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!