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.