§ The Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1883.
§ To the Right Honorable The Speaker of the House of Commons.
§ We, the undersigned Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the its Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that upon slue 12th, 13th, and 14th days of December 1892, we duly held a Court at the Royal Courts of Justice, London, in the county of Middlesex, for the trial of mill did proceed to try the Election Petition for the borough of Central Finsbury, between Frederick Thomas Penton, Petitioner, and Dadabhai Naoroji, Responden.
58§ And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that on the 14th day of December 1892, the third day of the trial, after some witnesses had been examined the Petitioner, by his Counsel, with the assent of the Respondent, by his Counsel, asked leave to withdraw the Petition and without either party paying the costs to the other. We thereupon, being sat is tied that such withdrawal of the Petition was not the result of any corrupt arrangement, nor in consideration of the withdrawal of any other Petition, ordered that the Petitioner be at liberty to withdraw the Petition, and we made no order as to costs, and we determined that the said Dadabhai Naoroji being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of, was duly elected and returned for the said borough, and that Frederick Thomas Penton was not duly elected for the same, awl we do hereby certify such our determination.
§ And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we do hereby report that no corrupt or illegal practice was proved to have been committed by or with the consent or knowledge of any candidate at such Election.
§ We further report that there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the Election for the borough of Central Finsbury, to which the said Petition relates.
§ Dated this 19th day of December 1892.
§ LEWIS W. CAVE.
§ ROLAND L. VAUGHAN WILLIAMS.