§ Mr. Vernonrose to move that the Speaker should direct a new Writ to issue for the North Division of the County of Nottingham, in the room of Lord Lumley, now Earl of Scarborough. The circumstances under which he submitted the Motion to the House, were unusual, but by no means unprecedented, and he believed that, in the course he was about to pursue, he should follow strictly what had been the ordinary practice in similar cases. Lord Lumley, now Earl of Scarborough by descent, his father having recently died, had not yet received the writ of summons to take his seat in the House of Peers. In Hatsell, a conversation was recorded, which took place between Mr. Speaker Onslow and Lord Egmont, 847 upon the occasion of the latter, on the 20th of May, 1760, applying to the Speaker "before the House sat, to acquaint him, that he intended to move the House for a new writ for the county of Kent, in the room of Mr. Watson, who was made a Peer. Mr. Onslow told him, that the form of his Motion must be 'in the room of Lewis Monson Watson, Esq., called up to the House of Peers,' and that the House received the Motion, upon the authority of the hon. Member who made it. Lord Egmont said, that Mr. Watson had kissed the King's hand, and he supposed that was sufficient.****Mr. Onslow said, it was therefore Lord Egmont's duty to consider, whether he would take upon himself to inform the House that Mr. Watson was called up to the House of Peers, and to assist him in that determination, he would acquaint his Lordship with some points to ground his judgment upon. A person becomes a Peer either by descent or by creation. When by the former, the instant the ancestor dies, the heir becomes a Peer, and his seat in the House of Commons 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, or 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 been issued, but that this proceeded merely from curiosity, his seat in the House of Commons being vacant, whether it had issued or not." The House would perceive from this extract, that Mr. Onslow was decidedly of opinion that it was not necessary to wait for the issuing of the writ of summons, before a new writ could be moved for. Whether the present Speaker was disposed to exercise the same species of curiosity as his predecessor, he knew not, but, at all events, he would inform the House, that the Earl of Scarborough had authorized him to move for the new writ, he having applied for the 848 writ of summons ten days ago, but in consequence of his father not having taken his seat in the House of Lords, there was some difficulty in proving his succession, and therefore the writ of summons had not been issued. He might, perhaps, be allowed to call the attention of the House to another precedent, which he found in the note to the text in Hatsell, which he had just read to the House. It was as follows:—" On the 10th of January, 1811, a motion was made for a new writ in the room of Lord Viscount Dursley, now Lord Berkeley, and the House granted it, although the mover declined to allege that he was called up to the House of Peers, upon a distinction between the case of an heir-apparent (like this case) and the case of collateral descent like General Bertie's." He thought that seats in that House ought not to depend upon circumstances which might prevent an individual from taking his seat in the other House of Parliament, and that a constituency should not be deprived of its Representative by circumstances so entirely collateral as those which operated in the present case. The hon. Member concluded by moving that "the Speaker should issue a new writ for the North Division of the County of Nottingham, in the room of Lord Lumley, now a Peer of the United Kingdom."
The Speaker, after having heard the statement made by the hon. Member, and the Motion which he had submitted to the House, felt himself called on to declare, that in his opinion, it would be highly inexpedient for the House to direct that the writ should be issued. The only safe and certain evidence on which the House could act was, that a Member had received his writ of summons, and had been called up to the House of Peers. If there were any doubt as to the fact of a Member of this House being entitled to be a Peer, that was a question which the House could not decide, and therefore the safest course was to act only when the Member had received his writ of summons. What occurred in the case of Lord Dursley, to which the hon. Member alluded, was, as it appeared to him, only an additional reason for adopting the course which he had ventured to recommend, and ought to make the House exceedingly cautious of acting on any other than the most conclusive evidence.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought 849 that the view which the Speaker took of the question, was conformable to the dictates of both justice and common sense. The House would do well to act upon the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, and abstain from issuing the writ for the election of a new Member, until they ascertained that the writ of summons had been issued. It would not be right for the House, in the present state of its information upon the question, to subject a county to the inconvenience of a new election. There was another point of view in which the question ought to be considered. Suppose, in the case of a contested Peerage, the House of Commons should issue a new writ, on the allegation that one of its Members had succeeded to the title, would not that be prejudicial to the interest of his opponent? If the party should not, after all, establish his claim, he world have been deprived of his seat in that House.
§ Mr. Vernonsaid, that with reference to what had just fallen from the right hon. Baronet, it appeared to him, that if a Member voluntarily vacated his seat, he could have nothing to complain of, even though he should fail to establish his title to a Peerage. The doctrine of the right hon. Baronet might, in practice, operate unjustly upon a constituency. The late Earl of Scarborough never would take his seat in the House of Lords, and, therefore, if he had been a Member of the House of Commons at the time he succeeded to the title, the county of Nottingham might practically have been without a Representative for many years. With respect to the Motion, he certainly would not press it, since the Speaker's opinion was against him.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould be sorry to have it understood that he had laid down ally fixed rule in a matter with respect to which he had never heard a word before that moment. He was indeed sorry to be forced to come to a decision on a question of so much importance without previous notice. It did, however, appear to him that it would establish a most improper precedent if the House should consent to the present Motion. Suppose the noble Lord should fail to establish his claim, would it be proper in the mean time to deprive him of his seat, and the county of Nottingham of its right to his services? He apprehended that, until the writ of summons should be issued, the noble Lord would be entitled to exercise the 850 privileges of a Member of the House of Commons.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he divided in the minority on the question of issuing the writ for the election of a new Member in Lord Dursley's case. The House of Lords afterwards rejected his claim to the Peerage and he (Mr. Wynn) had no doubt that the issuing of the writ for the Election of a Member having been founded on false representations was altogether void. The House would do well to avoid the possibility of such an occurrence happening again.
Dr. Lushingtonconcurred in the objections which had been taken to the Motion. To issue a new writ on the allegation that a Member was a Peer, before he had been so declared by the Lords, would be prejudging the judgment of that assembly. No inconvenience could possibly arise from delaying the issue of the writ, whilst a contrary course might be attended with great danger. Under these circumstances there was no safety except in adhering rigidly to the rule laid down by the chair.
Lord John Russellregretted, that the Question had been brought before the House without notice. He would vote against the Motion, on the ground that there was no imperious necessity for issuing the writ at the present moment. If circumstances should arise to alter the state of the case, he should feel himself at liberty to change his opinion.
Motion withdrawn.