228 Sheriffs of Wiltshire. 
12 1738} Isaac Warriner, Esq. 
Of Conock ; by marriage with the heiress of Ernle. 
13 1739 | WilliamWyndham, Esq. 
Of Dinton. Son of the purchaser, Died 1762. 
14 1740 | Edward Mortimer, Esq. Of Trowbridge. (See 1736). 
15 1741} Anthony Guy, Esq.! Of Chippenham. 
16 1742| William Batt, Esq. Of Salisbury. 
17 1743] John Hippesley, Esq. 
Of Stanton Fitzwarren. (See 1725). 
1 Tre SHERIFF OF WILTS ImpRISONED AT DEvizES.—This outrage was actually 
committed in 1741, by the partizans of Sir Edmund Thomas and EdwardBayntun 
Rolt, Esq., at a contested election for the borough of Chippenham; the object 
being to neutralize the hostile influence of Anthony Guy, Esq., not, of course, 
in his capacity of High Sheriff of the county, but as being the principal man in 
Chippenham, and the oldest of the twelve burgesses who claimed the manage- 
ment of the affairs of that town. The offence, however, was equally great, and 
it is surprising that no reprisals were made by the injured party. 
Mr. Guy having declared himself favorable to two other candidates, Alexander 
Hume and John Frederick, Esquires, it was resolved to get him out of the way, 
under pretence of an attachment for his Under-Sheriff’s omitting to make return 
of a writ against one Thomas Brown, for the small sum of £27, (an omission 
owing to the Under-Sheriff’s illness): and Richard Smith, a coroner of the 
county, actually proceeded to take Mr. Guy into custody, though that gentleman 
offered him £10,000 bail for his appearance. At the instigation of John Norris, 
Adam Tuck, and William Johnson the then bailiff or mayor, the coroner kept 
Mr. Guy all night in one of the Chippenham inns under a guard of armed men, 
and the next morning conveyed him with the same convoy to the town of Devizes, 
where he remained in custody till the election was over ; after which they had 
the courtesey to carry him back to his own house and set him at liberty. 
It is hardly necessary to add, that a petition from the unsuccessful candidates 
appealed against a return effected by such means; but though the Sheriff’s party 
were finally defeated by a small majority in the House, it does not appear that 
any attempt was made by their adversaries to disprove the above facts. They 
simply constitute an additional illustration of the numerous irregularities which, 
at the period in question, characterised the management of the boroughs and 
society in general in the provinces, arising out of the balance of the Hanoverian 
and Jacobite factions. J, WAYLEN. 
