then it was necessary to keep to the original
agreement and give the second votes to
Broadwood. Of course the bribers had to
be called in. The coalition was successful,
and the "Purity" candidate was beaten by
a large majority. That this gentleman
really did contest the borough on strictly
pure principles is proved by the fact that
his own expenditure amounted to no more
than twenty–six pounds. Under these
circumstances a petition against the return
seems the natural sequence. But no petition
was presented, although, as the Commissioners
remark, "the lawyers who brought
him forward were perfectly well aware of
the corrupt practices of his opponents, and
of the evidence by which those practices
would be brought home to them. That no
petition was presented against the return
of either of the sitting members is probably
to be explained in the same way as the like
forbearance on similar occasions at
Bridgwater."It is remarkable that, until they
had succeeded in ferreting out the history
of this election, the Commissioners were
assured even by trustworthy witnesses that
it was the one pure election that had occurred
since 1832.

The same game of coalition between a
Conservative and a Liberal was played
again at the election of 1852. The split in
the Liberal camp still existed, and three
Liberals stood for the borough against
two Conservatives. The Commissioners
acquit these latter gentlemen of having
countenanced any corrupt expenditure.
The one spent little or nothing, the other,
who was eventually successful, spent eleven
hundred and fifty pounds, "including the
cost of a five months' canvass." Of the
Liberals, the two who were ultimately
defeated spent some six hundred pounds;
one of them, Lord Henley, was, in the
course of the polling day, actually
applied to for money to be devoted to
purposes of bribing, but, to his honour,
flatly and unhesitatingly refused it. The
victorious Liberal, Colonel Tynte, was
elected through corrupt practices, it is
said without his knowledge. Money went
about freely both in bribery and treating.
The price of votes had fallen considerably,
ten pounds being now the regulation
figure. Notorious bribe agents were
employed who, in accordance with the terms
of the secret coalition, bribed electors to
vote for Colonel Tynte, the Liberal, and
Mr. Follett, the Conservative—certainly,
be it understood, without the knowledge of
the latter gentlemen, who knew nothing of
the coalition made by his "patrons." That
the bribe agents were not themselves the
most trustworthy persons possible, may
readily be imagined. The large sums of
money passing through their hands must
have been tempting, and in the case of one
Heal the temptation appears to have been
irresistible. This person is described as
having undoubtedly "intercepted" at least
one hundred pounds of the bribe money
with which he had to deal, and does not
appear to have been the least ashamed of
the transaction. The Commissioners dwell
particularly on this defalcation, because, as
they note, "it is the first discovered
instance of what was soon to become—if it
had not already become—the general
practice of bribe agents."

Gradually the discords which had torn
the Liberal party to pieces were appeased.
The rival attorneys buried the hatchet, and
jointly started two Liberals at the election
of 1857. Mr. Follett, the late Conservative
member, opposed them. But as this
gentleman moderated his expenditure on
the occasion, it is not surprising that he
suffered defeat. Mr. Heal was again
employed to distribute the Liberal bribes. So
highly was this gentleman thought of by
his party, that it is in evidence that his
chief employer, Mr. Benjamin Lovibond,
asseverated in strong language that if Heal
deserted the party as there was some
suspicion he was about to do—he (Lovibond)
must put up his electioneering shutters.
But Heal did not desert the party. He
distributed bribes manfully. The Golden
Ball Inn was his counting–house, and there
he bribed with ten pounds apiece such
voters as were brought to him by one
Foster, Mr. Lovibond's clerk. It is a curious
circumstance, taken in connexion with
that hundred pounds with which Mr. Heal's
name was connected in the 1852 election,
that on this occasion he was unable to
account for two hundred pounds when he
endeavoured to balance his receipts and
expenditure. So odd did the coincidence
appear to Foster, that he declined to pay
Heal a sum of forty pounds for services
rendered, remarking: "Bill, you did us
last time, and we have done you this
time!" and the Commissioners are
evidently entirely of Mr. Foster's opinion.
No petition followed this election, although
the bribery had been open and notorious.
Indeed, to such a pass had things come,
that little or no pains were taken to
conceal corrupt practices. Each side knew
that the other dared not petition.