LLOYD, James Martin (1762-1844), of Lancing, Suss.
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Family and Education
b. 21 May 1762, o.s. of James Lloyd of Lancing by Elizabeth, da. of Rev. Edward Martin of Lancing. educ. Univ. Coll., Oxf. 1780. m. (1) 20 Jan. 1785, Rebecca (d. 7 Feb. 1812), da. of Rev. William Green of Eccles Hall, Norf., 3da.; (2) 10 Nov. 1812, Elizabeth Anne, da. of Rev. Colston Carr of Ealing, Mdx., s.p. cr. Bt. 30 Sept. 1831.
Maj. Suss. militia 1783, 1st maj. 1798, lt.-col. 1803.
Clerk of deliveries, Ordnance Mar. 1806-7.
Lloyd was one of the successful candidates when the 11th Duke of Norfolk challenged Sir John Honywood* at Steyning in 1790. Both were unseated on petition, but Lloyd regained his seat in the by-election caused by Honywood’s choosing to sit for Canterbury—only to lose it on another petition to his competitor. Not until 1796 was his patron able to secure his election. He had been listed favourable to repeal of the Test Act in Scotland in 1791, and voted with opposition against Pitt’s Russian policy, 12 Apr. 1791 and 1 Mar. 1792. From 1796 he followed the same line until 10 May 1797. He did not vote for parliamentary reform that session; nor did he secede, but his attendance was fitful thereafter. He opposed Pitt’s triple tax assessment, 14, 18 Dec. 1797. He was probably the ‘Mr Lloyd’ (there were three in the House) who gave notice of a motion to reduce the fees of tellers of the Exchequer and other sinecures, 5 Jan. 1798, which he did not follow up. He voted with the minority on the state of Ireland, 22 June 1798, and against the Union, 11, 14 Feb. 1799. He gave up another intended motion to combat abuses in liquor sales, 25 Feb. 1799. It is not clear whether it was he or John Lloyd who tried in vain to induce Pitt to relieve the poorer clergy from the income tax, 16 Mar. 1799. No subsequent speech by this Member has been found. He voted against the refusal to negotiate with France, 3 Feb. 1800, and against the suspension of habeas corpus, 11 Dec. Next session he was in the minorities against the address, 2 Feb., against the conduct of the Ferrol expedition, 19 Feb., and for Grey’s critical motion, 25 Mar. He voted for the review of the Prince of Wales’s claims to the duchy of Cornwall revenues, 31 Mar., against the beer duty bill, 13 Apr., and in approval of Pitt’s removal from office, 7 May 1802.
No minority vote of Lloyd’s against Addington’s ministry is known. In 1803 he was mostly absent ill and subsequently seems to have followed his patron’s line of disapproval of the combined opposition, which was likely to restore Pitt to office. When it did, he voted against government. He opposed Pitt’s additional force bill in June 1804 (being locked out on 11 June), war with Spain, 12 Feb., and his defence measures, 21 Feb., 6 Mar. 1805. He approved the continuation of the naval commission of inquiry, 1 Mar. On 12 June he was in the majority for Melville’s criminal prosecution.
When his friends took office, Lloyd made way for their attorney-general Sir Arthur Piggott.1 He was rewarded with a place at the Ordnance and at the general election of 1806 his patron was able to restore his seat to him. On 2 Mar. 1807 he took a day’s leave of absence on Ordnance business. He voted for Brand’s motion critical of his friends’ successors in office, 9 Apr. 1807. Subsequently the Whigs regarded him as one of their ‘thick and thin’ adherents (March 1810). He voted with the more advanced minorities on places and pensions, 7 July 1807, on the droits of Admiralty, 11 Feb., for peace by mediation, 29 Feb. 1808, and for a committee on abuses, 17 Apr. 1809. He invariably supported Catholic relief. He was hostile to Perceval in 1810, opposing the imprisonment of Burdett and the detention of Gale Jones, 5 and 16 Apr., and supporting sinecure reform, 17 May. (Again, he did not support parliamentary reform.) No vote is known between 22 Feb. 1811 and 4 Feb. 1812—but his patron was then playing a waiting game. He voted for Turton’s censure motion, 27 Feb. 1812, against the orders in council, 3 Mar., and for a stronger administration, 21 May. He also opposed the leather tax, 26 June, 1 July.
Lloyd voted frequently, if not assiduously, with the opposition in the Parliament of 1812. In the session of 1815 he did not appear until April. He opposed the Regent’s address on the resumption of hostilities with France, 25 May. After the death of the 11th Duke of Norfolk in December 1815, his opposition became more marked. He voted steadily for retrenchment from 28 Feb. until 3 Apr. 1816 and continued in that line. He favoured the resumption of cash payments by the Bank, 1, 3 May 1816 and thereafter. He opposed the suspension of habeas corpus in February and in June 1817. He did not appear in the session of 1818 until April, when he opposed the ducal marriage grants. In 1818 the 12th Duke of Norfolk dropped him for Steyning and supported him for Shoreham, where he had an interest of his own. He was returned unopposed and signed the requisition to Tierney to lead the opposition. He voted steadily with them, making his first bow to reform on 1 Apr. and 6 May when he voted for burgh reform. He opposed repressive measures to combat sedition until 6 Dec. and also the seizure of arms bill, 16 Dec. 1819.
Lloyd died 24 Oct. 1844, having been made a baronet by the Whigs on their return to power.2