CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS (BARROW IN FURNESS). (Hansard, 25 March 1886)

§ MR. SPEAKER

informed the House, that he had received from Sir William Ventris Field, knight, and Sir John Charles Day, knight, two of the Judges selected for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the Borough of Barrow in Furness:— The Corrupt Practices Prevention Acts, 1854 to 1883. To the Right Honorable the Speaker of the House of Commons. We, the Honorable Sir William Ventris Field, knight, and the Honorable Sir John Charles Day, knight, Justices 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 that upon the 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, and 23rd days of March 1886 we duly held a Court at the Town Hall, in the Borough of Barrow in Furness, in the County of Lancaster, for the trial of and did try the Parliamentary Election Petition for the Borough of Barrow in Furness aforesaid, wherein Henry William Schneider was the Petitioner and David Duncan was the Respondent, which Petition prayed that it might be determined that the said David Duncan was not duly elected or returned, and that the Election of the said David 1776 Duncan was null and void, and that the Petitioner was duly elected, and ought to have been returned to serve as Member of the said Borough in the next Parliament. We report that the Petitioner's claim to the seat was abandoned during the course of the Trial and the recriminatory charges withdrawn by the Respondent, with our approval. And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that at the conclusion of the said Trial we determined that the said David Duncan, being the Member whose Election and return were complained of in the said Petition, was not duly elected and returned, by reason of illegal practices, within the meaning of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883, having been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of the Respondent, in reference to the said Election, and also by the Election Agent of the Respondent (with the like knowledge and consent), and we do certify in writing such our determination to you. And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt and illegal practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:— That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at such Election. That the following persons were proved at the Trial guilty of illegal practices, namely, illegal employment, to both of whom we have furnished Certificates of Indemnity: David Duncan, the Respondent; Abraham Langhorn Garnett, the Respondent's Election Agent. We further report that there is no reason to believe that either corrupt or illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the Parliamentary Election for the Borough of Barrow in Furness, in the County of Lancaster, to which the said Petition relates. Dated this 23rd day of March 1886.