In the course of all these operations, at length comes out the grand arcanum;—that in reality, and in a fair sense, the lands of the church (so far as anything certain can be gathered from their proceedings) are not to be sold at all. By the late resolutions of the National Assembly, they are indeed to be delivered to the highest bidder. But it is to be observed, that a certain portion only of the purchase money is to be laid down. A period of twelve years is to be given for the payment of the rest. The philosophic purchasers are therefore, on payment of a sort of fine, to be put instantly into possession of the estate. It becomes in some respects a sort of gift to them; to be held on the feudal tenure of zeal to the new establishment. This project is evidently to let in a body of purchasers without money. The consequence will be, that these purchasers, or rather grantees, will pay, not only from the rents as they accrue, which might as well be received by the state, but from the spoil of the materials of buildings, from waste in woods, and from whatever money, by hands habituated to the gripings of usury, they can wring from the miserable peasant. He is to be delivered over to the mercenary and arbitrary discretion of men, who will be stimulated to every species of extortion by the growing demands on the growing profits of an estate held under the precarious settlement of a new political system.
SUSSEX ELECTION PETITIONS (1792).
Source.—Oldfield’s Representative History of Great Britain. London, 1816.
(A) Horsham election petition.
Lord William Gordon and James Baillie, esq., and certain electors in their interest, petitioned in 1790 against the return of Timothy Shelley and Wilson Bradyl, esqrs. The petition was renewed the second session. A committee to try this case met Feb. 16, 1792. The petitions were the same in substance, stating, that the election for Horsham was held June 19, 1790; that Drew Mitchell and John Rawlinson, the baliffs, acted with gross injustice and partiality in favour of the sitting members: that on a poll being demanded, they appointed the Duke of Norfolk’s steward, Thomas Charles Medwin, and James Robertson, the steward’s clerk, to be the poll-clerks, who rejected legal votes in favour of the petitioners, and received illegal votes for the sitting members, by which means they procured a colourable majority.
The final numbers on the poll were—
| T. Shelley, esq. | 25 |
| W. Bradyl, esq. | 24 |
| Lord W. Gordon | 20 |
| J. Baillie, esq. | 9 |
On the 8th of March, 1792, the chairman of the committee reported to the House, that the petitioners were duly elected, and ought to have been returned, and that the sitting members were not duly elected, and ought not to have been returned.
That neither the petitions nor the opposition to them appeared to be frivolous or vexatious. The committee also came to a resolution, which was not reported to the House, that Drew Mitchell and John Rawlinson, the baliffs and returning officers were reprehensible for their conduct. The numbers, according to the votes allowed legal by the committee, were—
| Lord W. Gordon | 15 |
| J. Baillie, esq. | 14 |
| T. Shelley, esq. | 10 |
| W. Bradyl, esq. | 9 |