this, Coles was requested not to
attend the Communion service on the
following Sunday, and on the Monday was,
in direct violation of rules, expelled the
community by an informal meeting. The
pastor and deacons communicated this
decision to Coles in a letter, quite shocking
in its hypocritical affectation of Christian
regret and grief over a backsliding brother,
in which it is affirmed, with suspicious
iteration, that Coles's punishment has no
connexion with the fact of his voting one
way or the other, and is entirely for his
soul's sake. But when it is stated that
Sully was a red–hot Liberal partisan, and,
moreover, that he was one of the persons
tried for the riots at the election of 1832,
the true nature of the transaction will be
pretty clear. It is satisfactory to know
that Coles afterwards brought an action for
libel, during the trial of which it was admitted
that he had not committed perjury
before the Committee of the House of
Commons, and recovered fifty pounds damages.

The cost of these two contests of Mr.
Westropp's, and the cost of the petition,
are put at seven thousand pounds, for which
he never received any account; this, with the
cost of "nursing" the borough for nine
years, makes up ten thousand three hundred
pounds. A good round sum did Mr.
Westropp pay for his whistle!

The next election was a simple affair,
and money was freely spent. A Conservative
and a Liberal contested the vacant
seat. Of these the Conservative, who won
by a narrow majority of seven, spent
three thousand five hundred pounds. His
published expenses amounted to two
hundred and sixteen pounds nineteen shillings.
The Liberal was very energetic against
corrupt practices, and declined to contest
the borough except on " Purity" principles.
"Purity" principles, the Liberal attorneys
declared, were the very principles
they loved, and bribery was abhorrent to
their souls. So the candidate promised to
subscribe six hundred pounds towards the
expenses of a petition, should the
Conservative win by bribery, and the election
went on. After the defeat of their man,
notoriously caused by the employment of
corrupt practices by the other side, the ardour
of the Liberal attorneys on behalf of a petition
vanished in a curious way, and the
unfortunate candidate began to suspect that
all was not right. And well he might, for
after some days the managers of the party
confessed to having spent large sums illegally,
and the expenses of the election
turned out to be upwards of fifteen hundred
pounds instead of the one hundred
and ninety–three pounds ten and twopence
(these accounts are always suspiciously
particular about the pence) vouched for by
the published statement. This money was
ultimately paid by the candidate.

The year 1866 was a capital year for
corrupt Bridgwater electors, for in June
the Conservative member was appointed to
the office of Lord Advocate, and was
compelled to seek re–election. He hoped, good,
easy man, to be allowed to walk over the
course, and did not even visit the town
until a day or two before the election. He
was speedily undeceived. The Liberal
managers had discovered a candidate in
Mr. Vanderbyl, a London merchant, who
was willing to disburse a considerable sum
of money for the honour of representing
Bridgwater, and who had already had
some experience in electioneering, having
at the last general election unsuccessfully
contested Yarmouth in conjunction with
a Mr. Brogden. It was under the auspices
of Mr. Brogden, who had no connexion
whatever with the place, that Mr. Vanderbyl
was introduced to Bridgwater,
and the two gentlemen came to the town
together. The electors were in capital
spirits at the thought of a brisk contest,
and received the new candidate most
enthusiastically. To use Mr. Brogden's own
account of the reception, "There were
bands of music, flags, carriage and four,
electors very exuberant, beer, &c.," and
general drunken jubilation, no doubt.
There was no pretence even at this election
of anything but bribery, and Mr. Brogden's
instructions to the legal agents on the
morning of the polling day were simple
and decisive. "Go in and win, cost what
it may." And with these "up–guards–and–at–'em"
kind of orders, the agents went in
accordingly. The result was that Mr.
Vanderbyl secured three hundred and
twelve votes, at a cost of four thousand
pounds, his published account of expenses
amounting to the modest sum of two hundred
and seventeen pounds thirteen and
fourpence. As his opponent only spent
two thousand six hundred pounds, he very
naturally secured thirty–six votes fewer
than Mr. Vanderbyl, and lost the election.
Of course there was no petition, and Mr.
Vanderbyl remained in undisturbed possession
of the seat.

In 1868 occurred the general election
consequent on the appeal made to the
country on the Irish question. The sitting