HC Deb 25 October 1955 vol 545 cc40-57
Mr. Speaker

I have to acquaint the House that I have received the following Letter and Certificate from the judges appointed to try the Election Petition relating to the Election for the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone.

The Royal Courts of Justice (Ulster), BELFAST.

19th October, 1955.

The Right Honourable

The Speaker of the House of Commons.

Sir,

Constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone

In accordance with the provisions of Section 124 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, we transmit herewith our certificate in writing of our determinations upon the Petition of Lieut.-Colonel Robert George Grosvenor against the election of Mr. Philip Christopher Clarke as member for the above constituency, accompanied (as directed by Section 111 (6) of the Act) by a copy of the shorthand writers' transcript of the evidence given upon the hearing of the Petition and also by a copy of the shorthand writers' transcript of our judgment. It will be observed that we have made a few slight verbal corrections in the shorthand writers' transcripts.

Constituency of Mid-Ulster

The matter of the Petition of Mr. Charles Beattie against the return of Mr. Thomas James Mitchell as member for the constituency of Mid-Ulster was tried before us at Omagh within the said constituency on the 5th, 6th and 7th October, 1955. We propose to transmit to you the formal certificate of our determinations upon the Petition when we have received and have had an opportunity of checking the shorthand writers' transcripts.

Yours faithfully,

ARTHUR BLACK

CHARLES L. SHELL

Judges on the Rota for the Trial of Election Petitions.

To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

COURT for the trial of an ELECTION PETITION for the CONSTITUENCY OF FERMANAGH AND SOUTH TYRONE

BETWEEN ROBERT GEORGE GROSVENOR

Petitioner;

and

PHILIP CHRISTOPHER CLARKE Respondent.

WHEREAS an Election of a member to serve in the present Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone was holden on the 26th day of May, 1955

AND WHEREAS the only candidates at the said Election were the above-named Robert George Grosvenor and Philip Christopher Clarke

AND WHEREAS the said Philip Christopher Clarke was returned by the Returning Officer as having been duly elected at the said Election

AND WHEREAS on the 17th day of June, 1955, the said Robert George Grosvenor presented a Petition to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland in the Queen's Bench Division praying that it might be determined that the said Philip Christopher Clarke was not duly elected or returned and that the said Robert George Grosvenor was duly elected and ought to have been returned

AND WHEREAS the matter of the said Petition was tried before us at Enniskillen within the said Constituency on the 30th and 31st days of August, 1955, and the 1st and 2nd days of September, 1955

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined as follows:—

  1. (a) that at the date of the said Election on the 26th day of May, 1955, the said Philip Christopher Clarke was incapable of being elected as a member of Parliament and was not duly elected or returned; and
  2. (b) that the said Robert George Grosvenor was duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the said Constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and ought to have been returned.

Dated this 2nd day of September, 1955.

Arthur Black

Charles L. Shell

Judges on the Rota for the Trial of Election Petitions.

And the said Letter and Certificate were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

Copy of Shorthand Writer's Notes laid upon the Table by Mr. SPEAKER.

3.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn)

I beg to move, That the Clerk of the Crown do attend this House forthwith with the last Return for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and amend the same by substituting the name of Lieutenant-Colonel Robert George Grosvenor for that of Philip Christopher Clarke as the Member returned for the said constituency.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Assuming that the Motion is debatable, I would suggest to the House that it would be in accordance with its traditions and with the solemn duty placed upon it to preserve parliamentary democracy and the representative system, in a world in which these institutions are under grave attack all over the world, to reject the Motion which has just been moved. We have all listened with great interest to the report of the proceedings in the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland, but they seem, I suppose, to most of us, if not to all of us, to be in plain contradiction of the actual facts of the situation.

Mr. Speaker

This House is not empowered to re-try a case which has been heard by the petition judges. The procedure in this matter is all laid down in the Representation of the People Act, 1949, an Act that binds the House as well as others whom it may concern, and it provides that the court is to determine if a Member or any other person was duly returned, and to certify the same in writing to the Speaker, and that the determination or certificate shall be final, to all intents and purposes.

The rest of the Section does not concern us. It provides for differences of opinion between judges, of which there seems to have been none here, and Section 124, from which I have quoted, provides in subsection (5) that the House of Commons on being informed by the Speaker of a certificate, shall order the certificate to be entered in the Journals and give the necessary directions for confirming or altering the Return or issuing a Writ for a new election or for carrying the determination into execution, as the circumstances may require.

So this Act places upon the House the duty at law, on receipt of a certificate, of proceeding to have the Return altered. In this case, I can myself see no relevant matter for debate at all.

Mr. Silverman

I do not think that any of us would seek for a moment to question that the decision of the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland is not appealable in the House of Commons, and, as a judicial determination, it no doubt stands. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has moved a Motion, and unless the House accepts that Motion it cannot be acted upon. Since he has moved the Motion and the House has the right to pass it, one presumes that it also has the right, in its discretion, to refuse to pass it. Therefore, I am recommending that the House shall take that course. Not that I wish to place in issue again any judicial finding of fact. Nor do I wish to argue that the Representation of the People Act, and those Sections to which you have drawn our attention, Sir, does not apply, but that Act, as I understand—and I think the right hon. Gentleman's Motion would be out of order unless I am right—while it declares the law, nevertheless leaves the sovereign discretion of this assembly unaffected.

Mr. Speaker

The Act to which I have just referred is an Act of Parliament assented to by both Houses and by the Crown, and the House is bound by it. The House has no power of its own volition lawfully to over-ride an Act of Parliament. The House of Commons, I suppose like anyone else, can break the law, but if anyone should keep the law of the land it is this House. I would personally urged upon the House that it ought to follow the law which, as recently as 1949, it enacted for these circumstances.

Mr. Silverman

While not in the least questioning one word of that, we come back, I think, to the undoubted position that the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to move a Motion. If the right hon. Gentleman has seen fit to move a Motion, what he has done is to invite the House to agree with him in that Motion.

Mr. Speaker

It is clear that it is quite within the power of any hon. Member, when I put the Question and call for the "Ayes" and "Noes," to voice "No" and, if necessary, to divide the House. What I am saying is that I do not see that any discussion of the matter can be relevant.

Mr. Silvermanrose—

Mr. A. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point which you have just raised? There would seem to be in the possession of this House a very great power to reject a Member of Parliament if it has been declared that that person has been elected. It seems to me quite out of order that this House should have full power to reject a Member or accept a Member. Where he has been declared to be a Member, as far as I know, this House must expel him by formal Motion.

Mr. Speaker

I think that, though the House is at liberty to vote "No" when I put the Question, a Member who has been certified by the judges as the proper Member under the procedure laid down by the House is the Member. There is no power to exclude him from coming to the Table and taking his seat.

Mr. Silverman

Since it is not in doubt at all the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has moved can be as well rejected by the House as accepted by it, since it is not in doubt that the House can divide, and since it is not in doubt that it is as lawful to vote "No" as it is to vote "Aye," does it not therefore follow that. if one is inviting the House to vote "No" rather than "Aye," it is not out of order to give reasons for that purpose?

That is all I am seeking to do. This is not the first occasion on which an election in this constituency has been considered by the House of Commons. On the last occasion, there was a Return and there was a Member declared elected—the very same Member who has now been declared to be disqualified by the Queen's Bench Division of Northern Ireland. The other candidate at that time was a gentleman whom the Queen's Bench Division in Northern Ireland, in contra-distinction to what the constituency itself thought, has decided is the Member. On the last occasion, that gentleman did not seek to challenge the election.

Mr. Speaker

All these things are outside what is relevant to this discussion. Perhaps I may say that in this matter I have not acted without consideration of the position or without consulting the precedents. It may assist the hon. Member if he turns to the House of Commons Debates for 1911, Volume XXIV, where he will find a case when Mr. Speaker Lowther was in the Chair and a similar Motion was moved after the trial of an election petition in Exeter, when the judges certified, in accordance with the Act then in force—which has been reproduced word for word in the present Act, by which we are bound—that a certain Member was returned. A Motion was made by the then Chief Whip to the same effect as that moved by the Chief Whip today. Mr. Morrell, whom some older Members may remember in the House of Commons, begged to move, That no directions be issued by this House to the Clerk of the Crown in the matter of the Exeter Election Petition. … Mr. Speaker then said: I cannot accept that as an Amendment to the Motion. The Motion I have just read out follows as a natural consequence upon the report of the judges. Even if the hon. Member were successful in carrying this Amendment, and we were to postpone for a month or two months consideration of the matter, no power on earth could prevent the hon. Member for Exeter from taking his seat. The decision of the judges is final, and the mere fact that the House declines to alter the writ cannot prevent the hon. Gentleman from taking his seat."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1911; Vol. XXIV, c. 1253.] So that is the position. After further argument, which was somewhat reminiscent of the present day, the Speaker said: I am afraid I cannot possibly accept the view of the hon. Member. This House is not a Court of Appeal from the judges. Very much against the desire of the judges, and in spite of their protests, this House imposed upon His Majesty's judges the duty of determining the results of Election Petitions under the Act of 1868, and under that Act that determination of the judges is to be 'final for all intents and purposes'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1911; Vol. XXIV, c. 1254.] Those are exactly the words used in the present Act.

He then goes on to say that there are other opportunities open to hon. Members if they wish to challenge the machinery which has been put in force by the Act. That is another matter and if the Motion before the House were a Bill to amend or repeal the relative Sections of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, what the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is saying would be relevant. But that is not the question before the House. There is no such Bill or Motion before the House and, therefore, I am bound to rule that I can see nothing relevant to the Motion.

I feel that the House is bound by the words of its own Statute— … on being informed by the Speaker of a certificate … shall order the certificate and report … to be entered in their Journals and shall give the necessary direction for … altering the return,… The question that was put to me by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was also answered on that occasion. Mr. Speaker Lowther then said: If the Motion was negatived I should say the House was commiting an illegal act. The House can break the law, but the House is the last institution in this country that ought to break the law."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 21st April, 1911; Vol. xxiv, c. 1256.] That is very much what I have just said.

He went on to say that he would persuade the House to obey the law and act in accordance with practice. I am in exactly the same position and I advise the House to accept the law to which it was a consenting party and which is an Act of Parliament passed by both Houses. On constitutional grounds and every other appropriate ground, I think that the House should strictly follow the procedure which it has laid down.

Mr. Woodburn

On a point of order. Would you, Mr. Speaker, be good enough to consider, with great respect to the Ruling of Mr. Speaker Lowther and to your own Ruling, whether it is a proper procedure whereby there is a Motion asking the House to do something which it has no power to refuse to do? It seems to me that the law ensures that if someone becomes a Member of the House of Commons he ought immediately to become a Member when a judicial judgment is made by your order to the Clerk of the Crown.

Mr. Speaker

I think there is force in what the right hon. Gentleman says, but he will appreciate that sometimes the result of an Election petition is not as simple and as clear as the one we have today, namely, that AB was not elected but CD was. There are sometimes cases where it is necessary to issue a new writ for a by-election and, in those circumstances, by matter of practice Writs are not issued without Mr. Speaker obtaining the instructions of the House to that effect. Similarly, when we order an officer like the Clerk of the Crown to attend and put right the Return, it has always been the practice to do that by a formal Motion. That is the reason, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, as a result of the Act to which I have referred and the certificate of the judges, the hon. Member named in the determination is the Member of Parliament for that constituency and nothing that the House can do can alter that.

Mr. Silvermanrose—

Mr. J. McGovern (Glasgow, Shettleston)

Am I entitled to give reasons why I cannot support this Motion, Sir?

Mr. Silverman

On a point of order. I am not quite sure in what position the House now finds itself. I originally arose to explain to the House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) now wishes to do, the reasons why I cannot support this Motion. There then supervened a number of points of order and discussion as to what was in order and what was not in order. If that is now completed, perhaps I may be allowed to complete what I have to say.

Mr. Speaker

I interrupted the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) when he was giving his reasons because he seemed to me to be raising issues which were settled by the Act of 1949 and by the determination of the judges and, therefore, these matters being no longer in issue, what he was saying was not relevent to the question before the House.

Mr. Silverman

The question before the House is whether we should pass the Motion moved by the Government Chief Whip. I do not wish the House to pass the Motion. I quite recognise what the legal position is. I quite recognise that the Queen's Bench Division of Northern Ireland has declared the defeated candidate to be elected and that the House of Commons cannot resolve itself into a court of appeal against what, apart from the Statute, might appear to be an absurd and anomalous situation in which the defeated candidate, the man with the smaller number of votes, is declared to have the confidence of the electors who elected him.

I am not in the least seeking to challenge the judicial effectiveness of that decision. What I am saying is that the result is so absurd and so anomalous that if the House of Commons has any choice in the matter—and I gather from the fact that the Motion was in order that we have a choice in the matter—we ought not to accept it. There is an alternative procedure—and that was an analogy; it was only an analogy of which I was seeking to remind the House a little while ago—in this very same question, this very same constituency and concerning these very same two persons, when the House decided on a Government Motion to declare the seat vacant and to issue a new Writ.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is confusing the two cases. The present case concerns Fermanagh and Tyrone and the procedure followed was not that followed in the second case. This is merely a revision by an Election petition relating to the General Election and not to any by-election.

Mr. Silverman

I speak subject to correction, but my impression is that we are dealing with the same constituency and the same two persons.

Mr. Speakerindicated dissent.

Mr. Silverman

Well, I think that we are. Later in the debate—if I am wrong—the misconception can be cleared up. but at the moment I remain of the opinion that we are dealing with the exact case of the constituency, and the same two persons as we dealt with last time. Even if we are not, the principle is admittedly exactly the same in both cases.

I am saying that, instead of accepting the advice of the Government to pass the Motion which has been proposed, the House would be better advised to reject that Motion and to vote instead for a new Writ to be issued for a new election to be held—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is where I find it difficult, perhaps, to convince the hon. Member of my position in the matter. The course which he is urging the House to adopt would, in fact, break the law to which the House has agreed; because the law enjoins upon this House by name the duty, when the judges have certified their determination, the altering of the Return to give effect to that determination. The hon. Member is asking the House to do something which the House, by Statute, has debarred itself from doing.

Mr. Grimond

May I ask for information? I understand that at the end of this debate, if it is permitted to go on, the Question will be put from the Chair, and you, Mr. Speaker, will be inviting those hon. Members who wish to do so to indicate their dissent to this Motion; in fact, you will be inviting them to break the law. If the House has put itself into that position, will that be the result? If so, the sooner the law is amended the better.

Mr. Speaker

I shall have to put the Question, but I think that I have indicated in the clearest terms at my command how I think the decision should go as a matter of law—not on the merits, because that has nothing to do with me. But I am inviting the House to maintain the integrity of its own Statute.

Mr. Silverman

There is, surely—I hesitate to use the word—some confusion here. I understood, Mr. Speaker, that you intervened just now to remind the House that if it were to adopt the course I was recommending to it, that would be against the law, and, therefore, it had no power to do that. If that be right, then it must equally be against the law for the House to vote, "No" on the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has just proposed, because it is exactly the same law that would be broken. Further, it is conceded that the right hon. Gentleman can legitimately move the Motion which he moved, that it is in order for him to do so, and is not illegal.

At the beginning of the discussion, Sir, you informed right hon. and hon. Members that it would be perfectly proper for them to vote, "Aye" or, "No." If it would be proper for them to vote "No" when voting, "No" would be illegal, it would surely be equally proper for them to recommend an alternative course if that alternative course were equally illegal.

Mr. Speaker

I find that the hon. Member is leading me into rather devious paths. I think I can best indicate my own attitude to his ingenious argument by reminding him that two blacks do not make a white. Though it is by form and procedure possible to say, "No" to this Motion, and to reject it, still it is a Motion of a peculiar character and to which I suggest the issue is already foregone by previous legislation of the House.

Mr. Silverman

We are grateful to you, Sir, for reminding us that two blacks do not make a white. That is exactly why I am against the Motion. It may be a very wrong thing for a constituency to elect by a majority of votes to the House of Commons a man who is legally and constitutionally incapable of being so elected. That is one black. But you do not clear that black away by setting up in its place an even much blacker thing, that the defeated candidate shall be declared to have been elected—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The second "black" to which the hon. Member is drawing my attention is that the Court of the Queen's Bench Division of Northern Ireland has declared the candidate unsuccessful in the first Election to be the duly elected Member. In doing so, it is following the procedure which this House has laid down in the Act, and. therefore, the hon. Member cannot say that that is in any way an illegal act on the part of the Court or anyone else. That is the procedure laid down by this House.

Mr. Silverman

I am not arguing that the Queen's Bench Division of Northern Ireland was wrong in law. I am only saying that the decision is nonsensical in its result, and, for that reason, the House of Commons ought not to accept it.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member is not entitled to question the result. That is not before us—

Mr. Silverman

Of course it is before us.

Mr. Speaker

That is not before us. The question is that we follow the procedure, which we have laid down for ourselves quite clearly, of asking the Clerk of the Crown to amend the Return. That is the question before the House.

Mr. Silverman

I will not trouble the House now, but will invite them to consider at some other time whether it is right to leave the position in this way. But the position, as I understand it, is this. There is an Act of Parliament which lays a duty upon the Divisional Court in Northern Ireland to decide on what was, in fact, the result of an Election held within its jurisdiction; that when it has done so, that has no effect at all unless the House of Commons passes some such Motion as--[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—well, let me put it the other way; when it has done so this House of Commons is bound by law to pass a Motion which is in accordance with that decision. If the result of that is that there is no effective Election at all; that the majority is disfranchised, and the minority sends a man to represent the majority; that the constituency ceases to have a man of its own choice, or the opportunity to have a man of its own choice, sitting, speaking and voting for it in the House of Commons, then, as the law at present stands, the House of Commons is completely impotent in the matter. If that be so, the sooner we change the position the better.

Mr. Speaker

All that may be in order on another Motion, but it is not in order on the Question before the House.

Mr. McGovern

I do not rise to contest in any way the legality of the position in this case and it is probably true, as laid down by you, Mr. Speaker, that we have no alternative in the matter but to accept the decision of the High Court. But I would say that if there is no provision in the Act, it is time that there was some alteration of the Act to give an area the opportunity of refusal by the authorities to allow candidates to be nominated who are men in prison and felons; and therefore avoid a decision of the High Court, and the opportunity for an area to select people ineligible to come to this House. I would say, further, that in this case it does not appear so. But, because the two persons who are in prison are, I think, tied not to come to this House to represent the areas, therefore the areas are being disfranchised to that extent.

I think that, in these days when democracy is on trial and being assailed throughout the world, it is the duty of the country to see that the utmost protection is given. In my opinion, there is room for a change in the law in order to

prevent people from being nominated at all if they are not eligible, instead of the authorities conniving to accept nominations of people who are not entitled to sit in this House.

Mr. Speaker

All that would be in order on a Motion to alter the law, but such a Motion is not before the House. I hope that there will be no further discussion on those lines.

Mr. Delargy

I have listened most attentively, and, if I may say so, most patiently for the last forty minutes to all the points that have been made and to the answers which you, Mr. Speaker, have given. There is one short question to which I would like a short answer: why has this Motion been moved at all? None of us knows, since we cannot vote on it.

Mr. Speaker

I think I explained that the Motion is to order the attendance of an officer called the Clerk of the Crown, and that that is customarily a matter for a Motion. I agree that there are matters here for our future practice which could be looked at, but it has always been considered courteous, if we order the attendance of someone else, to have a Motion to that effect.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 280, Noes 99.

Division No. 29.] AYES [4.20 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Boyle, Sir Edward D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Aitken, W. T. Braine, B. R. Deedes, W. F.
Alport, C. J. M. Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.) Digby, S. Wingfield
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.) Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H. Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton) Brooman-White, R. C. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton) Doughty, C. J. A.
Arbuthnot, John Bryan, P. Drayson, G. B.
Armstrong, G. W. Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. C. T. Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Ashton, H. Bullus, Wing Commander, E. E. Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Astor, Hon. J. J. Burden, F. F. A. Duthie, W. S.
Atkins, H. E. Butcher, Sir Herbert Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir. A.(Warwick & L'm'tn)
Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M. Carr, Robert Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Baldwin, A. E. Cary, Sir Robert Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Balniel, Lord Channon, H. Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Banks, Col. C. Chichester-Clark, R. Errington, Sir Eric
Barber, Anthony Conant, Maj. Sir Roger Erroll, F. J.
Barlow, Sir John Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert Farey-Jones, F. W.
Barter, John Cooper-Key, E. M. Fell, A.
Baxter, Sir Beverley Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Fisher, Nigel
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Corfield, capt. F. V. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne) Fort, R.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hn. H. F. C Foster, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E. Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth) Crouch, R. F. Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe & Lonsdale)
Bidgood, J. C. Crowder, Sir John (Finchley) Freeth, D. K.
Biggs-Davison, J. A. Crowder, Petre (Rulslip—Northwood) Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Cunningham, S. Knox Gammans, L. D.
Black, C. W. Currle, G. B. H. Garner-Evans, E. H.
Bossom, Sir A. C. Dance, J. C. G. George, J. C. (Pollok)
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan) Davidson, viscountess Glover, D.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A. Davies, Rt. H on. Clement (Montgomery) Godber, J. B.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.) Raikes, Sir Victor
Cough, C. F. H. Lindsay, Martin (Solihull) Rawlinson, P. A. G.
Cower, H. R. Linstead, Sir H. N. Redmayne, M.
Graham, Sir Fergus Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.) Remnant, Hon. P.
Grant, W. (Woodside) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Renton, D. L. M.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich Longden, Gilbert Ridsdale, J. E.
Green, A. Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W. Robertson, Sir David
Gresham Cooke, R. Lucas Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Grimond, J. Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick) Robson-Brown, W.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury) McAdden, S. J. Roper, Sir Harold
Gurden, Harold McCallum, Major Sir Duncan Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Macdonald, Sir Peter Russell, R. S.
Harris, Reader (Heston) Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon) McKibbin, A. J. Shepherd, William
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd) Mackie, J. H. (Galloway) Smyth, Brig. J. C. (Norwood)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.) McLaughlin, Mrs. P. Soames, Capt. C.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.) Spearman, A. C. M.
Hay, John
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Speir, R. M.
Heath, Edward Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart) Maddan, Martin Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Stevens, Geoffrey
Hill, John (S. Norfolk) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Markham, Major Sir Frank Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Holt, A. F. Marlowe, A. A. H. Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry Marples, A. E. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Horns by-Smith, Miss M. P. Marshall, Douglas Storey, S.
Horobin, Sir Ian Mathew, R. Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence Maude, Angus Studholme, H. G.
Howard, John (Test) Maudling, Rt. Hon. R. Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.) Mawby, R. L. Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.) Medlicott, Sir Frank Thomas, Rt. Hn. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J. Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C. Molson, A. H. E. Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hurd, A. R. Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.) Moore, Sir Thomas Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Hyde, Montgomery Morrison, John (Salisbury) Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Iremonger, T. L. Nabarro, G. D. N. Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Nairn, D. L. S. Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Neave, Alrey Touche, Sir Gordon
Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Nicholls, Harmar Turner, H. F. L.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam) Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Noble, Comdr. A. H. P. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nugent, G. R. H. Vickers, Miss J. H.
Jones, A. (Hall Green) O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Wade, D. W.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Kaberry, D. Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.) Walker-Smith, D. C.
Keegan, D. Osborne, C. Wall, Major Patrick
Kerby, Capt. H. B. Page, R. G. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Kerr, H. W. Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale) Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Kershaw, J. A. Partridge, E. Webbe, Sir H.
Kirk, P. M. Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith & Border)
Lagden, G. W. Peyton, J. W. W. Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Lambert, Hon. G. Pickthorn, K. W. M. Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pilkington, Capt. R. A. Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Langford-Holt, J. A. Pitman, I. J. Wills, G. (Bridgwater)
Leather, E. H. C. Pott, H. P. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Leavey, J. A. Powell, J. Enoch Woollam, John Victor
Leburn, W. G. Price, David (Eastleigh) Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield) Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T. Profumo, J. D. Mr. Robert Allan and
Colonel Harrison.
NOES
Allaun, F. (Salford, E.) Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Cullen, Mrs. A. Hamilton, W. W.
Bacon, Miss Alice Davies, Harold (Leek) Hayman, F. H.
Beswick, F. Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Healey, Denis
Blackburn, F. Deer, C. Houghton, Douglas
Blenkinsop, A. Dodds, N. N. Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Blyton, W. R. Donnelly, D. L. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Bowles, F. G. Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Boyd, T. c. Fernyhough, E. Hunter, A. E.
Brockway, A. F. Fienburgh, W. Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Fletcher, Eric Irving, S. (Dartford)
Burke, W. A. Forman, J. C. Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn&St.Pncs,S.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Freeman, Peter Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Gooch, E, G. King, Dr. H. M.
Clunie, J. Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R. Ledger, R. J.
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch & Finsbury) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Owen, W. J. Swingler, S. T.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Padley, W. E. Sylvester, G. O.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Parker, J. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Lewis, Arthur Peart, T. F. Usborne, H. C.
Lindgren, G. S. Proctor, W. T. Viant, S. P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M. Rankin, John Warbey, W. N.
Logan, D. G. Reeves, J. Watkins, T. E.
McGhee, H. G. Reid, William Wells, Percy (Faversham)
McKay, John (Wallsend) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mahon, S. Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Wigg, George
Mason, Roy Royle, C. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Messer, Sir F. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. Willey, Frederick
Monslow, W. Silverman, Julius (Aston) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Moody, A. S. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Moss, R. Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill) Yates, V. (Ladywood)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Skeffington, A. M.
Oram, A. E. Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Oswald, T. Snow, J. W. Mr. McGovern and Mr. Delargy.

Question put and agreed to.

The Clerk of the Crown thereupon attended at the Table and amended the Return accordingly.

Mr. Speaker

I have further to report to the House that I have received the following Letter and Certificate from the judges appointed to try the Election Petition relating to the Election for Mid-Ulster.

The Royal Courts of Justice (Ulster) BELFAST.

21st October, 1955.

The Right Honourable

The Speaker of the House of Commons.

Sir,

Constituency of Mid-Ulster

In accordance with the provisions of Section 124 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, we transmit herewith our certificate in writing of our determination upon the Petition of Mr. Charles Beattie against the election of Mr. Thomas James Mitchell as member for the above constituency, accompanied (as directed by Section 111 (6) of the Act) by a copy of the shorthand writers' transcript of the evidence given upon the hearing of the Petition and also by a copy of their transcript of our judgment. It will be observed that we have made a few slight verbal corrections in the shorthand writers' transcripts.

Yours faithfully,

ARTHUR BLACK CHARLES L. SHELL

Judges on the Rota for the Trial of Election Petitions.

To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

COURT for the trial of an ELECTION PETITION for the CONSTITUENCY OF MID-ULSTER

BETWEEN CHARLES BEATTIE Petitioner;

and

THOMAS JAMES MITCHELL Respondent.

WHEREAS an Election of a member to serve in the present Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Constituency of Mid-Ulster was holden on the 11th day of August. 1955

AND WHEREAS the only candidates at the said Election were the above-named Charles Beattie and Thomas James Mitchell

AND WHEREAS the said Thomas James Mitchell was returned by the Returning Officer as having been duly elected at the said Election

AND WHEREAS on the 25th day of August, 1955, the said Charles Beattie presented a Petition to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland in the Queen's Bench Division praying that it might be determined that the said Thomas James Mitchell was not duly elected or returned and that the said Charles Beattie was duly elected and ought to have been returned.

AND WHEREAS the matter of the said Petition was tried before us at Omagh within the said Constituency on the 5th, 6th and 7th days of October, 1955

WE HEREBY CERTIFY that at the conclusion of the said trial we determined as follows:—

  1. (a) that at the date of the said Election on the 11th day of August, 1955, the said Thomas James Mitchell was incapable of being elected as a member of Parliament and was not duly elected or returned; and
  2. (b) that the said Charles Beattie was duly elected to serve in the present Parliament for the said Constituency of Mid-Ulster and ought to have been returned.

DATED this 7th day of October, 1955.

ARTHUR BLACK.

CHARLES L. SHELL.

Judges on the Rota for the Trial of Election Petitions.

And the said Letter and Certificate were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

Copy of Shorthand Writer's Notes laid upon the Table by Mr. SPEAKER.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn

I beg to move, That the Clerk of the Crown do attend this House forthwith with the last Return for Mid-Ulster and amend the same by substituting the name of Charles Beattie for that of Thomas James Mitchell as the Member returned for the said constituency.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not propose to detain the House by going through all the discussion and argument that we had upon the previous Motion. It is obvious that the two matters are on exactly the same footing. If I had my way I would defeat this Motion upon the same grounds and for the same reasons as I advised the House not to accept the previous one. I do not propose to delay the House by further discussion.

The Clerk of the Crown thereupon attended at the Table and amended the Return accordingly.