Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 BURGH ROYAL.
Subject_2 SECT. I.

Set of Burgh.

James Rodgers and Others, members of the Town Council of Selkirk,
v.
Andrew Henderson and Others

Date: 3 February 1761
Case No. No 12.

Minors, tho' members of an incorporation, are not entitled to vote at a burgh election.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The five incorporations of the borough of Selkirk have each of them a deacon and a colleague, who represent them as members of the council. At the annual elections, each of these incorporations sends a leet of four to the council, who return a short leet of two, one of whom must be the chosen deacon, and he chuses a colleague to himself.

James Rodgers and others, members of the town council of Selkirk, complained of certain irregularities committed in the annual election of that borough for the year 1760; and, among other things, it was objected, That two minors who had been admitted members of the incorporation of taylors, had voted in adjusting the long leet transmitted by that incorporation to the council; and that this was contrary to law, as no person under the age of 21 can have a vote in any step of an election, whether of deacons, magistrates, or counsellors, in a borough, or in meetings of freeholders in a county.

Answered, 1mo, The objection was not instantly verified When the persons complained of took their votes. 2do, A minor may be admitted a member of an incorporation, and when once admitted, he is of consequence entitled to all the privileges competent to any other member. The law secures minors against being hurt, but does not deny them the exercise of their civil rights, which can be attended with no lesion or disadvantage. It is indeed true, that a minor cannot vote in the election of a member of Parliament; but that is by special statute, which supposes that they are not disabled at common law; and though the legislature has not thought proper to instruct them in a matter of so great importance as the election of a member of Parliament, there appears no reason why they should not have a vote in the election of a deacon.

‘The Lords sustained the objection; and found, that the persons complained of being under the age 21, could not vote.’ See Minor.

Act. Montgomery et Burnet. Alt. M'Queen et Lockhart. Clerk, Pringle. Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 99. Fac. Col. No 14. p. 24.