The rent that Mr. Elsee would have had to pay the executors of Miss Ladbrook, at 375l. per annum, deducting the land-tax at 40l. 4s. in two years and a half would have amounted to 937l. 10s. 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 indebted to the crown | £937 | 10 | 0 |
| ||
And Mr. Elsee had the following claims, underthe agreement which he had been entrapped to sign. | ||||||
A new shed over the thrashing machine, made of oak fromthe Chigwell Row estate, and which Mr. Driver requested might beleft | £50 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
New brick brew-house, copper, oven, &c. | 150 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
Paid for enclosing the waste at Romford | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
Paid for the crown towards the new market-house,Romford | 48 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
Carried forward | £268 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
| £937 | 10 | 0 | |||
Brought forward, Mr. Elsee, Cr. | £268 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
Laying down to grass 120 acres of ploughed land, asby the agreement | 360 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
Stack of hay chosen by Mr. Driver for the crown, and soldby Mr. Driver to Mr. Ellis | 175 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
Fixtures valued by Mr. Driver | 30 | 0 | 0 |
| ||
Land-tax [47] paid by Mr. Elsee | 97 | 8 | 0 |
| ||
| 930 | 8 | 0 | |||
Balance in favor of thecrown |
|
|
| £7 | 2 | 0 |
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 10l. 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 6l. to 8l. 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 945l. 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 55l. 8s. would have been an exhorbitant charge for it; so that we shall have the remaining 300l. 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 6l. and 8l. per load, instead of from 2l. to 4l. 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.