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; To Which Are Added Notes in Illustration of the Gross Abuses of the Forest Laws.

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.

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 12s. per load, (as he has been informed) making 215l. 12s. 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!

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.

Particulars of Land from the letting Catalogue.

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 384l. 18s. but deducting 35l. 7s. for the oat and bean straw, 10l. for the chaff, 30l. for the fixtures, and 29l. 13s. for his expences, leaves only 279l. 18s. 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.

An Account of the Hay stacked at Windmill Hill.

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!

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.

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.

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.

[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 384l. 18s. 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!