§ The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross)With permission, I should like to make a statement with regard to what I hope the House will consider only an error of detail in the observations I made last Tuesday, when we had a discussion on the Motion to issue a writ for 2181 the Neepsend Division of Sheffield. It is my duty and, of course, my desire to be scrupulously accurate in all the information which I give to the House whether it is a matter of detail or not.
The House may remember that I expressed the view that whilst the basic period of 21 days for the presentation of an election petition which might have the effect of awarding the seat to another candidate, should elapse before the House was moved to issue a writ for a new election, regard need not be paid, as had been suggested, to the longer period based on the date of the return of election expenses, and actually 49 days arising under Section 109 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and still less to the unlimited period arising under Section 109 (2). In that connection I cited four precedents, of which one related to a writ issued in 1924. Whilst that case remains, for what it may be worth, a precedent for the general proposition which I made, I must tell the House, with regret, that owing to a typographical error for which, of course, I accept full responsibility, I said that the writ there was issued nine days after the return to a previous writ, whereas, in fact, the period was 39 days.
I hope the House will forgive me for this mistake, since the principle of my argument remains unaffected, and was indeed not that nine days or 11 days, as in the case of the 1922 precedent, was correct, but that the basic period of 21 days set out in Section 109 (1) of the 1949 Act ought to elapse, and that regard need not be paid to the 49 days under subsection (3), for which the 1924 case is still a precedent, although obviously not of such a striking nature.
§ Sir Herbert WilliamsThe Attorney-General's statement implied that the writ was issued in 1924 arising out of the death of a Member who was a member of the Conservative Government. Is it not a fact that the Member in question was Mr. E. D. Morel, who had been elected Socialist M.P. for Dundee on 29th October, 1924, and that Parliament did not meet for the first time until 2nd December. If my recollection is right, the 2182 writ was moved on 8th December, at the instance of the whips of the Labour Party and not of the whips of the Conservative Party?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI suggested nothing to the contrary. What I said was there was a Conservative Government in office at that time.
§ Mr. ChurchillIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied in his own mind that this perfectly unintentional typographical error into which he fell did not exert an influence upon the decision which the House took on Tuesday last when it allowed the writ to pass?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI cannot say, of course, what may have influenced individual Members in the conclusion which they did take, but I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it could not have affected in any way the principle I am arguing, which was not that a writ could be issued in nine or 11 days, but that 21 days had to elapse. Once that 21 days had gone by, we need not wait, as was argued on the other side of the House, for the 49 days. Consequently, the case still remains on the precedent, although I agree it is not so striking a one as is needed for waiting the full legal period.
§ Mr. ChurchillMay we assume that the learned Attorney-General will take special care to avoid repetition of errors so serious that they can confuse nine days with 49 days—[HON. MEMBERS: "Thirty-nine days."]—when majorities are so uncertain and when a balance on that sort of point might sometimes count?