Postby dognose » Tue Dec 16, 2008 2:41 pm
Hi,
Regarding the issue of Edward Thomason’s lack of registration at the Birmingham Assay Office prior to 1815.
The Act of 1773 that effectively started the role of an assay office in Birmingham was repealed in 1824 and a new Act passed. The new Act granted the Guardians further powers such as an extension to the previous twenty mile limit to thirty miles and the right to assay gold. The Act, very helpfully, lists the then current thirty six Guardians and reinforces the ruling of the 1773 Act, that ‘Provided always, that the number of Guardians is complete, there shall not at any time be more than nine nor less than six persons exercising the trades of goldsmith and silversmith, of either of those trades, members of the said company of Guardians’.
This list of the Guardians in 1824 is as follows:
The Earl of Warwick
James Alston*
William Charles Alston
Anderson Ashmore
William Anderton
Matthew Robinson Boulton*
Thomas Beilby*
William Blakeway
Dugdale Stafford Dugdale
Samuel Galton
Samuel Tertius Galton
William Hamper
Hyla Holden
Francis Hawley
Heneage Legge
Matthew Linwood*
John Lawrence
Robert Mitchell
Theodore Price
Thomas Pemberton*
William Phipson
James Pearson
Samuel Ryland
Westley Richards
John Rotton
George Simcox
Timothy Smith
Richard Spooner
Francis Sheppard
Joseph Taylor*
Edward Thomason*
William Villers
John Vale
William Wheelwright
Joseph Willmore*
James Woolley*
Those marked with an * were silversmiths who had entered their marks at the Birmingham Assay Office, and they represent the maximum allowance of nine silversmiths who could sit on the board of Guardians. It will be noted that many of the other surnames listed are the same as other families involved in the early silver industry in Birmingham, eg. Ryland, Phipson, Richards, Mitchell, Vale, Lawrence and Spooner, at least some of these Guardians must surely be representing family interests, but because of the ruling of the maximum of nine silversmiths allowed to sit on the board, the silversmiths in question were not allowed to. It would appear that competition to be a Guardian was very hot.
Could this be the reason that Edward Thomason did not enter his mark until 1815? Jackson has first mention of Thomason in connection with the assay office in the 1803- 1807 period, a date he possibly was appointed to the board of Guardians? If so, and if in the period 1807-1815 the nine places were already filled, then he could not enter his mark at the assay office until the ninth position became vacant, without losing his status as a Guardian, a position that would have been very important to him and his business.
If, presuming the above is correct, although I have no knowledge of the date of his appointment, then his output of silver prior to 1815 would have presumably been submitted for assay under another silversmiths name, and he would appear to all concerned to be the retailer only.
Trev.
.