§ Mr. BowlesOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I just raise this matter with you? While you were reading the affidavit or statutory declaration from the Deputy Acting Returning Officer for the Knutsford constituency yesterday I thought I heard—I have since verified it—you read out this phrase:
… an envelope … was handed in by my clerk at the said Post Office and a receipt obtained for it, which receipt is now produced and shown to me marked 'A' and is exhibited to this Statutory Declaration.I heard you say that, but it was not possible for me to raise the matter yesterday.I put it to you, as a matter of pure law and evidence, that the Deputy Acting Returning Officer cannot possibly say that his clerk handed in the envelope to the postmaster or that he got a receipt from the postmaster. I feel sure that in a court of law that would not be accepted as proof of posting. Of course, the matter was put right by the Motion which the House passed. However, I wonder whether, for future reference, you would care to consider the 140 matter. If the procedure was a complete repetition of what happened in 1911, it strikes me that it might be slightly fallacious; and there is always the danger—not a very big one, I suppose—that in another thirty years' time the Post Office might again be in the hands of a Conservative doctor.
§ Mr. SpeakerIgnoring the last sentence of the hon. Member's submission, I am obliged to him for raising the matter and will certainly look into it. The plain fact of the matter is that the Deputy Acting Returning Officer, by his statutory declaration, declared that to his knowledge the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) was duly elected. That being the substance of the matter, I think the proceedings were in order, but I will certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.