POLITICAL HISTORY 



seventy members, and was especially powerful in Sussex, which with its 

 twenty-eight representatives was only surpassed numerically by three 

 counties/ In no role did the duke shine more than in that of an 

 electioneering agent, attending to every detail, consulted as to the best 

 manner of bribing each individual elector, touring through the county 

 in his six-horse coach, writing to bishops, noblemen, and commoners, 

 pulling every conceivable wire and generally revelling in all the petty 

 details of the business. His agents were also capable and energetic, 

 especially Richard Burnett, who must have been invaluable, judging by 

 the record of his cheerful activity. Henry Pelham, the duke's brother, 

 who was standing for the county, was also an excellent and hard-working 

 agent, but his fellow-candidate, James Butler, seems to have been a poor 

 figurehead and more hindrance than help.^ The two Tom Pelhams also, 

 who were candidates for Lewes, were wretchedly incapable and could do 

 nothing for themselves, Pelham of Lewes being apparently a valetudi- 

 narian,^ while his namesake of Stanmer was known as 'Turk' Pelham, 

 and drank himself to death in 1737/ 



The methods of influencing voters in this election were very various, 

 ranging from the grant of a living to the pardon of a popular smuggler ; 

 appointments to Government, and especially revenue, offices were 

 numerous, while the drink bills incurred for constant treats were 

 enormous. Threats of the loss of custom were used to wavering trades- 

 men, and in Lewes, where the voting was confined to householders rated 

 on the poor books, unsatisfactory tenants were ejected and their places 

 filled with those who would vote the right way, while care was taken 

 that the parish officers who had control of the poor-books should be 

 favourable.^ Of violence there is scarcely a trace, and the conduct of 

 the opposition candidates' supporters at Hailsham in burning Sir Robert 

 Walpole in effigy is reprobated by both sides.'' The result of the election 

 was a triumph for the Duke of Newcastle and his business-like organiza- 

 tion of corruption. 



It would be easy to give a long list of cases of bribery from 1700, 

 when Samuel Shepherd, member for Bramber, was unseated and com- 

 mitted to the Tower for that cause, down to the Chichester election of 

 1826, at which, although no definite giving of bribes can be alleged, the 

 polling of less than 800 voters cost the three candidates nearly _^9,ooo. 

 The most remarkable case of corruption came to light at Shoreham in 

 1770. At the election of this year for the seat vacated by the death of 

 Sir Samuel Cornish, three candidates came to the poll. Of these Thomas 

 Rumbold obtained 87 votes and John Purling ^j. The returning 

 officer, Hugh Roberts, rejected 76 of Rumbold's votes and declared 

 Purling elected. A committee being appointed to inquire into the 

 officer's high-handed action, Roberts said that the votes rejected were 

 those of the members of ' The Christian Society,' a society which under 



' Eng. Hist. Rev. sii. 459. = Ibid. p. 479. 



3 Ibid. p. 481. ■> Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. xiv. (9), 9, 239. 



6 Williams, loc. cit. pp. 484-6. >* Ibid. p. 475. 



531 



