Part 4
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.