HC Deb 14 March 1901 vol 90 cc1541-3

In the High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division. The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868. The Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1895. To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons. Election for the Cockermouth Division of the County of Cumberland, holden on the 4th day of October, 1900. In the matter of an Election Petition for the said Division presented to the High Court of Justice on the 19th day of November, 1900. John Armstrong, James Hardaker Brooks-bank, Benjamin Brown, James Beck, William Cooper, and Barwise Henderson, Petitioners, and John Scurrah Randles, Respondent. We, Sir Charles John Darling, Knight, and Sir Arthur Moseley Channell, Knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the. Judges on the rota for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England and Wales, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that, upon the 26th, 27th, and 28th days of February, 1901, we duly held a Court at the Mission Hall, Duke Street, Workington, for the trial of and did try the said Election Petition between the said Petitioners and the said Respondent. And in further pursuance of the said Acts we report that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined that the Respondent, being the Member whose Election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was duly elected and returned, and that his Election was not void, and we do hereby certify such our determination to you. And whereas charges were made in the said Petition that various illegal practices therein specified had been committed in reference to the said Election by the Respondent and his agents, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

  1. (a) That no illegal practice was proved to have been committed in reference to the said Election by or with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent.
  2. (b) That no persons were proved to have been guilty of any illegal practices other than the acts or omissions set out in paragraph (e) hereof.
  3. (c) That there is no reason to believe that illegal practices extensively prevailed at the said Election.
  4. (d) That the Respondent was not proved to have been guilty by his agents of any illegal practice other than the acts or omissions set out in paragraph (e) hereof.
  5. (e) That certain of the acts or omissions alleged in the said Petition to be illegal practices as having been committed by the Election agent, sub-agents, or other agents of the Respondent, in contravention of the 20th and 33rd sections of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, namely; (1) the use of a room on licensed premises as a committee room, and (2) the return of the Election expenses of the Respondent at the said Election by his Election agent not being in all particulars in accordance with the form provided by the said Act, arose from inadvertence or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and did not arise from any want of good faith, and under such circumstances it seemed just to the Court that the said Respondent, his Election agent, sub-agents, or other agents should not be subject to any of the consequences under the said Act of the said acts or omissions, and the Court therefore made an order pursuant to the 23rd section of the said Act allowing the said acts or omissions to be exceptions from the provisions of the said Act which might otherwise have made them or any of them an illegal practice or practices.
  6. (f) That the other illegal practices alleged in the said Petition were not proved or were disproved.
A Copy of the evidence and of our judgment herein taken by the deputies of the shorthand writer of the House of Commons accompanies this our Certificate. CHARLES DARLING. A. M. CHANNELL.

Forward to