The sitting members had not much
breathing time before having once more to
fight for their seats. The general election
of 1859 was the signal for the renewal of
hostilities. Two accidental Conservatives,
as they may be called, disputed the ground
with the old members.

Of these new comers, Mr. Padwick, being
interested in an election in another part of
England, had called at the office of the
Conservative agents in London, and had there
"promiscuously" met Mr. Smith, a gentleman
from Bridgwater, in search of a candidate.
The result of the short conversation
that ensued was, that Mr. Padwick agreed
to stand for Bridgwater, and three weeks
afterwards he went down to the borough,
provided with a thousand pounds, which
were then consigned to Mr. Smith's
keeping. At the end of the week it appeared
that the money was all expended in settling
outstanding accounts, and another thousand
pounds arrived from London, in a parcel labelled,
"Samples, glass; with care. This side
up," and this money likewise was distributed.
On behalf of the second Conservative
candidate no money appears to have been
distributed, inasmuch as that gentleman had
made a prudent arrangement by which he
was to spend only two hundred pounds if
unsuccessful, or a thousand pounds if returned.
Both the Liberal candidates were elected,
very cheaply it would at first appear, as
the published accounts of one of them
amounted only to two hundred and forty–
eight pounds. About three months after
the election, however, this gentleman was,
to his dismay, called upon to pay, and did
pay, over eleven hundred pounds in discharge
of moneys spent illegally on his
behalf, a "pull " that must have been
disagreeable indeed. Of the expenditure of
the other Liberal no account can be got:
but as he changed a cheque of his father's
for seven hundred pounds at the
Bridgwater Bank just before the election,
and as the ten–pound notes in which he
elected to "have it" were very soon after
changed for gold by persons in humble
stations, it may be inferred that it was
large, and that little secrecy was observed.
Many voters were bribed at this election by
both parties. The Conservatives bribed a
fortnight before the election, the Liberals
waited till the polling day, when they intercepted
voters on the way to the booth, administered
their bribes, and polled their
men then and there.

Mr. Padwick had had enough of Bridgwater
in this his first essay, but his unsuccessful
colleague, Mr. Westropp, conceived
the idea of "nursing" the borough
by large subscriptions to race meetings,
charities, &c., and expended in that process
some three hundred and seventy pounds a
year. And this process had to be continued
for some time, no election taking
place before 1865. On this occasion two
Liberals appeared to oppose Mr. Westropp,
but, as they went on the "Purity"
principle, and did not bribe by money
payments, they had little chance against
the couple of thousand pounds that were
forthcoming on the other side. The
Conservative was duly elected, and as duly
unseated on petition. A cross petition
against the Liberal who was second on the
poll was dismissed, but his costs were not
allowed, for, said the chairman of the
committee, "there is nothing frivolous about
Bridgwater," and a report was made to the
House that corrupt practices had extensively
prevailed at the last election.

A circumstance of interest in this election
is the re–appearance of our old friend Mr.
William Heal. Disgusted with the mean
conduct of Foster with reference to that
forty pounds, he transferred his services
to the Conservative side, voted for Westropp,
and received two hundred and fifty
pounds to bribe with. In his artless evidence
he admits having kept two hundred
pounds—a pretty good slice of the cake
—for himself, and also admits having
committed wilful perjury before the Election
Committee of 1866. But what of
that? The heart of Bridgwater is with
him still, for he assures the Commissioners
that none of his proceedings
"ever did him the slightest damage at
Bridgwater, either in reputation, or in
trust, or in commerce, and that even now
'his credit there stands as high as ever it
did.'" What an Arcadia!

It was not likely that in a town where every
other form of bribery and intimidation was
practised, the element of religious persecution
should have no place. Robert Coles, a
member of a Baptist chapel, who had given
evidence before the committee in London,
was, shortly after his return to Bridgwater,
requested to attend a private meeting at
the house of the pastor. At this meeting
he was accused by one J. W. Sully, one of
the deacons of the chapel, of having "been
to London with dirty hands as to bribery
and perjury." Coles denied the charge,
and it was ultimately arranged that no
proceedings should be taken until after the
publication of the Blue Book. Notwithstanding