2

influence electors. And by resolution, 14th December, 1699, Com. Dig. Parl. (D.) 10; 10 Journ.

66

447, it was declared, that no Peer of Parlia

66

ment has a right to vote for members of the "House of Commons." (a) This resolution, which was repeated at the commencement of every session, on the Union with Ireland underwent alteration, and now stands thus-resolved, "That no Peer "of this realm (U. K.), except such Peer of that "part of the United Kingdom, called Ireland, as

(a) The vote of the Marquis of Tavistock was objected to, on the ground that he was a Peer of the realm at the time that he voted as a freeman of the Town of Bedford, on the 12th of December, 1832. The Marquis, on his return to Woburn Abbey, after voting, found a copy of the Gazette of the 11th of December, announcing that he had been summoned to the House of Peers, by the style and title of Baron Howland of Streatham, in the County of Surrey. The King's warrant for the writ was dated the 7th December, 1832. The Marquis of Tavistock wrote immediately to the returning officer of the Town of Bedford, stating that he had received a copy of the Gazette, and that it appeared that the King's writ, calling him to the Upper House, had been actually issued at the time of voting (of which he was wholly ignorant), and requesting his name should be withdrawn from the Poll Book, if it could be done consistently with the Law and Practice of Elections. The returning officer, by the advice of counsel, did not alter the Poll. The Committee determined that the vote of Lord Tavistock was good;-Bedford Town, Perry and Knapp's Reports, 146.

"shall, for the time being, be actually elected, " and shall not have declined to serve for any

66

county, city, or borough of Great Britain, hath

any right to give his vote in the election of any "member to serve in Parliament."

In the Banbury case, the vote of an Irish peer, not being elected for any place in England, was admitted to be bad. Heywood, 318.

AGENTS.

Division

Sir John Dickinson Fowler was objected to, Northern on the ground that he was retained as an agent of Staffordfor the next election, by one of the candidates of shire, the division in which he claimed to be registered.

Mr. Lumley thought the Statute did not authorise him to reject the claim on that ground. Name retained.

1832.

ALIENS.

Charles Friend (a), an alien, claimed to vote; his claim was, of course, disallowed. It

City of
London,

appears, 1832.

§ 19, 2 W.

(a) Aliens are incapacitated by the Common Law, 4, c. 45. 2 Peck. 118; but if made denizens by letters-patent, or naturalized by Act of Parliament, the incapacity is removed. By 13 G. 2, c. 3, foreign seamen, in time of war, serving two years, by 13 G. 2, c. 7; 20 G. 2, c. 44; 22 G. 2, c. 45; 2 G. 3, c. 25; and 13 G. 3, c. 25, all foreign Jews and Protestants, upon residing seven years in any of the American colonies, under certain restrictions, were declared to be naturalized. By stat. 26 G. 3, c. 50, and 28 G. 3, c. 20, foreigners established in England,

City of London, 1832.

however, that a large class of persons in the same situation laboured under the mistake, that there was some Act of Parliament which conferred on them the right of exercising the elective franchise.

An alien, residing in St. Michael's Bassishaw, claimed to be registered, on the ground of occupying a 107. house, and paying rates and taxes. He contended that there was no provision in the

and carrying on the whale fishery, and importing the produce thereof for five years, are entitled to all privileges of a natural-born subject.

Anthony Barbre's vote was objected to, being an alien; the return made by the Alien Office was produced, by which it appeared he was born in Paris;-Middlesex, 2 Peck. 118.

It was admitted, a denizen might vote, ibid. Peck. 116. Persons born in the United States of America, since the treaty of 1783, by which the independence of those States was acknowledged by this country, are aliens, and cannot take lands by descent, or inherit them in this country. Doe d. Thomas v. Acklam, 4 D. & R. 394; S. C. B. & C 779.

The children of an American loyalist, who continued his allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain, after the colonies were separated from the mother country, and settled in America, are entitled to take lands by descent in England within the operation of 4 G. 2, c. 21, as natural-born subjects of the Crown of Great Britain; Doe d. Auchmuty v. Mulcaster, 8 D. & R. 593; S. C. 2 B. & C. 771; and see Doe d. Birtwhistle v. Vardill, 8 D. & R. 185.

An alien may hire a house for his habitation, 7 Rep. 17; but a lease of lands will be forfeited to the King; Co. Litt. 2.

Reform Act by which his claim could be rejected.

The Court said, that by the common law, regulating scot and lot voting, the applicant would possess no right, and the new law did not extend the franchise to aliens. Claim rejected.

COMPOUND HOUSES.

Hamlets,

John Bishop claimed as an occupier of what Tower is termed a compounded house; that is, a house 1832, for which the landlord pays the taxes, and not the $ 30, 2 W.

tenant.

Mr. Russell said, the Legislature were aware, when this Bill was passed, that landlords had been allowed to compound for rates, as being, in many instances, both advantageous to the parish and the landlord. The 30th clause of the Bill therefore provided, that the tenants of such houses should be allowed an opportunity of possessing themselves of the elective franchise, by claiming to be rated.

In reply to a question by the Court, the claimant said that he had not claimed to be rated.

The Court observed, that the Act did not decide when such tenants should claim to be rated.

The applicant then turned to the overseers, and said, "I now claim to be rated."

Mr. Russell said, the question would now arise whether the applicant was too late or not; and he was ready to hear that question argued.

4, c. 45.

Tower Hamlets, 1832.

Mr. Offor, one of the candidates, was requested by the claimant to conduct the argument on his behalf, which he consented to do, with the understanding that he did so purely for the sake of settling the question, and not with any interested motives.

Mr. Russell said, this was a most important question, affecting almost every parish in this borough, and therefore he should call in the assistance of his brother barrister, Mr. Chapman ; he also suggested, that some one should appear on the part of the parish, to take up the other side of the question.

Mr. Ware, the vestry clerk of Shoreditch, consented to do so, premising, that in meeting the arguments of Mr. Offor, he was not influenced by any inclination to limit the elective franchise, or to deprive this description of claimants of their votes, but merely for the purpose of bringing both sides of this important question before the Court.

Mr. Chapman having adjourned his Court, the two learned gentlemen sat together, and the case was proceeded with.

The question was, whether the claimant, being an occupier of a compound house, and not having claimed to be rated before the 31st of July, but on the 17th of October, was too late to claim to be rated between that date and the final revision of the list?