The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-19 00:00:00

ItE-6-ISTRATION.

COUNTY OF HERTS.
HERTFORD, SATURDAY, OCT. 17.
IMPORTANT JUDGMENT AS TO THE RIGHT OF IRISI

PEERS TO BE ON THE REGISTER OF 'OTEItS IN

ENGLAND.
An objection was taken by the Reformers to the
claim of the Earl of Mexborough, who was on the list
for the parish of Buckland, as follows :—" Mexborough,
Lord Savile John, Dover-street, London, freehold
houses." The case was argued at Buntingford before
Mr. Waflinger, who reserved his judgment till this
day-, and from which the various points will be gathered.
Mr. WALLINGER—In the case of the Earl of Alex.
•.
borough which was argued before me at Buntingford on
Tuesday last, a preliminary point was raised by Mr.
Wortham, that the notice of objection was insufficient'
because wrongly addressed. There is no doubt that
this Peer's title is strictly John Earl of Alexhorough,
but he is described in the printed list before me, Mex-
borough Lord Savile John, and the notice of objection
is addressed Lord Savile John Mexborough, and I am
of opinion that the objector was safe in follow-
ing the description given by the claimant in
the lists, and that he was not bound to know it was
the Earl of Mexborough. The notice was served at
his Lordship's place of abode on the list, and even if it
could be construed a misnomer, it was not, in my
judgment, calculated to mislead, and that, under sec.
79, it would not prevent the operation of the Act. I
then was and still am of opinion that the notice of ob-
jection is sufficient. It was admitted that the Earl had
a sufficient qualification. In answer to which, the ob-
jector set up that the Earl was incapacitated from
voting. '['his the objector was bound to prove.
Whether he has done so satisfactorily or not is the ques-
tion that was reserved, and for determining which I
journed the Court to this place. It was suf-
e;ently proved on the one side, and not de
uied on the other, that the Earl of Mexborough is
an Irish Peer, and on the 10th of June, 1830, was so
reported by a Committee of Privileges of the House
of Peers, and by law has a right (as such temporal
Peer of Ireland) to vote in the election of Lords Tem-
poral to represent the Peerage of Ireland in the Parlia-
ment of the United Kingdom, though by the 4th article of
the Act of Union, 39 and 40 Geo. 111. c. 67, a Peer of
Ireland, who is not elected to sit in the House of Lords
of the United Kingdom, shall be capable of sitting in
the House of Commons, for any county, city, or borough
of Great Britain, and it was admitted that the Earl of
Mexborough has not been so elected. By the express
words of sec. 42 of the Reform Act, any person who is
incapacitated by any law or statute from voting in the
election, shall be expunged from the list ; no distinction
is made between incapacity to vote, and incapacity to be
on the list. On the part of the objector, there was shown
by Mr. Harris, the resolution of the House of Commons, j
of 14th Dec. 1699, repeated 13th Feb. 1700, and °4th j
Oct. 1702, which was renewed and added to after the
Union with Ireland, viz.—" T'aat no Peer of this realm,
except such Peers of that part of the United Kingdom
called Ireland, as shall for the time being be actually
elected, and shall not have declined to serve for any
county, city, or borough of Great Britain, Rath
any right to give his vote in the election of
any Member to serve in Parliament."—Vide
Rogers, p. 94, and the cases there cited. In Hey-
wood's County Elections, p. 318, the Banbury case,
the vote of an Irish Peer was decided to be bad. In
the Bedford Committee, Cockburn and Rowe, p. 95,
and in the Winchester case, 10 Journals, the votes of
two Peers were given up by the Counsel as bad. In
the Droitwich case, Knapp and Ombler, p. 69, Lord
Southwell's vote was struck off by the Committee. In
answer to these it was contended that it is only a reso-
lution of the House of Commons, and Lord Southwell's
case was relied on, where the Committee said there was
no statute by which a Peer was incapacitated. But it is
to be remembered that, besides statute law, there is
common law and the law of Parliament ; that a person
is to be expunged who is incapacitated by any law or
statute ; and that the resolution, if not binding qua
resolution, may at least, when of so long date,
so often repeated, so acquiesced in, so uncon-
tradicted, and so confirmed by the decision of
Election Committees (competent legal tribunals
established for these inquiries under Acts of the Legis-
lature), without entering into the question when, and
how, that law first arose, be considered as evidence,
and strong evidence, of what the common law, or law of
Parliament, is, especially when the wording of a resolu-
tion is considered not resolving as if it was a new rule,
that for the future Peers should not vote, but declara-
tory, as of an old law, that, at that time they had not
the right. There are many instances of persons who
are incapacitated from voting, though not by statute ;
for example, aliens, who are excluded by the common
law, 2 Peckvrell 118, Elliott 239. So also, certain
criminals, upon the same principle that they. are ex-
cluded from giving evidence in Courts of Justice, from
infamy of character, and that is by the common law. It
cannot be doubted for a moment that the House of
Commons held a Peer to be incapacitated from voting,
and if he were to vote, that his vote would be struck
off from the poll, on the ground that he had
no right to vote ; and it is worthy of observation that
the same Committee, the Droitwich (cited by the
claimant) who said that Lord Viscount Southwell was