| Share page |
|
238 |
||
|
and determined to stand a contest. Mr John Smith, a Brighton celebrity, supposed that he should be able to make a stand in conjunction with Mr Webster; but on the day of Election he found himself quite unsupported. He could not even obtain a person to put him in nomination; and finally, having nominated himself, no person tendered a vote for him. J. Marten Lloyd, Esq., stood on the Duke of Norfolk's interest; and Sir Charles Merrik Burrell, Bart, was supported by Lord Egremont ; and against them was Mr Webster's attack directed. He was however defeated, the numbers at the close of the poll being,—for J. M. Lloyd, Esq., 383 ; Sir C. M. Burrell, 251; Henry Webster, Esq., 167.
Within the compass of six miles from Shoreham, there were formerly two other borough towns,—viz., Brambor and Steyning, — both disfranchised by the Reform Act of 1832. It is on record that so mercenary were the proceedings connected with the elections for the three boroughs, that more money was expended on them during the reign of George III. than all the land in the parishes was worth at 20 years' purchase. On one of these occasions, the landlord of the Star, at Shoreham, long since deceased (although a " Deadman" when living) boasted that at an election at that time he had made £300 of a pipe of wine. In 1826,—prior to the Reform Bill coming into operation, there was a sharp contest for the Rape of Bramber between Sir C. M. Burrell, Bart., Henry Howard, Esq., and E. B. Sugden, Esq. (afterwards Lord St. Leonards, and High Chancellor of England). The latter gentleman sought the seat vacated by the retirement of Sir J. M. Loyd; but was unsuccessful, — the numbers at the close of the poll being: for Sir 0. M. Burrell, 865; Henry Howard, Esq., 545 ; E. B. Sugden, Esq., 483. Since that period, with but one exception, that of 1857, there has not been a contest worth recording, and on this occasion |
||