264 
Glazby as a foreigner. Glazby compromised, promising to pay 
£30 for the freedom of the Company, paying £10 down and 
giving a note for the rest, but agreeing that he should according 
to custom first purchase the freedom of the city. The defendant 
neglected to do this, and also refused to pay his note of hand. 
The Masters, Richard Adams and Thomas Farr, accom- 
panied by witnesses, waited on Glazby 9 July, 1761, and 
requested him to take up his freedom, and when he 
did not appear at the Guildhall at 11 o’Clock on the 
following Monday, sent the Mayor's officer to inform him they 
were waiting for him to come to be admitted. This he refused to 
do. The Company then sued him on his note which he paid after 
judgment had been given against him. They were now in a 
dilemma ; they had accepted the money for his freedom of the 
Company, but were advised that if they allowed him to continue 
his trade in Bath, without being admitted to the freedom of the 
city, it would weaken, if not goa great way in destroying the 
custom of the city to exclude Foreign Taylors, and, therefore, it 
became necessary to sue him. The Attorney-General, Mr. 
Serjeant Burland and Mr. Dunning advised an action in the 
Inferior Court at Bath, Mr. Justice Yeates and the Attorney- 
General, who had been previously consulted, being of opinion 
that if the action were brought in a Superior Court it would give 
rise to the much agitated question whether such an action ought 
to be commenced in the Inferior or Superior Court. But the 
defendant removed it into the Court of Common Pleas, and so it 
came in that manner to trial. 
Glazby also brought an action against Farr, the then Master, 
for not procuring him the freedom of the Company according to 
agreement. 
The case submitted to Mr. Pratt (Lord Camden) and his 
opinion thereon disclosed a strange state of things and one not 
very flattering to the wise men of Bath. 
The facts of the case were not disputed, but it was the 

