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 10_l._ 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 6_l._ to 8_l._ 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 945_l._ 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.