moved, that the Speaker do issue his writ for a member to serve in parliament for the county of Gloucester, in the room of viscount Dursley, now earl Berkley.

inquired if the hon. member intended the usual words "now summoned up to the other House of Parliament" to be added to his motion.

thought a writ of summons from the Lords not necessary to justify his motion, as the instant an individual became a peer of the realm, his seat in the House of Commons became vacated of course. That a summons was not necessary, he conceived to be evident, from the circumstance of such writs never being issued on account of Scots peers. The motion, he thought might be opposed, if injurious to the individual whose place it proposed to supply, or if it were attended with public inconvenience. If it could in any way be prejudicial to the interests of lord Dursley, he would not make such a motion, and far from its being inconvenient to the public, he felt it to be directly the contrary. If the writ were not granted, the county of Gloucester might go unrepresented (at the pleasure of an individual), for months, or till the end of the present parliament.

said the reasons which had influenced him in offering the suggestion he had thrown out, arose from the circumstance of its being the constant practice to add the words he had mentioned to every such motion. In proof of this he cited a variety of instances, and directed the clerk to read certain passages from the Journals relative to the issuing of a writ for Stamford in the room of general Barclay now earl Lindsay.

saw no grounds for departing from what had been their usual course. It appeared from their Journals, that a something had been uniformly desired beyond the mere statement of the death of the peer to whose rank a member was to succeed. If there were any reasons for supposing there was any backwardness in the party to issue out a writ of summons, it might be proper for the House to inquire into the subject, but even then they would pause if a doubt could exist. This, in the present instance, they knew was not the case, and if hereafter it should be decided that the earldom of Berkley did not belong to lord Dursley, in that case the county of Gloucester would be robbed of its representative. The parliament would be opened in a few days, and the question could then be set at rest by the tribunal most competent to judge of its merits. Under these circumstances, he apprehended it would be proper to wait the decision of the other House. He concluded by moving the previous question.

said, the question was, whether the county of Gloucester should have a representative in parliament, or go unrepresented for a length of time? The name of lord Dursley, when the House was called over, had been very properly passed by, which was an acknowledgment of his being no longer a member; and in no case could lord Dursley be at present the representative of Gloucester, sitting there as the eldest son of lord Berkley. If he were not such, he was disqualified from sitting there; and if he were, he could no longer be a member of that House, being now earl Berkley. It was highly inexpedient that Gloucester, in the present state of things, should remain un-represented. They always held it to be their first duty to fill up the vacancies in their own body, and on those grounds he should support the motion.

was of opinion, that if a new member should be elected, if it were proved that lord Dursley's seat was not vacant, such election must be void, and it would be for the House to deprive him of his seat. It might be necessary for them to enter into a discussion of the merits of the case if there was any thing like a combination to prevent the issuing of a new writ. But what was the case at present? It had been thought inexpedient last year to enter into the question of lord Dursley's claims, and it was certainly not less so now. No delay whatever appeared to have taken place. If they went into the subject, a Committee of Privileges must be appointed to ascertain whether or not he had the right. Under the present circumstances his place ought not to be declared vacant. He thought the motion premature, and should therefore vote for the previous question.

thought if there was a doubt on the decision of the House, it ought to be in favour of the people of Gloucester. The question ought to be considered as it affected them, and not as it affected lord Dursley. He hoped they would consider what would be the effect of their decision, and thought they would not do their duty if they did not agree to the issuing of a new writ.

supported the motion, first on the ground that a peerage rendered an individual incapable of sitting in that House; secondly, on the ground that lord Dursley was to be considered as a Peer, till it had been decided that the contrary was the fact; and thirdly, on that of his having been already recognised as the eldest son of the Earl of Berkley.

spoke in favour of the previous question. The course pointed out by the Speaker, had not only been invariably pursued, but that practice had been recognised by an Act of Parliament passed in 1784.

contended that in no instance could lord Dursley be regarded as the representative of the county of Gloucester. It was a mere question as to form; and though forms ought to be properly attended to, he thought Gloucester ought not to be deprived of its share in the representation, for form's sake.

The House then divided, when the numbers were—

The original motion was of course carried, and the House adjourned.