A HISTORY OF SUSSEX 



the cloak of charity concerned itself solely with the corrupt manipulation 

 of votes, and that the members on this occasion had undertaken to sell 

 their support to the highest bidder, and had received ^35 apiece from 

 Mr. Rumbold's agent. Inquiry proved the truth of this statement ; 

 Roberts escaped with a severe reprimand for his illegal action in dis- 

 qualifying voters on his own motion, and all the members of the society 

 were disfranchised, the franchise being for the future extended to all 

 the 40J-. freeholders in the rape of Bramber.' 



Though corruption was possibly most highly organized at Shore- 

 ham it was almost equally rampant elsewhere. Thus in 1767 Arundel 

 ' was sold for fifteen guineas pro vote to Mr. Crawford, who transferred 

 her as was publickly said to a countryman of his . . . who was said 

 to be negotiating the transfer of her to a third purchaser,' ^ and in 1780 

 Robinson wrote to Lord North, ' I will tell Sir Patrick Crawford that 

 if he can secure the second seat at Arundel undoubtedly a friend is 

 ready to give ^(^3,000, but that I doubt that he will find that they 

 must give Lord Surrey one member.' ^ As a result of a petition after 

 this election of 1780 Sir Patrick was unseated and the existence was 

 proved of a ' Malthouse Club,' of which the members had each received 

 30 guineas for his vote. 



It is almost a surprise to find that there were any honest men 

 connected with elections at that time, but the mayor of Arundel showed 

 that he had the courage to do his duty in 1688. The Government 

 had sent down a candidate to oppose the sitting members, and had also 

 sent the notorious Lord Chancellor Jefferies to ensure his return. 

 Upon Jefferies trying to interfere in the polling and cause a vote to 

 be rejected, the mayor promptly gave him into the custody of the 

 constable and caused him to be ejected. A somewhat similar case 

 occurred in the county election of 1705, when the Dukes of Somerset 

 and Richmond were turned out of the court by Sheriff Turner before 

 he would take the poll.* 



Sussex was one of the disturbed counties during the Reform agitation 

 of 1 830-1. By the Reform Bill of 1832 Bramber, East Grinstead, 

 Seaford, Steyning and Winchelsea lost both their members, and Arundel, 

 Horsham, Midhurst and Rye lost one member. Brighton received the 

 right to return two, and the county was divided into East and West 

 divisions, each returning two members. This arrangement held good 

 until the Redistribution Bill of 1884, under which the county was 

 arranged in six electoral divisions, Horsham, Chichester, East Grinstead, 

 Lewes, Eastbourne and Rye, the borough of Hastings returning one 

 member and Brighton two. 



Out of the old trained bands, whose history in Sussex we have 

 already traced down to the Restoration, rose the militia. The difference 

 indeed was merely one of name until after the reorganization which 

 followed the disgraceful failure of the northern militia in 1745. In 



» Suss. Arch. Coll. xxvii. 90-5. 2 Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. x. (i) 409. 



» Ibid. App. 6, 33. • HarUy Papers (Hist. MSS. Com.), ii. 185. 



