| Election Name: | 1910 The Hartlepools by-election |
| Type: | presidential |
| Country: | United Kingdom |
| Previous Election: | The Hartlepools (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 1900s |
| Previous Year: | 1910 |
| Next Election: | The Hartlepools (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 1900s |
| Next Year: | 1910 |
| Election Date: | 20 June 1910 |
| Candidate1: | Furness |
| Party1: | Liberal Party (UK) |
| Popular Vote1: | 6,017 |
| Percentage1: | 50.2% |
| Candidate2: | Gritten |
| Party2: | Conservative Party (UK) |
| Popular Vote2: | 5,969 |
| Percentage2: | 49.8% |
| Map Size: | 250px |
| MP | |
| Posttitle: | Subsequent MP |
| Before Election: | Christopher Furness |
| Before Party: | Liberal Party (UK) |
| After Election: | Stephen Furness |
| After Party: | Liberal Party (UK) |
The Hartlepools by-election was a Parliamentary by-election held on 20 June 1910.[1] The constituency returned one Member of Parliament (MP) to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, elected by the first past the post voting system.
Sir Christopher Furness had been Liberal MP for the seat of The Hartlepools since the 1900 general election. His re-election in January 1910 was declared void after an electoral petition causing the need for the by-election.[2] The Petitioners (Joseph Foster Wilson and John Roger Butterwick) alleged illegal practices in illegal payments to certain persons, for marks of distinction and for conveyance of voters to the poll. It was also alleged that the maximum campaign expenditure allowed had been exceeded and that a false return of expenses had been made by the Butler, Furness's Election Agent. Butler, who was the private secretary of Furness, charged nothing for his services and clerks in the employ of Furness's firm rendered clerical assistance without payment. The return of Election expenses made was only a few shillings below the maximum allowed. Mr Justice Phillimore commented "If it could be said that Butler's appointment was wholly political, or that he was retained partly as a private secretary and also for the political work of Sir Christopher, if he was an extra Agent during the Election, then it would be necessary to return a proportionate part of the salary as being an expense of the Election. It was said that the real reason why he was not paid anything was the fact that Sir Christopher's expenses came within a few shillings of the maximum, but there was no evidence of any contract to the effect that Sir Christopher Furness would pay the Election Agent's fee if he could do so without exceeding the maximum of expense." As to the clerks, Mr. Justice Phillimore said : — " The evidence with regard to the employment on the Election day of clerks in the service of Furness, Withy & Co. was incomplete. He was not able to say, on the evidence, whether they ought to consider Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd., as a separate person from Sir Christopher, under another name.[3]
The seat had been won by the Liberal Party at every election since 1874, apart from 1886 and 1895 when a former Liberal standing as a Liberal Unionist won. Furness easily held the seat at the last election;
Polling Day was fixed for the 20 June 1910.
Furness held the seat with a reduced majority;
Furness held the seat at the following general election six months later with a further reduced majority;