Page:VCH Sussex 1.djvu/621

 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