him, the weight of dung, or the load, depended upon the weight of the hay or straw carried off; that if one horse was sent to market with 36 trusses of straw, which weighed 11 _cwt._ 2 _qrs._ 8 _lb._ then 16 feet of good spit dung, weighing 12 _cwt._ would be an equivalent load; and that if 54 trusses weighing 17 _cwt._ 1 _qr._ 12 _lb._ were taken away, 24 feet of dung, weighing 18 _cwt._ would be an equivalent, and the same for a load of hay. Or if 108 trusses of straw, or one ton of hay, were carried, 27 feet of spit dung was the fair return, as bringing back _weight for weight_ was all that could in justice be required, by any landlord, while not one in a hundred obtained anything like so much. To all this Mr. Driver could make no sort of reply, and Mr. Elsee left him, after censuring the conduct of the arbitrators, who, _after charging so much for their trouble_, had settled nothing, not even making a list of the fixtures, nor measuring the hay, nor crediting the amount of dung carried, nor giving him any opportunity of stating his own case. The award did not even state _the quantity of dung that remained to be brought_, or it would have been carted at once, being quite ready for that purpose. Mr. Elsee was therefore at a loss how to act, and imagined the only way left for him was to carry the hay, and let the quantity of dung to be brought in return, be assessed by a sheriff’s jury, before which he might prove the circumstances of the case;—but the servants of the crown are not to be bound by the ordinary forms of law. They have more effective instruments in their hands, and instead of being called before a sheriff’s jury, Mr. Elsee was served with an exchequer process by no less a personage than his Majesty’s attorney general; and an office copy of the process cost _eighteen pounds_! in which it was set forth a dozen times over, that he had taken from Havering Park farm 300 loads of hay, and had not brought back 600 loads of dung, for which the crown laid its damages at _six hundred pounds_. The consideration of this proceeding carries us back to another part of the conduct of the arbitrators and the umpire, namely the agreement with Mr. Ellis. In this instance, there could hardly have been any occasion for an _umpire_. There _was but little to do_, _and of the commonest description of the business of valuation_, _and part of the business_, _as the valuation of the fixtures_, _and the stack of hay_, _was settled_; but these arbitrators _were determined to have things done regularly_, and as Mr. Mee had been made umpire in the other affair, he _was also made umpire in this business_, _and made his award one month after the time that Mr. Elsee ought to have been paid for the property_. As there are some remarks to be made upon this document, it is inserted. Inventory of Valuation, Made this 29th of October, 1819, by me, the undersigned, being appointed by Mr. John Elsee and Mr. James Ellis, under an agreement dated the 14th day of July last, as umpire between Mr. Edward Driver, of New Bridge Street, Blackfriars, London, and Mr. Robert Peake, of Waltham Abbey, Essex, who had been appointed by Mr. Elsee as out-going tenant, and Mr. James Ellis as in-coming tenant, on a farm called Havering Park farm, at Havering, in Essex, to value the following property, viz. All the straw, and half the chaff that arises from 196 acres of land, except the straw used for thatching, which is to be left when taken off the stacks. The straw at a foddering price on the premises. Three stacks of hay, in the stack yard, at a foddering price. The fixtures in the house. The straw to be bound by Mr. Elsee’s men, when thrashed, and to be paid for binding the customary price of one shilling per load, by Mr. Ellis, if he chooses to have it bound. The above property is valued by me at the sum of Three Hundred and Eighty-four pounds, Eighteen shillings, ready money. EDWARD MEE. South Hall, Raynham, Essex. £384 18s. 0d. To this decision there came appended, as if by afterthought, the annexed addition, _viz._ The dung is to be brought back for all other hay carried off, according to the agreement. {56} EDWARD MEE, South Hall, Raynham, Essex. And then came the subjoined bill of costs, duly made out in the name and on behalf of _the firm_. Messrs. Ellis and Elsee, To Messrs. Driver, Peake, and Mee. 1819. Oct. 29, To valuation of property, as per 28 17 6 inventory, at 2½ per cent. each Stamp 15 6 £29 13 0 Half to be paid by each party. This award, it will be seen by a reference to the original agreement, page 35 and 36, is founded on the principle of charging the hay and straw _at a foddering price_, a thing never contemplated by Mr. Elsee, and to which he would not have agreed under any circumstances, _but that the award was delayed until Mr. Ellis was in possession of the farm_, _and a great portion of the property_; and though he did for a long time refuse to take the money from Mr. Ellis, and insisted upon the crown’s paying him for what its Surveyor had bought, he was ultimately obliged to take what he could get from the new tenant. {57} Upon this second award, we must say that _the umpire has a way of his own for other things as well as for estimating loads of dung_. He values the articles at 384_l._ 18_s._ This valuation may have been a _sort of off-hand guess_, as if it had been quite immaterial to Mr. Elsee what became of his property, as we have already stated that he was never consulted as to its disposal. But as we happen to know the items, we may afford the reader some means of judging of the nature of the award, by putting something like a fair value upon them. The fixtures had been previously valued by 30 0 0 Mr. Driver for the crown, at 123 loads of hay, at 60_s._ 369 0 0 196 acres of straw, at their own estimate of 480 0 0 two load per acre, at 25_s._ per load Chaff 10 0 0 889 0 0 From which deduct the sum paid by Mr. Ellis 349 11 0 to Mr. Elsee by Mr. Drivers order, {59}. And we shall have a loss to Mr. Elsee of 539 9 0 The loss sustained in this transaction, in which Mr. Elsee embarked solely with a view of accommodating all parties, and of carrying into effect the wishes of the Commissioners, as expressed by their surveyor, _was upwards of five hundred pounds_; the sum which was ultimately paid him he did not receive for three years, _in consequence of the unauthorised transfer of the debt of the crown to Mr. Ellis_, _and which might have been lost altogether_, _if any misfortune had befallen the latter gentleman_; and these things, coupled with the order to pay down the enormous sum awarded to the commissioners, _render it impossible to conclude that Mr. Elsee has been justly dealt with_; _and there will neither be law_, _nor equity_, _left to boast of_, _if a revision of these proceedings cannot be obtained_, _against the influence of Mr. Driver_. 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! *** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK STATEMENT OF FACTS, ON THE INJURIOUS TREATMENT OF J. ELSEE, ESQ *** Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed. Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. START: FULL LICENSE THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license. Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works 1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. 1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. 1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others. 1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States. 1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: 1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed: This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook. 1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. 1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. 1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License. 1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. 1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. 1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that: • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.” • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works. • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work. • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. 1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. 1.F. 1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. 1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. 1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem. 1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. 1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. 1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause. Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life. Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS. The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate. While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate. International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate. Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org. This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.