Page:VCH Sussex 1.djvu/622

 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.