[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!