§ The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, and
§ The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1888 and 1895.
§ To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
§ We, the Honourable Mr. Justice Wright, and the Honourable Mr. Justice Bruce, Judges of Her Majesty's High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges on the rota, for the time being for the Trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that, upon the 29th day of November, 1895, we duly held a Court at the Hartley Institution, in the Borough of the County of the Town of Southampton, for the trial of, and did on the said day and following days try, the election petition for the said borough, between Walter Crees Austen and John Rowland, petitioners, and Tankerville Chamberlayne, esquire, and Sir John Stephen Barrington Simeon, Baronet. And in further pursuance of the said Acts we report—
§ 1. That, at the conclusion of the said trial, we determined that the said Sir John Stephen Barrington Simeon, being one of the Members whose election and return were complained of, was duly elected and returned, and that the said Tankerville Chamberlayne, the other Member whose election and return were complained of, was not duly elected and returned, and that his election was void, on the ground that the said Tankerville Chamberlayne was, by his Agent, Albert James Blackman, guilty of an illegal practice at the said Election, namely, a payment knowingly made by the said Albert James Blackman during the said Election for the purpose of promoting and procuring the election of the said Tankerville Chamberlayne and Sir John Stephen Barrington Simeon on account of the conveyance of a voter to and from the poll of the said Election.
§ And whereas charges were made of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we in further pursuance of the said Acts report as follows:—
§ 2. That no Corrupt or Illegal Practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of any Candidate at such Election.
§ 3. That Albert James Blackman was proved at the trial to have been guilty of the illegal practice aforesaid.
§ 4. That there is not reason to believe that corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at such Election.
§ 5. That both the aforesaid Candidates were guilty by the said Albert James Blackman, who was an Agent in their behalf, of the illegal practice aforesaid; but save as aforesaid they have not, nor has either of them, nor has any Candidate at the said Election been guilty by any Agent or Agents of any illegal practice at the said Election.
§ 6. That the said Albert James Blackman has been furnished with a certificate of indemnity in respect of the illegal practice aforesaid.
§ 7. That the said Candidate, Sir John Stephen Barrington Simeon, has proved to the Court that no corrupt or illegal practice was committed 66 at the said Election by him, the said Candidate, or his Election Agent, and the offence mentioned in this report was committed contrary to the orders, and without the sanction or connivance of him, the said Candidate, or his Election Agent, and that he, the said Candidate, and his Election Agent took all reasonable means for preventing at the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at the said Election, and that the said offence mentioned in the said report was of a trivial, unimportant, and limited character, and that in all other respects the Election was free from any corrupt or illegal practice on the part of such Candidate and of his Agents.
§ 8. That the said Tankerville Chamberlayne failed to prove to the Court that he took all reasonable means for preventing the commission of corrupt and illegal practices at the said Election.
§ Dated the 30th day of December 1895.
§ R. S. WRIGHT.
§ GAINSFORD BRUCE.