James T. of B. Castle, was the most extraordinary character of them all. He was of a good family, his father having been an opulent merchant, Alderman of London, and Member of Parliament. Whether this gentleman had that determined and implacable spirit of resistance to the measures of government, which afterwards characterized his son, has not been recorded. This James T.’s first appearance as a candidate for political fame, was when he served the office of Sheriff, with Sawbridge, and perhaps the same office has never since been filled by such individuals, possessing, in such entire unison, qualities so eccentric. It is not intended to write T.’s life, though it deserves a place in our biographical collections, far better than many which there make their appearance. The principal upon which he seemingly acted, was to resist government in every thing, though this was hardly fair on the score of gratitude. He married a natural daughter of the last Lord C. who left Mrs. T. all his estates, which were very large indeed, but as she had been born abroad, and had never been naturalized, the estates were forfeited to the crown. The then Lord Holland had an intimate political connection with Mr. T.’s father, and through his parliamentary interest, the estates were restored to Lord C.’s daughter, and confirmed to her by act of Parliament. This liberality had, however, no sort of influence on his conduct; his own opinion on any subject was the standard of right, and _fari quid sentiat_, his motto. During the time of his serving the office of Sheriff, it was thought expedient by government to execute some rioters in Spital-fields, in the neighbourhood where the offence had been committed. This he and his brother Sheriff strenuously resisted, contending they were not justified in seeing the sentence of the law put in force, except at the usual place of execution. They were, however, obliged to give way. Upon another occasion, he resisted the payment of the land-tax, and suffered his effects to be seized at T. from the excuse that in the case of Wilkes and Lutterell, the county of Middlesex was not legally represented.