The Sun.
London, England, 1806-09-19 00:00:00

TO the EDITOR qf the SVX.

SIR,

paving heard much debate in various companies
as to the eligibility of Lord PERCY and Mr. SnEra-
VAN to represent the City of Westminster on the
present vacancy, both being now Members of Par-
liament, I think it may be useful to publish the fol-
Lowing Extra& from Mr. ILITsELL's Precedents,
vol. 2, p. 68, with a few observations thereon :
" A person eleaed and returned a Member of
" the House of Commons cannot certainly, by
" Law, be eligible for any other place, unless by
" the acceptance of an office, or some other a&
" he vacates his former seat.
" At a General Eleaion, whilst the Writs are
" executing together in all parts •of the Kingdom,.
" it has been usual for the same person sometimes
" to be eleCted for two, three, or four different
" places ; and, when the House of Commons
" meets, for such person to make his election for
" which of these places he will serve. A particu-
" lar case happened in March, 1782—upon which
" a doubt arose—a doubt proceeding from this
" pra&ice at a General Election. On the change
of Administration, a great many Writs were
" moved at the same time, on the 27th of March,
" for several places ; amongst the rest for the
gr County of Surrey, and Borough of North-
" ampton. Lord ALTHORPE was chosen for
" Northampton on Thursday the 4th of April,
" and his return 'was brought into the Crown Office
" on, the sth. On Wednesday the 3d of April, at
". a Meeting held to consider of a proper person to
" represent the County of Surrey, Lord ALTHORPE
" was nominated, and uniVersally approved of; and
"' at the•Eleaion on Wednesday the loth of April,
he was eleEted Knight of the Shfre, for that
County.—ln this interval between the 4th and
" 10th of April, a doubt was started, Whether it
was necessaryfor Lord ALTHORPE to aCCePt,of an
!‘ Office to vacate his Seat for _Northampton ? or,
it whether he mis;ht; though returned for Northamp-
-11 ten, consider 6=4 in the same situation as he
I".'wOld have been in at a General Eleaion, and
be 'eleaed for Surrey, and then in the House 4f
Cthntions make his election for which place he
kc would 'serve? 'Several persons, and amongst those'
some whose opinions deserved great consideration,
mAintained, that there was no difference between
this 'rise and that of a General EleCtion ; that a
" Member in both instances was equally elected the '
moment the indenture of his return was executed; ;
" and, as the established practice of the House had,
in the case or a General EleCtiou, permitted a
Member, though eleCted and actually returned for
ll' 'due place, to be eligible for another ; the same
" 'reasoning ought to apply here ; arid that therefore
" Lord ALTHORPE was eligible for Surrey, with-
" out Accepting arty Office to vacate his Seat for
4' Northampton ; arid they supported thiS opinion by
" precedent in the year 1756; where the Earl of
EUSTON was aaually elected for Boroughbridge
and Bury, upon writs issued on the 4th and 14th
" December, 1756, and 'made his election on the
la Bth of January following.—Not withstanding these
4 opinions, and the authority of the case of Lord,
EUSTON (which Mr. H. says, arose from the
" neglea of duty of the Returning Officer), J could
4' not help considering this question in a different
" light, and was clearly' of opinion, that Lord AL-
" THORPE being eleEted and returned for North-
" arnpton, was not eligible for Surrey Without first
" vacating his Seat ; and having stated this opinion
" to' the Speaker, with my reasons for it, he perlea-
" ly agreed with me ; and in consequence of his re-
" commendation; Lord ALTHORPE did, oh Monday
• the Bth of April, accept of the Stewardship of the
4'‘ Three Chiltern Hundreds, and did thereby vacate
his Seat for Northampton, and was without op-
" position elected for SUrrey on the 1 oth. The brit
" for NORTHAMPTON was not moved till Saturday
• the 20th, upon the principle mentioned in the first
" note; under the next title, viz. not to permit Writs
" to issue in the room of Members dead or accepting
" Offices till the tithe is expired which the House
"had limited for receiving petitions, complaining of
" undue EleCtions Returns." , .

•
Mr. HATSTE LL goes On to qtatei that his reason for
not making a distinCtion between the case stated
and that of a General Elt,C.Aion, was, that in the
former case the Writs were returnable immediately,
and •the person returned becatne therefore imme-
diately entitled to the benefits, and subje& to al the
incapacities of his seat ;,,and in the:other case, the
Writs being all returnable together at a future and
" distant day, no power can legally take notice of the
aetual execution of this Writ, I mean to this pUrpose,
before that day:"
From this EtateMetit, and the -Pietedent of Lard
ALTEORPE, it appears clearly, first, That' without
previously vacating a former seat no person can be le-
zally elebted to a new one; secondly, That the diS,
tindion which has been made between the cases of
Lord PERCY and Mr. SHERIDAN, - founded on the
circumstance of the former not having taken his
seat in the House, is not warranted. If the accept-
ance of an office be. sufficierit either. may • vacate in
this way; if not, Lord PEttc;v's not having taken
his seat will not, any More than in the -ease cited,
enable him to stand for another place. • The . third.
point therefore is the most important, namely; whe-,
ther tbuch aa'ofracatibg, the seat can take effeCt during
the Recess of Parliament, By the Ad- '24 'Geo.' 111.
see. 2 chap. 26, the Speaker is only authorised to
issue his Writ during the Recess in the two cases,
of the death of a- Member, or his being called up
to the Filuse of Peers ; the question therefore is; „.
whether the acceptance of -an office by a Member,
without the consequent issuing of the be suffi-
cient to authorise his elettiou for another place.
On this point the precedent of Lord • ALTHORPE
IS decisive,- as far as one precedent calf- be. His
Lordship, it appears, was eleeled, and, as Mr. HAT-
SELL further sayse,aanally took his seat for Surrey be-
frre the Writ for Northampton, for which place he
had preiottaly been returned, had been issued, or or-
dered to be issued.

TGe result, you will percelye is, that no objec-
tion on the score of ineligibility exists as to either
of the Candidates roc;ntioned. •
I am, Sir, &c. Bcc.

DECIUS.

Two houses fell down this morning in Harp-lane,
Tower-street; the particulars of which we have not
been able to procure.