|
Hendon
May 20, 2018 10:07:54 GMT
Post by swanarcadian on May 20, 2018 10:07:54 GMT
Succeeded by Hendon MB in 1932.
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Hendon
Nov 12, 2020 7:50:10 GMT
Post by colinjg on Nov 12, 2020 7:50:10 GMT
[The result below was first posted on the other forum on 16 May 2020. It is copied over for completeness.]
HENDON UDC in 1915 saw one ward out of three contested:
Mill Hill ward, 1 seat:
Walter E. Candy (publisher's manager) Unopp.
Childs Hill ward, 3 seats:
Thomas F. Fenn (railway servant) Unopp. Hubert F. Madders (solicitor) Unopp. Walter Taylor (pharmacist) Unopp.
Central and West Hendon ward, 3 seats. 4,150 electors, 622 voted, 15.0% turnout.
Arthur B. Soar (manufacurer) 328 - elected Joseph M. McGrath (engineer) 321 - elected William A. Smyrk (builder) 235 - elected
Thomas Stillman (retired tradesman) 204 Reginald Cracknell (surveyor) 196 Bernard Jones (manufacturer's agent and merchant) withdrew
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Hendon
Dec 14, 2020 16:53:29 GMT
Post by colinjg on Dec 14, 2020 16:53:29 GMT
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Hendon
Dec 16, 2020 20:36:02 GMT
Post by colinjg on Dec 16, 2020 20:36:02 GMT
The result of the election in Edgware ward (3 seats) of Hendon Urban District Council in 1931 was as follows:-
Elected: William H.N. Shakespeare (C) 730 George E.M. Walker (C) 678 Walter H. Purchase (Ind Constitutionalist) 631
Not elected: James H. Lloyd (Ind) 199.
The local press reported that after the declaration of the result “Lloyd was greeted with cries of ‘Judas’ from Socialists when it came to his turn to speak.”
|
|
colinjg
Member
Living in the Past
Posts: 269
|
Post by colinjg on Nov 5, 2021 8:43:53 GMT
While working on other projects I came across the following interesting story:
Childs Hill ward 1913 [Source: Hendon and Finchley Times]
The election to Hendon Urban District Council took place on Monday 7 April in 1913. Four candidates were nominated for the two vacant seats in Childs Hill ward. There were 3,680 names on the Register entitled to vote at the election.
Henry Robert CRISP - (London County Council service) - nominee of Childs Hill RA Ernest Edward GARDNER - (Technical chemist and metallurgist) William James KING - (contractor) - existing member James Henry STURGESS - (solicitor) - existing member
After the counting of the Childs Hill result, “scenes never before witnessed in the Council Offices took place. …. All four candidates were present, and their agents, along with Mr. H. Humphris, the Returning Officer [RO]. The counters were Messrs Harding, Stratton, Joiner, Humphris, Bone, Gadd, Tavener, Vinton and Clark.”
The First Count
“Everything went well for the first count, and great excitement prevailed when shortly before midnight Mr Humphris took the numbers from the four lists prepared.” These were as follows:
STURGESS 183, 205, 163, 177 = 728 GARDNER 154, 139, 122, 124 = 539 KING 134, 133, 134, 138 = 539 CRISP 67, 71, 73, 69 = 270 [Addition of the four figures actually gives 280!]
The RO ordered a recount. “A quarter of an hour afterwards he stated he had agreed to this course upon consultation with the agents.”
The Second Count (1st recount)
The clerks gave their figures for the tied candidates as follows:
GARDNER 155, 138, 122, 125 = 540 KING 133, 130, 132, 140 = 535
The RO then declared that the result of the poll was:
STURGESS 728 GARDNER 540 KING 535 CRISP 276
The strong impression on reading the newspaper is that the recount did not concern all the candidates, just the two originally tied for the second seat. Therefore the number of votes reported for CRISP shows a second inconsistency. The RO stated there had been a “discrepancy in the figures of five”, i.e. GARDNER +1, KING -4. He then declared STURGESS and GARDNER as the councillors for Child’s Hill ward. “During this declaration there were murmurs of dissent, and cries of ‘No, no,’ mingled with ‘Recount’ were raised.” The votes of thanks were interrupted by further pleas for a recount.
The Third Count (2nd recount)
The third count started at 12.25 am. It had not got very far when KING said to the RO that he wanted the recount to be of all four candidates: “The discrepancy was so small that anything might happen. Some of the votes for Mr. Sturgess or Mr. Crisp might come to him.” The counting continued, and after a short period the RO again took the figures from the clerks, this time reading:
GARDNER 140, 155, 124, 123 = 542 KING 132, 134, 140, 132 = 538
GARDNER’s majority had fallen by 1 with the total of GARDNER and KING rising by 5. KING again appealed for a recount for all four candidates, and murmurs of “Hear hear” came from all parts of the room. The RO said he wanted to meet the wishes of the candidates. He returned the papers to a box and shook them so that the papers could be recounted. KING observed that the counters were fatigued, and it was preferable to have fresh ones. The RO said this was not practicable, and also that he could not accede to a request for additional scrutineers.
The Fourth Count (3rd recount)
“By this time the excitement of the onlookers had reached fever heat …. Onlookers stood on chairs to get a better view, and the table separating the counters from the public were mounted for the purpose of watching the count.” This count began at 12.50 am. “At 1.15 am the clerks, who had been through every paper again, gave up their secret”:
STURGESS 175, 218, 151, 183 = 727 KING 138, 157, 107, 137 = 539 GARDNER 138, 160, 113, 127 = 538 CRISP 69, 72, 63, 64 = 268
So, KING overturns GARDNER’s majority. But…. Mr. Spencer Cooper at once protested that the RO had already made a declaration. “Cries of ‘Recount, recount’ were raised.” As it was now 1.30 am the count was adjourned until 11 am on Tuesday, the count for Mill Hill ward having not even started.
“The RO then declared the count at an end, and the voting papers were placed in one of the boxes and sealed. A rush was at once made to the end of the room where Mr. Humphris had sat, and the clerks and officials were besieged with questions. Several of the members of the legal profession gave their version of the affair and legal points were raised. GARDNER then protested against the decision of the RO, and handed that official a written protest.”
The Proceedings of Tuesday 8th
This commenced punctually at 11 am, of the candidates only CRISP was absent. “Hardly had Mr Humphris settled himself down than Mr Charles Baker of the firm of Kenneth Brown, Baker, Baker and Sons, solicitors, of Lennox House, Norfolk Street, Strand, proceeded to the counting table and had a consultation in private with the RO, and raised several points of law. [Baker appeared for GARDNER.] From what could be heard of the conversation Mr Baker was objecting to the recounts of the previous evening after Mr Humphris had declared STURGESS and GARDNER elected. Humphris, in explanation, said no public declaration had been made, inasmuch as he had not signed and issued a public declaration.
At this point KING objected to the fact that GARDNER had legal representation in the form of Mr Baker and that Baker had been allowed to address the RO. KING claimed that his request to be represented had been refused.
Baker maintained that according to section 2 of the Ballot Act the RO should after the counting of the votes forthwith declare the candidates elected. As soon as that was done no further recount could take place, and the RO should sign what he had declared. KING pointed out that a request for a further recount had been made by his supporters. Baker said he understood a vote of thanks had been proposed and that this “formed a dividing line which marked off the names of the District Councillors. The question of recounting was raised too late.”
So as to allow KING to obtain legal representation, proceedings were adjourned until Thursday 10th at 4 pm.
The Proceedings of Thursday 10th
At 4 pm a large number of people gathered in expectation of a further recount. Mr Charles Baker again represented GARDNER, while KING was represented by Alderman E. Simmons (of London County Council). The two legal representatives conferred with the RO privately in the library. After 15 minutes it was announced a further recount would take place – everyone, except the candidates and their agents, were to be excluded from the count.
The Fifth Count (4th recount)
At 6 pm the result of the count was declared:
STURGESS 733 GARDNER 541 KING 539 CRISP 268
At this count STURGESS attained his highest figure to date; the figure for KING was the same as in the first and fourth counts. GARDNER was “naturally elated at the decision and was warmly congratulated by many friends.”
Personal View
The Returning Officer can be criticised on a number of levels, specifically for not communicating sufficiently well with the candidates and their agents, especially the two candidates for the second elected position. He was haphazard and did not obtain the agreement of all the candidates to the figures from the first recount, and should not have declared the result without that agreement. He should not have conducted recounts subsequent to the premature declaration of the result.
|
|