Volume 2 — SUSSEX ELECTION PETITIONS (1792). Source.—Oldfield’s Representative History of Great Britain. London, 1816.

(A) Horsham election petition.

Lord William Gordon and James Baillie, esq., and certain electors in their interest, petitioned in 1790 against the return of Timothy Shelley and Wilson Bradyl, esqrs. The petition was renewed the second session. A committee to try this case met Feb. 16, 1792. The petitions were the same in substance, stating, that the election for Horsham was held June 19, 1790; that Drew Mitchell and John Rawlinson, the baliffs, acted with gross injustice and partiality in favour of the sitting members: that on a poll being demanded, they appointed the Duke of Norfolk’s steward, Thomas Charles Medwin, and James Robertson, the steward’s clerk, to be the poll-clerks, who rejected legal votes in favour of the petitioners, and received illegal votes for the sitting members, by which means they procured a colourable majority.

The final numbers on the poll were—

T. Shelley, esq. 25

W. Bradyl, esq. 24

Lord W. Gordon 20

J. Baillie, esq. 9

On the 8th of March, 1792, the chairman of the committee reported to the House, that the petitioners were duly elected, and ought to have been returned, and that the sitting members were not duly elected, and ought not to have been returned.

That neither the petitions nor the opposition to them appeared to be frivolous or vexatious. The committee also came to a resolution, which was not reported to the House, that Drew Mitchell and John Rawlinson, the baliffs and returning officers were reprehensible for their conduct. The numbers, according to the votes allowed legal by the committee, were—

Lord W. Gordon 15

J. Baillie, esq. 14

T. Shelley, esq. 10

W. Bradyl, esq. 9

(B) Steyning.

Political Character.

This borough, together with that of Bramber, consists of one street, not more than two-thirds as large as Fetter-lane in London; but constituting two boroughs, with a right of sending four members to Parliament!!! They formerly elected in conjunction, and intermitted till 31 Henry VI. One part of Bramber is in the centre of the borough of Steyning, and a part of Steyning intersects Bramber in like manner. Inveloped in the dark cloud of legal quibble and intricacy, they present us, like all the rotten boroughs, with a finished picture of political deformity; irregular in their districts, unintelligible in their constitutions, indefinite in their rights, corrupt in the exercise of their functions, contradictory in their respective organizations, and adverse to the ancient established principles of the constitution, and the rights of men.

The right of election has been the subject of litigation in this place for near a century, and has but lately received a final decision from a committee constituted under the authority of 28 Geo. III., to determine the same, upon an appeal from a contrary determination the preceding year.

In 1701, the right was determined to be in the inhabitants paying scot and lot, and not receiving alms.

In 1710, to be in the constables and house-holders (inhabitants) paying scot and lot.

On 16th June, 1715, to be in all such persons as have an estate of inheritance or for life, in burgage-houses or burgage-lands, lying within the said borough.

In 1791, to be in the inhabitants of ancient houses, and houses built on the sites of ancient houses, within the borough of Steyning, being householders, paying scot and lot, and not receiving alms.

In 1792, the select committee appointed to try and determine the merits of the petition of James Martin Lloyd, esq., and others.

Resolved: “That no persons have a right to vote at an election for members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Steyning in respect of any houses within the borough of Bramber, the tithing of Bidlington, or the manors of Charlton or King’s Barnes.”

The said select committee at the same time also determined,

“That the right of election of members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Steyning, in the county of Sussex, is in the constable and householders, inhabitants within the said borough, paying scot and lot, and not receiving alms.”

The houses built on ancient foundations were all the property of the late Sir John Honeywood; the rest belonged to the Duke of Norfolk: and as those of a general description are more numerous, the resolution of 1792, repealing that of 1791, changed the patron, and transferred that influence to the Duke of Norfolk, which the former gave to Sir John Honeywood.

The resolution of 1791 ousted Henry Howard, esq., the present member for Gloster, who had a majority of the householders paying scot and lot, and declared John Curtis, esq., who had only the votes of those persons who inhabited houses built on ancient foundations, duly elected.

The resolution of 1792 established the election of James Martin Lloyd, esq., who polled the identical votes which were deemed illegal the preceding year; and the petitioner lost his seat by the same pretensions that Mr. Curtis had obtained one.

These contradictory resolutions have been productive of the same parliamentary inconsistency which distinguished the borough of Saltash, in the Parliament of 1785. Mr. Ambler obtained his seat for that place by the decision of a committee in that year, against the petition of Lord Strathaven, and the same Mr. Curtis, who now succeeded at Steyning, on the right of the corporation to elect the members for Saltash. In 1787, Mr. Lemon, the petitioner, by the determination of a second committee, appointed to try the same question, succeeded on the votes of the burgage-holders, and ousted the Earl of Mornington, sitting member, who had been elected by the corporation.

“Thus two members were sitting in the House of Commons at the same time, and for the same borough, upon the right of different descriptions of electors who had each of them been deemed ineligible in the same Parliament.”

This was exactly the case with the representatives of this borough. The inhabitants of houses built on ancient foundations, and the inhabitants in general, have each been declared to possess the right of election; and a member, chosen by each description of voters, has been seated and ousted in the same Parliament.

Since the above decision on the right of election, the Duke of Norfolk has effectually prevented all further contest, by purchasing the whole of Sir John Honeywood’s property in Steyning, as he did that of the Marquis of Hertford, at Horsham, and thereby became sole proprietor of both boroughs.