SHEEP STEALING IN SHIRLETT: CUNNING DEVICE.
“The information upon oath of John Eabs of Shurlett, taken upon oath the xxvth day of May, 1648, conserninge some Sheepe stolne from him of late.
“Deposeth that upon ffriday night last he had a Lamb feloniously stolne from him either out of his yearde or out of the pasture, and alsoe upon Wensday night he had likewise a weather sheepe stolne, and upon search made for the same yeasterday being Saturday he wh. Edward Buckley the Deputy Constable, found in the house of Willm. Wakeley in Shurlett a qter. of lambe hyd in a Milkepan, wh. a brest and halfe a brest, a neck not cutt from the brest of lambe, all covered upon wh. flower, yis said Edward Wakeleye’s Wife denynige soundly yat there was any Mutton or lambe in the house or whin. yat Milkepane, and desieringe ye searchers not to shead her flower in ye pan wh. ye meate was hyd in, and indeavouringe to obscure ye place, beinge a Cobard, in wh. ye lambe was, and further cannot informe but yat he verily beleiveth in his conscience ye said meate was feloniously stolne by ye said Wakely or his people.
Sworn before Audley Bowdler.
Edw. Wakeley upon being examined says that the lambe was one of his own which he killed on Friday night, and that parte of it was eaten by his own people before search was made next morne; “being demanded why it was hid and hid over with flower in such obscurity in his house, he says he knoweth not whether it was hid or not, but if it was it was wht. ye privity of ye said Examind, and done by his people unknown to him.”
This puts us in mind of another famous old sheep stealer of Shirlett, who having stolen a sheep hid it in the baby’s cradle, and when the Constables called to search his house, with the greatest nonchalance told them they might search away; but added, “don’t make a noise or else you’ll wake the baby”; and he continued to smoke his pipe and rock the cradle till the search was completed, and the officers departed without finding any “meate.”
The Constables appointed by the Corporation of Wenlock, were officers who within the Constablewicks or allotments into which the Borough was divided, were entrusted, under the Bailiffs with very many important duties, such as collecting monies for the king, and carrying into execution acts of parliament, as well as executing summonses and bringing up defaulters. They were a superior class of men, selected from such as held land, or were persons of property. Later on quite a different class of men were appointed; still, sometimes from small tradesmen, but at others from men who sought the office for the sake of its emoluments, and who often became the tools of unscrupulous men in office, whether Bailiffs or Justices of the Peace; as in the case of Samuel Walters, a broken-down tradesman, whose doings at last, together with that of the Justices, attracted the attention of parliament. Walters, was the son of the Rev. Mr. Walters, incumbent of Madeley, and it may serve to give an idea of the estimation in which he was held in the parish to mention, that he on one occasion attempted to enlist his own father, by giving him the shilling in the dark.
The powers exercised by the borough justices were often most arbitrary, especially when the individual who came within their power happened to be a dissenter, or “a dangerous radical.” On the merest pretence blank warrants were issued, which unscrupulous constables, like “Sammy Walters,” as he was called, carried in their pockets, and filled as occasion required. One notorious instance was that of three Dutch girls, (Buy-a-Brooms, as they were called), whom Walters overtook in his “Teazer,” between Wenlock and Shrewsbury, and invited to ride with him. Calling at a public-house on the road he went in, filled up three of his warrants, and then drove them straight to Shrewsbury gaol. This case came before the House of Commons, and was inquired into by the Home Secretary, and the system of granting blank warrants was abolished throughout the kingdom. Madeley is one of the three Wards into which the borough is divided. For parliamentary purposes Beckbury and Badger are included, these having been, like Madeley, part of the extensive possessions of the church of St. Milburgh. Madeley also formed part of the wide extending parish of Holy Trinity of Wenlock, a parish which embraced Broseley, and was not limited even by the Severn. The words of the charter granted by Edward IV. to Sir John Wenlock were these:—
“That the Liberty of the Town or Borough shall extend to the Parish of the Holy Trinity, and through all the limits, motes, and bounds of the same parish, and not to any other Towns or Hamlets which are not of the Parish aforesaid.”
The charter granted by Charles I., in the seventh year of his reign, added somewhat to the privileges previously possessed, and either gave or confirmed the right of the burgesses to send one member to parliament. Originally it seems to have been the prior who had the right of attending parliament; for we find in 1308 Sir John Weld holding Willey by doing homage to the prior by “carrying his frock to parliament.” How the burgesses obtained the further privilege of sending two members to parliament no one seems to know, and there is no document, we believe, in the archives of the corporation tending to throw light on the subject; but they appear to have enjoyed that privilege as far back as Henry VIII’s time.
The burgesses of Madeley were not numerous, we fancy; some well known Madeley names, however, occur, both as burgesses and as bailiffs, like those of Audley Bowdler and Ffosbrooke de Madeley; the former was “Bailiff of the town and liberties” in 1655 and 1678. In 1661 Thomas Kinnersley de Badger, Armiger, was bailiff, which would seem to indicate that the burgesses of Badger at that time shared in the municipal duties and privileges of the borough. In 1732 Mathew Astley de Madeley, Gent, was bailiff. The Astleys lived in the old hall, a stone building partly on the site of Madeley Hall, now the residence of Joseph Yate, Esq., a portion of which building is supposed now to form the stable. The names of the Smithemans, one of whom married the co-heir of Cumberford Brooke, Esq., of Madeley Court and Cumberford in Staffordshire, occur among the bailiffs. Later on we get that of George Goodwin, of Coalbrookdale and the Fatlands.
At the passing of the Municipal Reform Act in 1835–6 mayors were substituted for bailiffs; the last elected under the old title and the first elected as chief magistrate under the new title was likewise a Madeley gentleman, William Anstice, Esq., father of the present William Reynolds Anstice, Esq., of Ironbridge. Mr. Anstice was elected bailiff in 1834; in 1835 there appears to have been no election, but in 1836 he was the first gentleman elected, as we have just said, under the new title. Subsequently the names of other parishioners, as Henry Dickinson, Charles James Ferriday, John Anstice, Charles Pugh, John Arthur Anstice, and Richard Edmund Anstice, Esquires, occur. The present (1879) Aldermen and Councillors for the Ward are Egerton W. Smith, first elected Alderman 1871, and John Fox elected Alderman 1879; John Arthur Anstice first elected Councillor 1869; Alfred Jones 1873; John Randall 1874; Richard Edmund Anstice 1876; Andrew Beacall Dyas 1878; [235] and William Yate Owen 1879.
The electors for parliamentary purposes prior to the passing of the Reform Rill in 1832 were few in number so far as Madeley was concerned. They consisted of freemen, men who acquired the right to vote for members of parliament either by birth, servitude, or purchase. Such freemen however could live many miles distant; they were often brought at a closely contested election even from the continent, at considerable expense; and the poll was kept open for weeks.
The Act of 1832, 2 William IV., limited this right to persons resident within the borough for six calendar months, or within seven statute miles from the place where the poll was taken, and this was uniformly taken at Wenlock. It limited the right of making freemen to those whose fathers were already burgesses, or who were entitled to become such prior to the 31st March, 1831. The twenty-seventh clause of the act, which conferred the right to vote upon ten-pound occupiers of houses or portions of buildings, added greatly to the franchise in Madeley as compared with other portions of the borough. The alterations effected by the act of 1867 in the borough franchise were, of course, very much greater, as it gave the right of voting to every inhabitant occupier as owner or tenant of any dwelling house within the borough, subject to the ratings and payment of poors rates; also to occupiers of parts of houses where rating was sufficient and separate.
Contests were not very frequent under the old state of things; when they did occur they arose more out of rivalry or jealousy on the part of neighbouring families than from anything else. The most fiercely fought contests that we remember, under the old limited constituency, were those of 1820 and 1826; when Beilby Lawley and Beilby Thompson put up. The most memorable under the ten pound franchise were those when Bridges put up in 1832; and on a subsequent occasion Sir William Sommerville, in 1835. Bridges and Sommerville came forward in the liberal interest, and the numbers polled from Madeley, were—
| Sommerville | 111 |
| Forester | 67 |
| Gaskell | 45 |
Among Sommerville’s supporters were many plumpers.
The more recent contests under the extended franchise were when C. G. M. Gaskell, Esq. came forward, and only polled 846 votes against 1,708 polled by the Right Hon. General Forester, and 1,575 by A. H. Brown, Esq., and the more recent of 1874, when Sir Beilby Lawley came forward.