The Sun.
London, England, 1840-02-22 00:00:00

POST. OFFICE.

Mr. GOULBURN moved for a return of all the
sums paid by the public departments on account of postage
since the introduction of the present system of pot gage.--
Ordered.
NEW WRIT FOR PERTHSHIRE.

Mr. FOX M AIME moved for a new writ for Pt fr th shire
in the room of Lord Viscount Stormont, now Earl of
Mansfield :.n England, and Lord Stormont in the' King;dom
of Sco!land.

Mr. PRINGLE wished to know whether, c onsF.stent
with the motion of the Hon. Gentleman •opposi :e, Lord
Stormont had received his Writ of Summons-. •lo the
House of Lords ?

Mr. F. MAULE said that the writ of sumn-somi had
not yet been issued, but he apprehended that inac'e no
difference according to the Act of Union.
Sir W. FOLLETT recollected that a similar ea se had
occurred since he had been in Parliament—the case, of the
present Earl of Scarborough—a writ was move, d for
on the death of his father, but no writ of suit ,mons
had been issued, and the motion was withdi awn.
This appeared to him to be a similar case. There was no
proof that Lord Stormont bad become either a. PI :er of
Scotland or a Peer of England; and until a noblesna, a had
received a wilt of summons, it was not usual to m. eve a
new writ for a place which he represented.—(the ers.)
Mr. FOX MAULE was sorry to interfere with so high
an authority as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He
apprehended Lord Stormont would not receive a writ of
summons; he would take his seat in the House of Lcmds
as an English Peer without any summons, and he (-114 r. F.
Maule) knew of no reason why so large a district ti a Perth
should remain unrepresented.—( Hear, and laughter.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said the circumstance of 1.1 its case
appeared to him very peculiar. The Earl of nansfield
died on Tuesday; he was yet unburied.—(Hear. hear.)
As a Peer of the British Parliament a writ of summons
would be necessary for Lord Stormont. That writ
of summons could only issue on proof of his
legitimacy, end the case stated by h's Hon. and Le irned
Friend, the last case in which the quest:on arose eif the
Earl of Scarborough, removed all doubt upon that gr. aund.
Unless, therefore, the Hon. Member was prepared to state,
on his own knowledge, that the writ of summates had
issued, the time had not yet arrived for m oving
the new writ. The Hon. Gentlemen new that the,: late
Earl of Mansfield was not only a British Peer, but a Peer
of Scotland, and that before Lord Stormont could succeed
as heir to his Scotch inheritance, proofs of his
legitimacy were necessary; his father being yet
unburied, no such proofs had been adduced. The Hon.
Gentleman was not in a condition to state that he knew
the writ of summons had been issued ; and as he could not
state that, he (Sir J. Graham) submitted it waspremature
to move for the new writ.—( Heal, hear.)
The LORD ADVOCATE said it was perfectly clear,
according to the law of Scotland, that no semce was
necessary of his legitimacy before he could take the title
of his father ; but that on the death of the father
the son immediately became a Peer ; service was altvgether
unnecessary ; and the present Lord Mansfield 'Fes a
Scotch Peer independent of service sad independent
of any proof of legitimacy. Ther,2 6 ;to th-Jubt
upon the 13w of Scotland, and it was 1,111 right.
whatever decision the House might come to, that it shonld
be aware of that fact.

evidence on the point upon which to act in the case of ;TS
English Peerage. The House required to have evidence'
of the issuing of the writ. He considered that the Scotch
Peerage had nothing to do with the question; they must
therefore fall buk on the English Peerage.—(oh, oh.)
The A TTO RNE Y- GENERAL said that it appeared,
upon the evidence of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member
for Pembroke, that the Earl of Mansfield was dead.
There could be no doubt that Lord Stormont, the late
Member for Perthshire, as he must persist in call-
ing him, was his eldest son and heir. Take the
case as if the late Noble Lord had only been Via.
count Stormont in Scotland. There could be no doubt
that his eldest son became Viscount Stormount imme-
diately on his death, and, being a Scotch Pecr, could not
sit in that House. The county of Perth was now unre-
presented ; and was it not as; a matter of course, there.
fore, that the writ should be issued ?

Mr. GOULBURN said if the law was to be taken as
laid down by the Learned Attorne}•_General—if it was to
be taken flr granted that the seat was vacant without any
evidence, the House could never again inquire into the
legitimacy of a Scottish Peer. He thought it would be
very inexpedient to come to a ha'ty decision in a case
which must form a precedent. He would move, therefore,
Ghat the debate be adjourned to Monday next, " to give an
opportunity for searching out the precedents upon the

question."
Mr. FOX MALTLE would certainly oppose the motion
upon the ground that the House had obtained the opinion
of the Lord Advocate most distinctly given upon a point of
Scotch law. That opinion was that by the law of Scot-
land Lord Stormont was now a Scotch. Peer, and if be
now asserted his privilege of sitting for the County of
Perth, ho would subject himself to a heavy penalty. He
sew no reason why that large district should be unrepre-
sented, and upon those grounds he would persist in the
motion which he had first made, viz.—That a writ be now
issued for the county of Perth.
Sir R. PEEL would decidedly support the motion for
adjournment. The position of a Scotch Peer in his opi-
n on very much resembled that of an Irish Commoner
sitting for an Irish constituency, and inheriting a title front
his father. In that case he was disqivalified from sitting, not in
the House of Commons, but for any Irish constituency ;
and it was important to ascertain the course
pursued on such a vacancy taking place—whe-
ther the Speaker issued his writ immediately in the
recess or waited until some - evidence had been laid

before the House. There was no representative
for Perth yesterday or the day before, but it was not
thought necessary, on the death ot the late Earl
Mansfield being known, that a race should
be run, in order to move the writ. The proposal was
not that they should suspend the writ indefinitely, but
that the debate should be adjourned until Monday
next, in order that they might consider what the
precedents were. If the precedents were in its favour, let
the writ be issued on Monday next, but before
it was decided upon was it not decent at least
to have the opportunity of eight-and-forty hours' consi-
deration, before they established a precedent which was to

govern them in future ?
Mr. ROBERT SI EUART denied that the case was
analagous to that of an Irish I eer. The difference was
that an Irish Peer vas not prohibited from sitting in
the House of Commons, because be might sit fur an
English constituency, whereas a Scotch Peer could not sit
in the House of Common: at all. He feared that there was

nothing more than a mere wish to prevent a precedent
being established on the other side—(Loud cheers from
the Ministerial benches)—it was utterly impossible that
any precedent could be established different from
that which bad frequently taken place before,
and it being admitted that the Earl of Mansfield was dead,
and that his son was a Scotch Peer, he did say that the
House had a right to suppose that there was something yet
undisclosed which induced Hon. Members on the other side
to come forward and prevent the writ being issued.
Mr. GO ULBU RN could assure the Hon. Gentleman
that he had been influenced merely by a wish to prevent
an improper precedent being established.
Mr. SH A W said, that on the death of Lord Farnham,
Mr. Maxwell, who represented the County of Cavan, suc-
ceeded to the title, and although Lord Fariaham had died dur-
ing the recess, the vacancy had not been declared, nor hada
new writ been issued until the meeting of Parliament,
because as no writ of summons was issued to an Irish
Peer, the Speaker had no official information on the
subject.

Sir R. INGLIS rose for the purpose of calling the
attention of the Houc to the case mentioned by his
Right Hon. Friend the Member for the University of
Cambridge.—[The Hon. Gentleman then read from the
journals an account of the proceedings in the House,
on the IS:h of January, 1811, on the motion that a new
writ be issued for Gloucestershire, in the room of Lord
Dursley, who had succcedcd to the title of Earl of Berke-
ley.) The Speaker on that occasion had issued his writ. but
it had turned out afterwards that the allegation upon which
he had proceeded in so doing, was incorrect, and the other
House of Parliament had decided that that Gentleman was
not Earl of Berkeley, and he had never sat there by that
tile. Now, as no Gentleman could state it as a fact,
from his own knowledge, that Viscount Stormont was now
a Peer, it would be more consistent to consult to the ad-
journment.

Mr. HUME asked if the Hon. Gentleman meant to
state to the House that there were any doubts, as to the
legitimacy of Lord Stormont ?—( Cheers )
Sir R. INGLIS had cautiously abstained from making
any reference to the grounds of the decision to which be
had alluded.—(Cheri.)
Mr. HUME said the points of that decision were known
to every one, and therefore he was justified in asking the
question.—(Cheers Ind laughter.)
Sir W. FOLLETT could assure the Iron. Gentleman
opposite who bad attributed motives to Gen lemen on that
side,that he was totally ignorant of the local politics
of Perthshire. His only obj, ct was that the
House should proceed according to precedent.
The question was, whether the House ought not to
proceed in this case in the usual, ordinary, and
proper course. It bad been said that there
was no doubt whatever that the Viscount Stormont

in Scotland was Earl of Mansfield in England, but that
was not the only consideration which the House should look
to. In the case of the Earl of Scarborough the writ
had been suspended till his elai.n had been duly
ascertained.—( Hear, hear.) He would not pretend
to dispute the law of Scotland in the cue as
laid down by the Lord Advocate, b► t be stall t iougnt
that the House shout I be guided on the matter
by precedent, and that they should pursue the usual course
on such occasions.—( Hear.) Hon. Gentle non oppo
site could not, be believed, show any precedent
of a writ having been issued immediately on the death of
a Scottish Peer. Nobody, he believed, on his part, bad
the slightest motive in taking the line they had done, bat
to prevent the House from proceeding without dive
deliberation.

Mr. FOX MAULS said that Hot). Gentlemen oppo.
site had not denied that Lord Stormont was now a Scot
ish Peer, and that if he took his keit in the House he
would be liable to a penalty.
Mr. J. JONES was of opinion that the House should
delay the issuing of the writ.
Mr. O'CONNELL—ShaII we be on Monday in a
situation to be cognizant of more facts than at pre.
sent ?—( Hear.) There can be no doubt that Lord Stor-
mont now is Lord Stormont of Scotland ; as such he can-
not sit in this House.—( Hear. ) If you want to wait till
you find a candidate for Perthshire—( Loud cheers and
laughter from the Ministeriaiists, and " Oh, oh," from the
Opposition.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—The rule of the House
appears to me to be that the writ should be issued in
the room of any person unable to serve in this House.—
( Hear, hear.) This was done in the case of Lord Clive
__recently become Earl Powis—(llear)—as in the case of
Lord Ramsay, new Lord Dalhousie; and so it was in
the cage of Lord Kinnear, some years ago.—( Hear.)
The practice has been not to search for precedents, but to
issue the writ, supposing that the House are satisfied with
the statement of the Member moving for it. Now, in this
case, will any Member state that there is any doubt that
Lord Stormont is now a Peer of Scotland and a Peer of
England—( Hear)—and therefore unable to sit in this
House ?—( Hear, hear.) In the case of the Earl of
Berkeley—and were such a case to arise again, there
might be great difficulty. For supposing a question
to arise on which counsel had to be heard, would the
House say that there should be a vacancy for some year

or two ?—(Hear, hear.) But that is not the pre-sent
case.— ( Hear.) The present case does not appear to re-
quire doubt, deliberation, or delay.—( Hear.) I think the
House ought to proceed in this case according to its usual
practice.

Sit WILLIAM RAE said that as lone as any doubt
existed, as to whether the Noble Lord ;he Member for
P.rth was Lord Stormont in Scotland, or Lord Mans-
field in England, the writ ought not to issue.—( Hear.)
He did not mean to deny that the eldest sons of peels
were used to take up their titles immediately
upon the death of their fathers. But net one could do any
act as a Peer without producing the proof of his legiti-
macy. It was necessary for every one voting for the six-
teen representative Peers proof to produce such of being
the sun and heir of his father-4 A laugh)—before he
o heaDrV
Theed;OC ATE said that there could be
voted.
—bLtlir, Atlllatijimmediately upon the death of a Peer, his
eldest son became a
.Peer.—( Hear, hear.) It might be
matter of accident weether, fur many years after his sue •
cession, a Peer might do any act, or exercise his right of
Peerage, so as to require the proof alluded to.—(Hear.)
Was the House, then, to delay the issuing of the writ
until the exercise of some judicial power which a Scotch
Peer might undertake cr not at his option—( Hear, hear
—should render the proof of his legitimacy indispensablo
—(Hear, hear.) In fact, the whole question for the
House at present was, whether it was satisfied of hi
(Lord Stormont%) father's death ?--( Hear. hear.)
Sir G. CLERK said it was undoubtedly true, that / r
vious to 1811, when the House committed the 'fa m
blunder of issuing a writ for the county of Gloucester
the room of Lord D'Eresby, on the supposition of H
father's death—the House :was accustomed to move ne
writs in the room of the eldest son of a Peer upon ile
mere rumour. He considered that the case of the prose rt
Earl of \Vemyss and the Earl of Beverley, where t Ie
Hume refused to issue the writ in consequence of the writ
of ummens not having been issutd,. ,ett!eri the matters
aacendedheedttlolt:rQture trusted the pcstponcinent asked would be
Lord HO WICK could not conceive that in the prelim'