James Sayer, Esq. being again examined, said, that Constables are appointed under Acts 29 and 31 George II. which Acts are in many articles defective; that 80 constables, which is the number limited, are not sufficient; that they are appointed by the Leet-jury, which has been attended by great partialities; for the Leet jury being composed of the Overseers of the several parishes of the preceding year, they protect each other from serving the office of Constable; that in general opulent inhabitants are excused, and young tradesmen returned; that, if a rich man is now and then returned, he is generally got off by pleading age and infirmities; that deputies are generally hired men, and though they cannot be appointed unless approved of by the Deputy High Steward, yet, as it is impossible for him to get a true character of the person nominated, he finds many unfit persons are appointed, who, he is informed, make a trade of serving the office; for remedy of which he proposed, that the number of constables should be increased to 120. He thinks the burthen of serving the office of constable should not lay wholly on the trading inhabitants, as it does by the late Act; that, by common law, every person able and fit is liable to serve: that the fine for not serving the office should be enlarged from 8_l._ to 20_l._ which fine should be distributed among those that do serve: and he added, that twelve being obliged to attend daily during the Session of Parliament, as long as either House sits, the duty comes round to each individual every sixth day, eight being excepted, who may be sick, or kept in reserve; during which attendance the constables must necessarily neglect their own business. With respect to the High-constable, he said, it is an office of great burthen and trust; that, by law, he the witness is obliged to appoint a substantial tradesman to that office; that the person appointed is not to continue in office above three years, and is liable to a penalty of 20_l._ for refusing to serve, which penalty goes to the poor of the parish; upon which he observed, that the High-constable should not be a tradesman, because his power enables him to oblige the keepers of public-houses to deal with him, or those with whom he is concerned in his way of trade; that the penalty on persons refusing to serve the office should be increased; that the High-constable should have a reward for his service, and that the constables of the night should have a reward also.