An History of Birmingham (1783) Part 10

A LIST

OF THE

HIGH BAILIFFS, LOW BAILIFFS, AND CONSTABLES,

Of the TOWN of BIRMINGHAM, from 1732, to 1782.

HIGH BAILIFFS. LOW BAILIFFS. CONSTABLES.

1732 Thomas Wilson John Webster Joseph Bradnock John Wilson 1733 John Webster Joseph Kettle Thomas Nickin James Baker 1734 John Wickins Thomas Lakin [2]Joseph Scott, esq; James Taylor 1735 Joseph Marston John Russell John Webster Thomas Ashfield 1736 Joseph Bradnock Robert Moore Thomas Wickins Joseph Fullelove 1737 James Baker Isaac Ingram John Kettle Richard Porter 1738 Joseph Smith William Mason William Hunt Henry Hun 1739 Thomas Wickens William Harvey Edward Burton John England 1740 Simon Harris Thomas Russel Joseph Richards T. Honeyborn 1741 Daniel Gill George Abney Thomas Turner John Bedford 1742 1743 Josiah Jefferys William Kettle John Russel Thomas 1744 George Davies J. Humphrys, Jr. William Mason William Ward 1745 Edward Burton Robert Moore Joseph Wollaston John Turner 1746 1747 Thomas Ashwell J. Taylor, esq; Joseph Walker Josiah Hunt 1748 Thomas Wickens John Roe Robert Moore John Horton 1749 Joseph Fullelove Richard Brett Henry Hunt Joseph Ruston 1750 Thomas Lakin Joseph Smith John Gill Luke Bell 1751 Thomas Turner Benj. Mansell John Walters W. Walsingham 1752 James Baker John Taylor Price Thomas Joseph Thomas 1753 E. Jordan, esq; Samuel Harvey Samuel Birch Samuel Richards 1754 Thomas Cottrell Joseph Richards John Bellears John Camden 1755 Joseph Walker John Wells[3] Stephen Colmore John Powell 1756 John Bellears J. Kettle, esq; Ambrose Foxall John Gray 1757 William Patteson Joseph Webster J. Darbys.h.i.+re Richard Brett 1758 James Horton T. Lawrence Thomas Richards Sam. Pemberton 1759 John Walker Thomas Abney G. Spilsbury Edward Weston 1760 John Turner Abel Humphrys Richard Dingley Web Marriott 1761 John Baskerville Stephen Bedford Michael Lakin Nehemiah Bague 1762 Joseph Thomas James Jackson George Birch John Green 1763 John Gold John Lee William Parks John Daws 1764 Richard Hicks J. Ryland S. Bradburn, esq; Geo. Anderton 1765 Thomas Vallant Sam. Richards Ed. H. n.o.ble Elias Wallin 1766 John Lane Henry Venour John Lane Joseph Adams 1767 John Horn Jo. Wilkinson Richard Rabone Thomas Care 1768 Gregory Hicks W. Russell, esq; Thomas Bingham John Moody 1769 James Male Samuel Ray Thomas Gisborne William Mansell 1770 Joshua Glover Thomas Russell T. Lutwyche Thomas Barker 1771 John Harris J. Hornblower Thomas Cooper Walter Salt 1772 William Holden Jos. Tyndall R. Anderton T. Hunt 1773 Thomas Westley John Richards Ob. Bellamy John Smart 1774 John Ward John Francis W. Hodgkins Thomas Wight 1775 Thomas Hurd John Taylor, esq; John Startin T. Everton 1776 E.W. Patteson Josiah Rogers Thomas Corden Joseph Wright 1777 Ed. Thomason S. Pemberton Joseph Jukes Joseph Sheldon 1778 Joseph Green William Hunt Thomas Wright John Allen[4]

1779 T. Faulconbridge W. Humphrys John Guest Jonathan Wigley 1780 Daniel Winwood William Scott William Thomas John Bird 1781 William Hicks W. Taylor, esq; John Dallaway Richard Porter 1782 Thomas Carless G. Humphrys John Holmes Thomas Barrs

[Footnote 2: Joseph Scott, Esq; not choosing the official part, procured a subst.i.tute to perform it, in the person of the late Constable James Baker.]

[Footnote 3: in office, Benjamin Mansell was chosen in his stead.]

[Footnote 4: was charged with a fine of 25_l_. by the lady of the manor, and John Miles chosen in his stead.]

Three of the Inhabitants have, since I knew the place, served the Office of SHERIFF for the County, viz.

John Taylor, Esquire, in - - - - 1756.

Edward Jordan, Esquire, in - - - 1757.

And Isaac Spooner, Esquire, in - 1763.

COURT OF REQUESTS.

Law is the very basis of civil society, without it man would quickly return to his original rudeness; the result would be, robbery and blood:--and even laws themselves are of little moment, without a due execution of them--there is a necessity to annex punishment.

But there is no necessity to punish the living, who are innocent, by hanging the dead bodies of criminals in the air. This indecent and inhuman custom, which originated from the days of barbarism, reflects an indelible disgrace upon a civilized age. The intention, no doubt, was laudable; to prevent the commission of crimes, but does it answer that intention?

In 1759, two brothers, of the name of Darby, were hung in chains near Hales-Owen, since which time there has been only one murder committed in the whole neighbourhood, and that under the very gibbet upon which they hung[5].

[Footnote 5: Joseph Skidmore, a carrier of Stourbridge, having Ann Mansfield, a young woman of Birmingham, under his care, ravished and murdered her in the evening of December 10, 1774.]

Justice, however, points out a way wherein the dead body, by conveying chirurgical knowledge, may be serviceable to the living.

Laws generally tend, either directly, or remotely, to the protection of property.

All wise legislators have endeavoured to proportion the punishment to the crime, but never to exceed it: a well conducted state holds forth a scale of punishments for transgressions of every dimension, beginning with the simple reprimand, and proceeding downwards even to death itself.

It will be granted, that the line of equity ought to be drawn with critical exactness.

If by fair trade, persuasion, or finesse, I get the property of another into my hands, even to the trifling value of a s.h.i.+lling, my effects ought to be responsible for that sum.

If I possess no effects, he certainly retains a right of punis.h.i.+ng to that amount: for if we do not lay this line in the boundaries of strict justice, it will not lie upon any other ground. And if I am allowed fraud in one s.h.i.+lling, I am allowed it in a greater sum. How far punishment may be softened by concurring circ.u.mstances, is another question.

It therefore follows of course, that if my creditor has a right to recover his unfortunate property, those laws are the nearest to perfection, that will enable him to recover it with the most expedition, and the least expence and trouble to us both.

If the charge of recovery is likely to exceed the debt, he will be apt to desist, I to laugh at him, and to try my skill at a second enterprize.

Trade and credit cannot be well separated; they are as closely connected as the wax and the paper. The laws of credit, therefore, ought to rest upon a permanent foundation: neither is law necessary to restrain credit; for if, in a commercial state, it becomes detrimental by its over growth, it finds itself a remedy.

Much has been said, and perhaps more than has been thought, concerning the court before us. The loser is expected to complain, and his friends to give him a partial hearing; and though he breathes _vengeance_ against his antagonist, it ends in a _breath_.

The looker-on can easily spy an error in the actor. If a fault is committed, we are glad it was done by another; besides, it is no new thing for the _outs_ to complain of the _ins_. It will plead strongly in excuse, to say, the intention was right, if the judgment was wrong. If perfection is required, she does not reside upon earth.

But if these pleadings are not found a balance against prejudice, and a man suffers his wrath to kindle against a valuable inst.i.tution, because perfection does not preside over it, let him peruse an old author, who asks, "What shall we think of the folly of that man, who throws away the apple, because it contains a core? despises the nut, for the sh.e.l.l? or casts the diamond into the sea, because it has a flaw?"

Decision is usually established upon oath, both in criminal courts, and in those at Westminster, through which the oath is seen to pa.s.s with free currency.

A judge is sometimes fond of sheltering himself behind an oath; it may be had at an easy rate. Each of the contending parties wishes to win his cause by an oath: but though oaths would be willingly taken, they ought to be sparingly given.--They may be considered what they generally are not, _of the last importance_.

We may observe, that two opponents are ready to swear directly contrary to each other; that if a man a.s.serts a thing, he can do no less than swear it; and that, after all, an oath proves nothing.

The commissioners, therefore, wish rather to establish _fact_ upon _proof_; but, if this is wanting, then upon circ.u.mstantial evidence; and if this support fails, they chuse to finish a quarrel by a moderate, though a random judgment.

Much honor is due to that judicial luminary, William Murray, Earl of Mansfield, who presides over the King's-Bench, for introducing equity into the courts of law, where she had long been a stranger.

The Court of Requests may justly be charged with weakness, and what court may not? It is inseparable from man.

A person cannot chuse his capacity, but he may chuse to be a rogue; one is an act of nature, the other of the will. The greater the temptation to go astray, the greater must be the resolution to conquer it.

One of the suitors presented a commissioner with a couple of chickens, as a powerful argument to strengthen a feeble case; but the commissioner returned his present, and the plaintiff lost his cause; and no wonder, he sent a chicken to plead it.

The defendant, by disobeying the orders of the court, falls under the power of the plaintiff, who can cause execution to issue against his goods, and reimburse himself; or, against his body, and confine him forty days, unless paid his demand.

There is no cause that can be brought before the Court of Requests, but may be brought before a higher court, and at a higher expence.

A cause pa.s.ses through this court for seventeen-pence; and cannot well, by chicanery or neglect, amount to more than two s.h.i.+llings and nine-pence: So that ruin is not one of its imperfections.

Though law is said to produce quarrels among friends, yet the contending parties often go out of that court better friends than when they came in.

It has been objected, that the publicans give credit to the lower cla.s.s, in expectation of relief from the court. But the debtor is equally apprized of the remedy, and often drinks deeper, in expectation of a mild sentence from the commissioners; besides, is not all credit founded on the laws of recovery?

It has also been urged, that while punishment pursues the debtor, for neglect of orders, his family falls upon the community.

But the community would not wish to put a bar between a man and his property--The precedent would be dangerous: Justice is no respector of persons. A culprit will soon procure a family, if they are able to plead his excuse: It would follow, that single men only would be obliged to be honest. She does not save the criminal, because he is an handsome man.

If she did, beauty would increase in value; but honesty, seldom be its companion.

But can accusation lie against a fair tribunal of rect.i.tude? The man does not exist that can quarrel with equity, and treat her as the offspring of fraud---The most amiable character in the creation, and the immediate representative of supreme excellence. She will be revered, even by the sons of plunder!

Many of the causes that pa.s.s this court, are of a disputable nature, and if not terminated there, would take a different turn.

From distant views of relief here, even sickness herself finds credit in the day of distress.