1802—(General Election)—The electors having been convened together in the Guildhall for the nomination in the usual manner, the Mayor (Mr. Rowlands) proposed the reëlection of Edward Wigley and Abraham Robarts, Esqs., the previous members. This proposition was seconded, and the business of the day went on most smoothly until within seven minutes of the hour at which the writ was made returnable, when the hall became suddenly and most violently agitated by the arrival of Joseph Scott, Esq., of Great Barr, a relative of Lord Dudley and Ward, who came forward and declared himself a candidate, as he said, in compliance with the wishes of a number of the inhabitants. A poll was demanded on his behalf, which immediately commenced, and continued for four days; at the end of which, the numbers were—Robarts, 2,163; Scott, 1,197; Wigley, 1,180. On the fifth morning Mr. Wigley retired, and Robarts and Scott were declared duly elected. There was no disturbance. Politics seem to have entered very little into consideration, and the matter to have been decided by person and purse. Mr. Wigley, in his retiring address to the “Worthy Freemen of the City of Worcester,” intimated that he had come forward thirteen years before, at their own request, to rescue their city from becoming a Government nomination borough, and he did not see why he should now have been rejected. To those “who promised him their support, but voted for his opponent, he had nothing to say, because he could say nothing that would be pleasing to himself.” A meeting of his friends and supporters was afterwards held at the Crown Inn, Henry Wakeman, Esq., presiding, at which resolutions were passed thanking Mr. Wigley for his conduct in Parliament, and his great attention to the interests of this city, where he and others of his family had resided for more than thirty years, and “been an example, rarely exceeded, of piety, benevolence, and charity.” 1806—OCTOBER—(General Election.)—Candidates, Abrm. Robarts, Esq., the former member; Colonel Bromley, of Abberley Lodge; and William Gordon, Esq., who rested his claims to support on the fact of his being a mercantile man, and, as such, better fitted to represent the city of Worcester than Colonel Bromley, a country gentleman. He was supported by gentlemen who were disgusted by the unblushing bribery of previous elections. After three days’ polling, Mr. Gordon retired, the numbers being—Robarts, 856; Bromley, 563; Gordon, 348: total number of freemen polled, 902. Mr. Gordon was afterwards _fêted_ at the Crown Hotel, on which occasion he attributed his defeat to his being so late in the field. Mr. Gordon, however, afterwards presented a petition against Colonel Bromley’s return, which that gentleman declined to defend, and accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, so that the seat again became vacant.