§ The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
§ The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879.
§ The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880.
§ To the Right Honourable
§ The Speaker of the House of Commons.
§ We, the Right Honourable Sir Robert Lush, knight, and the Honourable Sir Henry Manisty, knight, Judges of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify and report as follows:—
- 1. That upon the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th days of June 1880, We duly hold a Court at the Guildhall, in the Borough of Harwich, in the County of Essex, for the trial of and did try the Election Petition for the said Borough between George Tomline, Petitioner, and Sir Henry Tyler, Respondent, whereby the Petitioner prayed that it might be determined that the said Sir Henry Tyler was not duly Elected or Returned, and that his Election and Return were and are wholly null and void, and that the Petitioner was duly Elected, and ought to have been Returned.
- 2. That the Respondent, in pursuance of the Statute and Rule in that behalf, delivered to the Petitioner a list of persons whom he alleged to have been bribed by the Petitioner or his Agent.
- 3. That, during the trial of the said Petition and before the conclusion thereof, the Petitioner by his counsel withdrew so much of the prayer of his Petition as prayed that it might be determined he was duly elected and ought to have been returned.
- 4. At the conclusion of the said trial we determined, as regards the Petition, that the said Sir Henry Tyler, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition was duly elected and returned, and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination.
- 5. And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election by and on behalf of the Respondent, We, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—
- (a.) That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of the Respondent.
- (b.) That nine persons, who were at the time of such Election voters for the Borough of Harwich, and who were absent from the said Borough shortly before the polling day in the ordinary course of their trade as bargemen, were paid after the Election by an Agent of the Petitioner, with the knowledge and by the authority of the Petitioner, sums of money as for their travelling expenses to and from the said Borough of Harwich; and we further find that such sums of money were respectively in excess of such expenses, and were known by the Election Agent of the Petitioner, who fixed the amounts to be paid, to be in excess of such expenses, but that such excess was not known to the Petitioner. We therefore find and report that the Petitioner was, by his Agent, guilty of bribery at such Election. We forbear to report the names of these Agents, as they were required by us to be examined, and we have granted them certificates of indemnity.
§ Lastly. We find and report that there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at such Election.
§ Dated this 8th day of June 1880.
§ ROBT. LUSH.
§ H. MANISTY.