LLOYD, James Martin (1762-1844), of Lancing, Suss.

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1820-1832, ed. D.R. Fisher, 2009
Available from Cambridge University Press



1790 - 7 Mar. 1791
24 Mar. 1791 - 7 May 1792
1796 - 14 Feb. 1806
1806 - 1818
1818 - 1826

Family and Education

b. 21 May 1762, o.s. of James Lloyd of Lancing and 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 d.v.p.); (2) 10 Nov. 1812, Elizabeth Anne, da. of Rev. Colston Carr of Ealing, Mdx., s.p. cr. bt. 30 Sept. 1831. d. 24 Oct. 1844.

Offices Held

Maj. Suss. militia 1783, 1st maj. 1798, lt.-col. 1803.

Clerk of deliveries, ordnance 1806-7.


After sitting for a number of years as Member for Steyning on the interest of the dukes of Norfolk, Lloyd transferred in 1818 to New Shoreham, where he had his own local base as well as the ducal interest. The contest there in 1820 was not aimed at him, and he topped the poll.1 He was a silent Member who attended fairly regularly in the first two sessions of the new Parliament and continued to vote with the Whig opposition to Lord Liverpool’s ministry. He divided against the civil list, 8 May, and the additional baron of exchequer in Scotland, 15 May 1820. He was granted a month’s leave owing to a family illness, 30 June 1820. He voted to condemn the omission of Queen Caroline’s name from the liturgy, 23, 26 Jan., 13 Feb., and ministers’ conduct towards her, 6 Feb., and for inquiry into the conduct of the sheriff of Dublin, 22 Feb. 1821. He voted against renewal of the sugar duty, 9 Feb., and for Maberly’s resolution on the state of the revenue, 6 Mar., military retrenchment, 14, 15 Mar., repeal of the additional malt duty, 21 Mar., 3 Apr., and Hume’s economy and retrenchment motion, 27 June. He divided for Catholic relief, 28 Feb. He voted for the enfranchisement of Leeds as a scot and lot borough in lieu of Grampound, 2 Mar., and the general parliamentary reform motion, 18 Apr. He was granted a month’s leave owing to ill health, 4 May 1821. Thereafter his attendance lapsed sharply, and he does not appear to have voted at all during the 1822 session: a source which places him in the government majority against more extensive tax reductions, 11 Feb., is almost certainly in error.2 He paired for Russell’s reform motion, 24 Apr. 1823. He was probably the ‘W. Lloyd’ recorded as voting against the Irish tithes composition bill, 16 June 1823, and the ‘T.M. Lloyd’ who was for repeal of the window tax, 2 Mar. 1824. He paired for inquiry into the state of Ireland, 11 May, and voted for repeal of the leather duty, 18 May. The ‘J.S. Lloyd’ listed in the government majority against Brougham’s motion condemning the prosecution of the Methodist missionary John Smith in Demerara, 11 June 1824, is more likely to have been Samuel Loyd. He paired in favour of Catholic relief, 1 Mar., 21 Apr., 10 May 1825. Either he or Samuel Loyd divided for revision of the corn laws, 18 Apr. 1826. He retired at the dissolution that summer, having signified his intention of doing so a year earlier.3

In 1827 Lloyd purchased the manor of Lancing, where his family had owned land since the early eighteenth century, and by 1834 he owned four-fifths of the parish. Lord Grey’s ministry made him a baronet in 1831. He died in October 1844 and his title expired with him; his estate passed to his only child, Rebecca, and reverted on her death two years later to his second wife.4

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: Howard Spencer


  • 1. Suss. Advertiser, 13 Mar. 1820.
  • 2. The Times, 13 Feb. 1822.
  • 3. Arundel Castle mss FC 251; Brighton Gazette, 1 June 1826.
  • 4. VCH Suss. vi. (2), 42; T.W. Horsfield, Hist. Suss. ii. 206; PROB 11/2009/912.