PRIVILEGES OF PARLIAMENT—BOROUGH OF BEERALTON. (Hansard, 17 December 1830)

§ Mr. Leader

moved, that the Speaker do issue his warrant for a new Writ for this borough, in the room of Lord Louvain, now Earl of Beverley. The hon. Member said, that the Speaker having inquired, when the subject was mentioned to him yesterday, whether the usual words "now summoned up to the other House of Parliament" were added to the Motion, and having been answered in the negative, that he was pleased then to recommend that reference should be made to precedents, for the purpose of seeing whether such addition to the terms of the Motion was not essential. The first authority to which he had accordingly referred was that contained in ' Hatsell's Precedents' where it is laid down, "that a person becomes a Peer by descent or by creation. When by the former, the instant the ancestor dies his heir becomes a Peer, and his seat in the House of Com- 1300 mons is immediately vacant; and there is no necessity to wait for the issuing of the Writ to call such heir to the House of Peers; for it is only a Writ of Summons to attend his service there; and without it, and though he should never take his, seat there, he is to all intents and purposes whatsoever a Peer of the realm; and if in some particular case, or to answer any particular purpose, this Writ of Summons should be delayed to be issued, the House of Commons would, nevertheless, consider his seat amongst them as vacated, and would order a new Writ. In the case of the late Lord Carlisle, when, upon the death of his father, a new Writ was moved, the Speaker said, he had asked the mover of it whether the Writ of Summons had issued? but that this proceeded from curiosity—his seat in the House of Commons being: vacant whether it had issued or not." The next precedent upon which he (Mr. Leader) relied, was the decision of the House of Commons itself on a recent occasion, in the Berkeley case, where a motion was made in 1811 for a Writ for a Member to serve in Parliament for the county of Gloucester, in the room of Viscount Dursley, then Earl Berkeley; and the hon. Member produced also the Journals of the House of Commons of that day, in which the House decided, on a division precisely under the circumstances of the present case, that the Writ should issue. The hon. Member then referred to Hansard's Parliamentary Debates,' and recurred to the arguments which were then used, and on which he relied as perfectly in point with the present case. It was stated in the proceedings of that day that Mr. Speaker had cited a variety of instances, and directed the Clerk to read certain passages from the Journals relative to the issuing of the writ for Stamford, in the room of General Barclay, then Earl Lindsay; and he contended that the words "summoned to Parliament" were essential. It was then contended by the mover for the Writ, that a summons was not necessary— that the county of Gloucester, in that event, might go unrepresented for months, or till the end of Parliament. It was argued on the other side, that if they went into the subject a Committee of Privileges must be appointed to ascertain whether or not he had the right. Several gentlemen at that time contended, that the question was not how Lord Dursley was affected, but how the House 1301 of Commons was affected; they contended also, that a peerage rendered a person incapable of sitting in that House: and it was likewise strongly urged that it was a mere question as to form, and though forms ought to be properly attended to, still Gloucester ought not to be deprived of its share in the representation for form's sake. He contended, therefore, that this was the dictum of the most eminent parliamentary authority, and the precedent of the House itself, for in the Gloucester case, the writ was issued as the motion was granted. Under these circumstances, he felt strongly that the first duty of the House was to fill up the vacancies in their own body. Lord Louvain was disqualified for sitting there, and, consequently, the borough of Beeralston ceased to be represented in that House. He, therefore, moved for a Writ for a new Election for the borough of Beeralston.

§ The Speaker

said, he was sure that the House would expect, and that the hon. Member would not only pardon him if he addressed them on this subject, but that they would all think that, on such a question, he was called upon to make some observations upon the motion of the hon. Member, and upon the grounds on which the hon. Member had founded his Motion. The Motion was, that a new Writ be issued for a certain borough, in the room of a person who was alleged by the hon. Mover to have ceased to be a Member of this House in consequence of his having, by the death of his father, succeeded to the peerage. Now, it must be quite clear to every hon. Member, that if the person alluded to was not a Peer, his place was not vacant, for no other ground of vacancy had been alleged. Such being the motion of the hon. Member, the hon. Member had said, that he would cite precedents and authorities to show that the House might, in such a case, order a new Writ, without a summons having been issued by the other House to the person situated as the hon. Member had described the member for this borough to be. He had carefully watched the hon. Member during the course of his argument, and the fulfilment of his pledge to produce authorities in support of his Motion. The hon. Member had first produced dicta—from a book of great authority he was ready to admit, but still only dicta—in support of this petition,—namely, that in such a case as the hon. Member had stated, it was not necessary that 1302 a summons should issue from the other House in order to unseat the person so situated as the member for Beeralston was said to be. There could certainly be no doubt, that if a Member of that House became a Peer, the House could order a new Writ to be issued in his room, and, consequently, unseat him, without the House of Lords having issued such summons; but then the House would require evidence—positive evidence —that such Member had really become a Peer. This had been the uniform course. The House must have proof,—sufficient proof,—and it was true that the issue of a summons by the other House was not essential to the sufficiency of proof. The issue of such summons alone would be sufficient proof—it had always been taken as such; but it did not follow from that, that the House might not have sufficient proof without the summons. For instance, if the House of Lords thought proper to refuse to issue the summons; or, if they were negligent in issuing the summons, such conduct on the part of the Lords could not estop the House of Commons from doing that which the law of the land justified them in doing,—nay, called upon them to do. The House of Commons, however, he repeated, must have sufficient evidence of the fact that the person had become a Peer. The result, then, of these observations, the House would see, was this, —namely, that the dicta which the hon. Member had cited were quite true; or, in other words, that the issue of the summons by the House of Lords was not the only conclusive evidence of a person having become a Peer. There might be other evidence of the same fact. Then, with regard to precedents, the hon. Member had cited only one, and that was the case in which a new Writ had been issued for Gloucester, in the room of Colonel Berkeley. Now to this case he entreated the attention of hon. Members, as well of those who had been Members of the House at the time that case occurred, as of those who had not then the honour of seats there. A single glance at the circumstances of that case would convince hon. Members that the Writ had been wrongfully issued. He had no hesitation in saying wrongfully; for the individual in whose room the Writ was directed to issue was still living, and was Colonel Berkeley, and not Earl of Berkeley. This precedent, therefore, would not, he was sure, be acted 1303 upon by the House; and thus they had got rid of the only case which the hon. Member had cited. Having thus gone through the grounds on which the hon. Member rested his Motion, let him call the attention of the House to the real aspect of the case. The House required proof that the seat was vacant. What proof had been adduced? None whatever; and if the House chose to entertain the Motion, they must, as the summons had not been issued by the other House, go into a solemn inquiry respecting birth, parentage, and right. This was the only course open to the House,—the only course they could pursue in any case so circumstanced as the present case was. With regard to this particular case, however, allow him to observe that he had felt it his duty to take all the steps that he could with propriety take, for procuring information, in order to direct the proceedings, as well of the hon. Member who had brought forward the Motion, as of the House who were to decide upon that Motion. The facts of the case, as he had been informed, were these:—the hon. Member, in whose room a Writ was now moved for, was abroad,—at Rome,—and in consequence of his absence, some obstacles had presented themselves to the issue of the summons from the other House, but the summons had been applied for; that application was before the Lord Chancellor, and in a few days it was expected the application would be decided upon. Under these circumstances, which he had felt it his duty to state, he put it to the hon. Member, and to the House, whether it would not be prudent to wait the result of the application to the Lord Chancellor, rather than commence such an inquiry as would alone justify the House in unseating one of their Members. However, if the hon. Member felt inclined to press the Motion, he would of course put it.