“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.