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

Background Information

Right of Election:

in inhabitants paying scot and lot

Estimated number qualified to vote:

about 460 in 18311

Number of voters:

430 in 1831


6,155 (1821), 7,807 (1831)2


9 June 1826WILLIAM ASTELL167
 Sir Colin Campbell90
 Henry Shirley202

Main Article

A market town and seaport situated on the banks of the tidal River Parrett, in a plain of ‘very rich and productive’ agricultural land, Bridgwater was described in 1822 as ‘large, populous [and] flourishing ... a place of extensive trade [and] a great thoroughfare’. The Parrett divided the town into two, the western part being ‘larger and better built’ than the eastern, known as Eastover. Bridgwater’s role as an important distribution centre for the South West of England was boosted by the opening of the link, via Taunton, with the Grand Western Canal in 1827. Shipbuilding provided some employment, but many of the ‘humbler inhabitants’ found well-paid though seasonal work in the manufacture of tiles and bricks, using the peculiar mud deposits along the river bank. The corporation instigated considerable improvements to the town during the 1820s, including the building of a new court house and quay, and a private Act of Parliament obtained in 1826 led to the demolition of ‘a number of unsightly edifices’ for the purpose of widening the streets and constructing an enlarged and ‘very elegant’ market house. It was asserted that ‘few provincial towns have exhibited so much public spirit for improvement’.3

The borough was within but not wholly coextensive with the parish of the same name, a resolution by the Commons in March 1769 having determined that inhabitants of the eastern and western divisions of the parish were not entitled to vote. The franchise was therefore confined to householders assessed to the poor rate in what was known as the ‘borough’ division of the parish.4 Local political control was concentrated in the corporation, which consisted of a mayor, the returning officer for parliamentary elections, and 23 other capital burgesses. Although it was not politically or denominationally exclusive, the fact that vacancies were filled by nomination allowed a small group of mainly Tory families to predominate; 18 of the corporators came from eight families in 1834. Prominent figures in the 1820s included the attornies Joseph Ruscombe Poole and John William Trevor, the banker Edward Sealy and the merchant Frederick Axford. Leadership had traditionally been provided by successive generations of the Earls Poulett, who monopolized the crucial office of recorder between 1745 and 1819. Since 1807 the parliamentary representation had been shared by George Pocock, the brother-in-law of John, 4th Earl Poulett, and William Astell, an East India Company director who consolidated his position through lavish use of the patronage at his disposal.5 In the late eighteenth century an opposition to the Poulett interest had developed in the form of an ‘independent’ party, dedicated to the memory of Charles James Fox (who contested the borough in 1780), and this was strengthened by the active support of the various Protestant Dissenting sects. The opposition launched a serious though unsuccessful challenge to the Tory sitting Members at the 1818 general election.6

A new political alignment emerged following Poulett’s death in January 1819. His successor, an army officer, was absent in France on active service until 1822, and does not appear to have played any part thereafter in Bridgwater politics.7 The vacant recordership was filled by Jefferys Allen, a former Pittite Member for the borough. At the dissolution in 1820 the independent party was approached with an offer that they should nominate one of the new Members in return for an undertaking not to oppose Astell. This was accepted, as the attorney Edward Symes explained, because ‘although we were confident that we could return two if we had been prepared with proper men ... it could not have been done without some sacrifice of money’. Charles Kemeys Tynte, a neighbouring landowner, ‘who will not call himself a party man but ... will invariably support all the leading principles of Mr. Fox’, was therefore invited to stand, with an assurance that he would be put to no expense. Symes believed that ‘by this compromise we get wholly rid of the remains of the Poulett interest and unless I am much mistaken shall divide the opposite party for future occasions’.8 When Kemeys Tynte announced his candidature, Pocock ‘signified his determination not to offer ... again’ and the way was left clear for Astell and Kemeys Tynte’s unopposed return. On election day the candidates breakfasted with ‘a select party’ at the home of the mayor, Poole, before proceeding to the hustings ‘accompanied by almost all the respectable electors in the town’. Astell was nominated by the Rev. William Wollen and the surgeon Stephen Macmullen, and Kemeys Tynte was sponsored by one Dawe and the merchant Morley Chubb. Astell declared that he was ‘always desirous of supporting His Majesty’s ministers’, but reserved the right to act otherwise whenever they were in error, and he strongly defended the measures taken to combat the subversion of the constitution, which had been vindicated by the Cato Street conspiracy. Kemeys Tynte, in a published address, attached himself to ‘the cause of political integrity and independence’, maintained that this object had been furthered ‘by my not even entering upon the customary form of a canvass’ and emphasized his freedom from party obligations, which was all the more necessary ‘receiving support as I now do, from men ... professing different principles’. His return, apparently ‘without ... soliciting a vote or being put to the expense of a single sixpence’, was acclaimed by the local press as ‘a most laudable example of the ancient purity of election’.9

In November 1820 Bridgwater was ‘brilliantly illuminated’ to celebrate the news of the withdrawal of the bill of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline. However, a loyal address to the king was subsequently organized, which was signed by ‘the four magistrates of the town ... ten magistrates of the county ... 16 clergymen of the neighbouring parishes ... 15 out of 24 of the corporation and ... upwards of 400 of the most respectable inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood’. It condemned the ‘wicked attempts of a desperate and unprincipled faction’ to exploit ‘every season of public calamity ... under the mask of reform, to overthrow all the venerable institutions of our beloved country ... under which it has for [many] years enjoyed the blessings of pure religion and genuine liberty, and attained unrivalled eminence both in arts and arms’. The inhabitants petitioned the Commons to restore the queen’s name to the liturgy, 24 Jan. 1821.10 They sent petitions to reduce capital punishments, 3 June 1822, and repeal the Insolvent Debtors Act, 11 Mar. 1823, and the house and window taxes, 24 Feb. 1825.11 Anti-slavery petitions were presented to the Commons, 14 May 1823, 25 Mar. 1824, 20 Apr. 1826, and the Lords, 29 Mar. 1824.12 In the summer of 1825, with anti-Catholic feeling in the area rising, there were rumours of two candidates preparing to come forward ‘in the True Blue interest’ against Kemeys Tynte, who had voted for the relief bill, and Astell, who had opposed it but remained in alliance with his colleague. Nothing came of this immediately.13 However, it was reported early in 1826 that John Stanbury, ‘known at Exeter and in the west by the designation of "the election general"’, had visited Bridgwater and held a meeting with those electors ‘disposed to countenance a "third man"’. Shortly afterwards the ‘agents of - Smith esq. ... a "church and king" man’ appeared and held a ‘jollification at his expense’ for 150 of the ‘independent electors’. One local newspaper suspected that talk of a new candidate represented nothing more than the ambition of ‘a few worthless fellows ... desirous of the guzzle, gormandizing and gain attendant on a contested election’.14 Nevertheless, these symptoms of a possible intervention prompted rapid steps to secure the position of the sitting Members. Separate meetings of the friends of Astell and Kemeys Tynte were held in February, when requisitions were drawn up inviting them to stand again. Kemeys Tynte, who had earlier intimated a desire to retire from parliamentary life, replied with a lengthy address expressing his sense of obligation not to desert his supporters or their cause, but stressing that ‘nothing on earth shall induce me to enter on a canvass’, which would be ‘altogether inconsistent’ with his ‘principles of independence’. He then attended an enthusiastic meeting of nearly 200 of his supporters at the George. Astell likewise met with his friends at the court house, where he remarked that although his politics were ‘entirely different’ from Kemeys Tynte’s and would oblige him to ‘oppose him to the utmost’ at a contested election, nothing would ‘induce him to break off that friendship which they had contracted since their joint return to Parliament’. The Members also received a ‘declaration’, signed by many of the ‘most respectable inhabitants of the town’ from both parties, stating their determination to ‘preserve the peace of the borough’ by opposing the introduction of any new candidate. This encouraged Astell to canvass the electors, three-quarters of whom he claimed had pledged their support.15 Shortly before the dissolution in June Michael Nolan*, a Welsh judge, arrived to test the political waters, but departed in a hurry, when there appeared one William Henry Douglas, of whom nothing was known other than that he was ‘brought forward by the same mercenary borough agent who had inveigled Mr. Nolan’; he also retired after a discouraging canvass. It was only a few days before the election that General Sir Colin Campbell, a Waterloo veteran and friend of the duke of Wellington, came forward, but the sitting Members were by now too well entrenched to be seriously threatened. At the nomination Astell, who was again proposed by Wollen and seconded by Robert Evered, declared that it was his ‘highest wish to represent an independent borough’. Kemeys Tynte, who was proposed by the merchant William Ford and seconded again by Chubb, rebutted the accusations made against him in a handbill regarding his support for Catholic relief, and said he ‘thought it best, if he erred in any way, to do so on the liberal side’. Campbell was introduced by Captain Hall and the tanner William Bath and pledged his support for ‘the constitution of [the] country and its interests’. The show of hands was in favour of Astell and Kemeys Tynte, but Campbell demanded a poll, which was kept open until the end of the day when he abandoned the contest as hopeless, leaving 153 voters unpolled. Astell obtained six plumpers, Kemeys Tynte eight and Campbell 42, while 128 votes were split between Astell and Kemeys Tynte (77 and 84 per cent of their respective totals), 33 between Astell and Campbell and 15 between Kemeys Tynte and Campbell. Five tendered votes were disallowed. It was reported that ‘the Society of Friends, who have never yet been known to vote at an election in this town, all voluntarily came forward to the hustings and gave their suffrages to the old Members’. Astell afterwards thanked those who had supported him despite being ‘opposed to me in general politics’ and, acknowledging the tensions created by his alliance with Kemeys Tynte, he urged those of his own friends who had differed ‘in regard to the disposal of their second votes’ to ‘forget and forgive what is past, and not to keep alive any distinctions which may lead to a permanent disunion among the members of a party who have so long acted together’.16 One local newspaper, noting that Kemeys Tynte had been returned ‘without ... soliciting a vote, free of expense, and Mr. Astell very nearly so’, declared that the electors stood ‘nobly redeemed’ from the ‘heavy odium’ of their notoriously corrupt past and presented ‘a splendid and enviable example of public virtue to all England’. These claims are difficult to square with the report in a Bath paper, during the campaign, that the voters were

busy on the look out for good eating and drinking, and the candidates are liberal in satisfying that rational appetite of John Bull. Every respectable inn in the town is more or less in requisition, and the entertainments provided are, in every respect, adapted to gratify the appetite and keep up a continued spirit of mirth and good humour.17

The inhabitants sent a petition to the Lords against Catholic relief, 1 June 1827.18 A joint petition of Anglicans and Protestant Dissenters for repeal of the Test Acts was forwarded to the Commons, 21 Feb. 1828.19 The inhabitants petitioned the Commons for repeal of the house and window taxes, 12 Mar. 1829, and both Houses against the death penalty for forgery, 24 May, 22 June 1830.20 The general election of 1830 passed off quietly, with no indication of any opposition to the sitting Members. Astell delayed issuing his address until after the public meeting held by his friends, which resolved to secure his return ‘with the least possible inconvenience’ to himself, at a time when his duties as chairman of the East India Company kept him in London. Kemeys Tynte received a requisition to stand again, more numerously signed than previously, and in his address he pointed to his ‘conduct during the last ten years of very trying times’ as ‘a pledge to you of the undeviating line of political rectitude which it has been and will continue to be my endeavour to pursue’. He expressed gratitude for ‘the allowances you have so liberally made for me, under such differences of opinion as must necessarily have occurred’. Astell was as usual nominated by Wollen and Robert Evered, while Kemeys Tynte was sponsored by Charles Chubb, a merchant, and James Pyke, a corn factor. Campbell was then proposed by the druggist Thomas Woodward and the veterinary surgeon William Quick, but when it was realized that he had offered for Barnstaple his name was withdrawn and Astell and Kemeys Tynte were returned unopposed. It appears from later evidence that Campbell had received a financial inducement from the duke of Wellington’s government to contest Barnstaple in order to prevent him from opposing Astell. In a published address, Kemeys Tynte referred to ‘the value of that forbearance which has cost me many a struggle in my own breast, and made my line of conduct most difficult to maintain, in not canvassing,’ but he was unwilling to betray the principles on which he had originally been elected. Astell was thankful for ‘the unanimity which was exhibited’ and for the efforts of his friends in arranging his return. The Taunton Courier again congratulated the borough on ‘the wholesome and recompensing effect of a pure system of election’ and attributed the transformation of its previously sordid reputation to ‘the perseverance of a few individuals’. It was recalled that the concerted movement to reform the character of Bridgwater only dated from the election of 1818, but that by 1820, ‘many who had before thought it madness to attempt the reform they had at heart, rallied round a man who could so completely sympathise with themselves’. Kemeys Tynte’s success at three elections was clearly ‘due to a fixed principle, not ... an accidental change of circumstances’. Furthermore, ‘this feeling ... has extended itself to all parties’, and Astell and ‘his more immediate friends’ were praised for the part they had played in ‘bringing into a town that harmony which elicits a general effort for its own improvement’.21

The inhabitants forwarded anti-slavery petitions to Parliament, 16, 18 Nov. 1830.22 They petitioned the Commons to repeal the house and window taxes, 7 Feb. 1831.23 The mayor, John Evered, summoned a public meeting by requisition at the town hall, 22 Feb., when resolutions were carried in favour of parliamentary reform and the ballot. In moving for a petition embodying these views, the attorney Benjamin Lovibond, a former agent of Astell’s, observed that ‘in no place was reform more needed. Direct bribery ... was not employed, but every other influence of the worst kind was put in force’. He claimed that ‘patronage to the amount of £30,000 had been expended in a short time in this town’, and alluded to certain ‘disgusting scenes in a committee election room, where the circumstances of every elector and the means of influencing him were discussed’. The resulting petition was presented to the Commons by Kemeys Tynte, 1 Mar.24 John Evered convened another meeting, 18 Mar., to organize an address to the king and petition to the Commons in favour of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, which proposed to leave Bridgwater’s representation intact. Lovibond noticed the absence of two aldermen and ‘other influential characters’, but was satisfied that ‘most of the productive and industrious class’ were present. The petition was presented by Sir Robert Heron, 21 Mar.25 Kemeys Tynte voted for the bill, but Astell helped to defeat it and at the ensuing dissolution their alliance broke down under the pressure of local condemnation of the latter’s conduct. A hurriedly convened meeting of Astell’s friends carried resolutions expressing confidence in him and formed an election committee which met daily. Kemeys Tynte’s supporters organized a requisition, signed by almost 200 electors, inviting him to stand again. On his arrival he was greeted ‘with a degree of enthusiasm never before witnessed ... the Cornhill and Bridge were crowded to excess and resounded with the deafening acclamations of the crowd’. Henry Shirley of Newick Park, Sussex, also commenced a canvass in the reform interest.26 At the nomination Astell was again proposed by Wollen, amidst ‘great clamour’, and Thomas Evered. He regretted that he differed from some of his constituents on the reform question, but stood by his opposition to a measure which proposed the ‘monstrous curtailment’ of ‘the representation of Protestant England’, for the sake of obtaining Irish support, and which would destroy the balance between the three estates of the constitution yet fail to satisfy ‘popular clamour’. Kemeys Tynte, who was introduced by the attornies William Boys and Thomas Cole, declared that he stood ‘upon my own ground’, seeking ‘the support of those friends of all parties and sects who first called me forward’, and argued that the reform bill would bring great benefits. His speech was ‘received with great cheers from the friends of Mr. Shirley, who indeed could scarcely be distinguished from those of Mr. Tynte’. Shirley was proposed by Lovibond and Thomas Ford, another attorney. He explained that he stood ‘for the avowed purpose of opposing Mr. Astell’ and described himself as ‘a true reformer’, who looked forward to the extension of commerce, reduction of tithes and abolition of the corn laws. The show of hands was judged to be in favour of Kemeys Tynte and Shirley, but Astell’s representative demanded a poll. At the end of the first day Kemeys Tynte was comfortably in the lead with 296 votes, and Shirley led Astell by 190 to 157; but when polling was completed on the second day, Astell had narrowly secured second place by 11 votes. Accusations were openly voiced that he owed his success to the fact that he ‘had the purse strings of the East India Company at his command’. Shirley’s supporters demanded a scrutiny, which was held on the third day, when they objected to six of the votes cast, but these were upheld and the result confirmed. Astell obtained 84 plumpers compared to 21 for Kemeys Tynte and three for Shirley, while 193 votes were split between Kemeys Tynte and Shirley (57 and 96 per cent of their respective totals), 123 between Kemeys Tynte and Astell (36 and 58 per cent), and six between Astell and Shirley. Thus 50 per cent of the 430 who polled voted for reform, 20 per cent voted against it and 30 per cent cast mixed votes. The victorious candidates were chaired ‘amid tremendous uproar’, while ‘a shower of stones, chiefly thrown by prostitutes and vagabonds from the skirts of the mob, endangered the life’ of Astell, who took refuge in the grand jury room, ‘bruised, but not materially injured’. The ‘mob’ then gathered outside his lodgings and ‘utterly demolished the windows, amid shouts ... yells and horrible imprecations’. In an address, Astell asserted that he favoured ‘moderate reform’ and hoped ‘at a future election’ to receive ‘renewed assistance’ from the ‘several highly respectable electors and friends’ who had withdrawn their support on this occasion. Kemeys Tynte thanked the electors for returning him at the head of the poll ‘without requiring me to solicit a single vote or ... make a pledge of any kind’.27

Shortly after the election a Bridgwater political union was formed at a meeting presided over by John Evered, and ‘nearly 200 voters immediately subscribed their names and cash’. Regular monthly meetings followed and a reform dinner in honour of Kemeys Tynte and Shirley was held in early June, when Lovibond declared the intention of putting down the ‘faction’ that governed the town.28 John Evered convened a public meeting by requisition at the town hall, 28 Sept., when ‘members of the political union ... mustered in great force’ to agree a loyal address to the king and a petition to the Lords for the speedy passage of the reintroduced reform bill. It was reported that ‘within 24 hours upwards of 800 names were attached to the petition ... about double the number ... which has ever been obtained to any petition from this borough’. This was apparently delivered but not presented, although the loyal address was presented by Kemeys Tynte at the levee.29 Meanwhile a ‘constitutional petition’ against the bill was signed by 403 ‘respectable persons’, including 165 gentlemen and yeomen, 132 tradesmen, 41 mechanics and artisans, 25 clergymen, 21 professional men, seven magistrates, seven labourers and five bankers and merchants; it was presented to the Lords, 3 Oct. 1831.30 Following the bill’s rejection the new mayor, Joseph Poole, refused to convene another public meeting and the union met to agree its own address to Lord Grey, which called for a measure ‘equally full and satisfactory to the people’, as the only means of preserving ‘obedience to the laws’. The union also resolved to enter into communication with similar bodies in other parts of the country to help bring pressure to bear on the Lords.31 In the highly charged atmosphere created by the Bristol riots, the Bridgwater magistrates issued a circular calling on the inhabitants to enrol as special constables, which was apparently answered by 128 persons. John Evered, now chairman of the union, responded with an indignant address dismissing as ‘erroneous and groundless’ the fear of unrest, and advising his supporters to avoid being provoked into unlawful acts by a ‘selfish faction’ whose ‘only hope of crushing the cause of reform is based on the chance of creating a national tumult’.32 A poster subsequently appeared in the town accusing Allen of evicting tenants who had refused the proffered bribes and voted for Shirley at the last election, while another incorrectly stated that Astell was no longer a director of the East India Company and that ‘neither vicarage, rectory, judgeship, cadetship, porter, or any other place of emolument, will in future be given for any single vote or family connection in this borough’. Scurrilous claims were also made that the old turnpike house on the Taunton road had been ‘converted into a seminary for young ladies’, and that further inquiry would ‘furnish some curious information, relative to Eastern customs exhibited at this establishment’.33 It was reported in February 1832 that shots had been fired at the houses of prominent anti-reformers, and that such ‘ferocious attacks of midnight incendiarism’ had been a recurring problem since the last election.34 Early the next month Kemeys Tynte was warned that Astell’s friends were preparing for an early general election, and he was urged to ascertain whether his son would be willing to ‘supply Mr. Shirley’s place’; nothing came of this.35 In April the political conflict spilled over into the vestry election, where ‘a contest never before known’ took place, creating ‘as much excitement as for MPs’; the reformers’ triumph was regarded as ‘a great victory over the Tory boroughmongers and placemen’, and afterwards ‘the bells rang [for] two days’ and ‘the cannon ... on the bank of the river ... was in continual roar’.36 During the constitutional crisis in May, various meetings took place in the town and the reformers ‘entered into a resolution not to pay taxes until the wishes of the people [were] acceded to’. By this stage, the union reportedly had 400 members, of whom ‘about 300 ... are voters’.37 The inhabitants petitioned the Lords for the abolition of slavery, 24 May, and the Commons for action to secure the independence of Poland, 7 Aug. 1832.38

Anticipating ‘various circumstances’ that seemed likely to promote further economic development around Bridgwater, the boundary commissioners proposed a considerable extension of the borough to comprehend the brick making districts and ‘all such ground as may be expected to be built upon within a reasonable time’.39 There were 484 registered electors in 1832, when Kemeys Tynte and William Tayleur were returned unopposed with support from the union, after Astell had retired and two other Conservatives had unsuccessfully canvassed.40 Kemeys Tynte sat until his retirement in 1837. The borough remained predominantly Liberal and after 1835 that party ruthlessly exploited its control of the reformed corporation for partisan purposes. In reality, corruption was the main determinant of elections. The commissioners appointed to investigate the constituency in 1869 found that bribery was ‘the chronic disease of the place’ and concluded that every contest since 1831 had been ‘thoroughly corrupt’, although it was impossible to ascertain whether Astell and Kemeys Tynte had been aware of what was done on their behalf. Doubts were also expressed as to the purity of the elections between 1820 and 1830, when the ‘Tories and old Whigs’ were supposedly co-operating to stamp out the system of bribery. Witnesses recalled how the inhabitants had always enjoyed ‘a good share of the good things of India’, thanks to Astell, while in securing Kemeys Tynte’s return, ‘subscriptions [were] raised and all expenses paid, under the management of a Whig committee’ in which James Bussell, ‘an unscrupulous bribery agent’, was a leading figure.41 Following the commissioners’ damning report, Bridgwater was disfranchised.

Author: Terry Jenkins


  • 1. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 505.
  • 2. Figures for the whole parish: the borough population in 1831 was put at 6,953 (Ibid. (1831-2), xxxix. 232).
  • 3. Pigot's Commercial Dir. (1822-3), 401-2; (1830), 696; Robson's Som. Dir. (1839), 62, 63; Gen. Dir. Som. (1840), 57-61; PP (1835), xxiii. 466-7; VCH Som. vi. 216-27.
  • 4. PP (1830-1), x. 61; (1831-2), xxxix. 229.
  • 5. Ibid. (1835), xxiii. 463-5; Som. RO D/B/bw 2/1/3, Bridgwater corporation minute bk. 1785-1837; S. Jarman, Hist. Bridgwater, 153.
  • 6. T. Dilks, Fox and Borough of Bridgwater, passim; F. O'Gorman, Voters, Patrons and Parties, 263, 361; HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 345, 346.
  • 7. C. Winn, Pouletts of Hinton St. George, 82, 83.
  • 8. Add. 51830, Symes to Holland, 26 Feb. 1820.
  • 9. Taunton Courier, 23 Feb., 8, 15 Mar.; Bath and Cheltenham Gazette, 22 Mar. 1820.
  • 10. Taunton Courier, 22 Nov.; Bristol Mirror, 16 Dec. 1820; CJ, lxxvi. 5.
  • 11. CJ, lxxvii. 309; lxxviii. 111; lxxx. 123.
  • 12. Ibid. lxxviii. 308; lxxix. 210; lxxxi. 263; LJ, lvi. 117.
  • 13. Bristol Mirror, 20 Aug.; Keene's Bath Jnl. 29 Aug. 1825.
  • 14. Bristol Mirror, 4 Feb.; Taunton Courier, 15 Feb. 1826.
  • 15. Taunton Courier, 15, 22 Feb., 1 Mar.; Bristol Mirror, 25 Feb. 1826; Som. RO Kemeys Tynte mss DD/S/WH 351.
  • 16. Taunton Courier, 10, 24, 31 May, 14, 21 June; The Times, 27 May, 5, 9, 14 June 1826; Som. RO DD/BLM 9, Bridgwater poll sheet.
  • 17. Keene's Bath Jnl. 5 June; Taunton Courier, 14 June 1826.
  • 18. LJ, lix. 377.
  • 19. CJ, lxxxiii. 91.
  • 20. Ibid. lxxxiv. 128; lxxxv. 463; LJ, lxii. 758.
  • 21. Taunton Courier, 30 June, 7, 21, 28 July, 4, 11 Aug.; Bristol Mirror, 7 Aug. 1830; Wellington mss WP1/1204/3.
  • 22. CJ, lxxxvi. 108; LJ, lxiii. 57.
  • 23. CJ, lxxxvi. 206.
  • 24. Bridgwater Herald, 23 Feb. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 330.
  • 25. Bridgwater Herald, 23 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 416.
  • 26. Bridgwater Herald, 27 Apr. 1831; Kemeys Tynte mss WH 352.
  • 27. Bridgwater Herald, 4, 11 May; Keene's Bath Jnl. 9, 16 May 1831; Som. RO DD/BLM 9, Bridgwater poll sheet.
  • 28. Keene's Bath Jnl. 23 May, 6, 13 June, 19 Sept. 1831.
  • 29. Ibid. 26 Sept., 3, 10 Oct.; Bridgwater Alfred, 3 Oct.; Taunton Courier, 5 Oct. 1831.
  • 30. Bridgwater Alfred, 3 Oct. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1042.
  • 31. Keene's Bath Jnl. 17, 24 Oct. 1831.
  • 32. Bridgwater Alfred, 7, 14, 21 Nov.; Adm. Blake Mus. Bridgwater election ephemera, 'address to members of union', 3 Nov. 1831.
  • 33. Bridgwater election ephemera, 'dialogue', n.d.; 'The Honourable East India Company, 9 Jan. 1832.
  • 34. Bridgwater Alfred, 6 Feb. 1832.
  • 35. Kemeys Tynte mss WH 328, John Browne to Kemeys Tynte, 1 Mar. 1832.
  • 36. Bridgwater Alfred, 30 Apr.; Keene's Bath Jnl, 7 May 1832.
  • 37. Keene's Bath Jnl. 21 May 1832.
  • 38. CJ, lxxxvii. 564; LJ, lxiv. 236.
  • 39. PP (1831-2), xxxix. 229-32.
  • 40. Bridgwater Alfred, 12, 26 Nov., 10, 17 Dec. 1832.
  • 41. PP (1870), xxx.