[2] It was later observed that Ascroft had been very popular in the town but failed to maintain a group of election campaign workers, presumably in the hope that his personal support would be enough.

[8][9] Before his illness, Ascroft had already met with Churchill at the House of Commons to ask him to replace Oswald and run as the second candidate at the next election.

The date of a joint follow-up meeting in Oldham had been fixed for some time when Churchill noticed in the newspapers that Ascroft had died.

The writ for a new election for both seats was moved in the House of Commons by the Conservative chief whip William Walrond on Tuesday 27 June.

As the previous election had been close, the by-election campaign was an intense one in which the candidates addressed meetings "at breakfast time, during the dinner hour, and in the evening".

[18] When the issue of the Bill was raised, the Liberal candidates opposed it, arguing that Parliament was not the place to discuss matters of faith.

[17] A Protestant delegation representing several organisations was pleased with the pledge to support the Bill and strongly endorsed Churchill and Mawdsley.

The Royton branch of his union passed, 107 to 54, a motion protesting at his candidature, and Mawdsley was asked why he had not come forward as a Labour candidate when he was invited to in 1895.

[7] It was reported that the Conservatives accepted Mawdsley as a candidate on the assumption that if elected, he would be allowed to express his own views on trade union issues.

Shortly after 11 pm the result was announced from the town hall:[23] The loss of both seats caused some recriminations in Conservative circles.

[25] Henry Howorth, in a letter to The Times, took it as an object lesson that "playing at pitch and toss" with Conservative principles would not lead to a victory and that it was better that the party went into opposition than "surrender to every Socialistic demand".