Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION IV.
Decisions common to qualifications upon the old extent and valuation.
Subject_3 SECT. III.
Nominal and Fictitious.
Sir William Forbes, Bart and Others, v. William Tait, John Gordon, and Others
Date: 15 June 1790 Case No. No 151.
Trust oath of 7th Geo. II. not the only criterion of nominality, but particular interrogatories may be put.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The question between Sir William Forbes and others, freeholders in the county of Aberdeen, and Sir John Macpherson*, having been carried by appeal to the House of Lords, the judgment of the Court of Session was reversed, and Sir John Macpherson, the respondent, ordered to confess or deny the averments in the appellants' pleadings respecting the nature of his freehold qualification.
Before this determination was given, Sir John Macpherson had gone abroad. But Mr Tait, Mr Gordon, and several other gentlemen, whose qualifications in the same county stood in similar circumstances, were required to answer the questions which had been proposed to Sir John.
These gentlemen gave in answers, the particulars of which it is unnecessary to state. What seemed to be decisive, was their admitting that the freehold qualifications had been framed with a view of increasing the political influence of the Duke of Gordon; that although the persons to whom they were granted, had come under no express engagement to vote for the candidate patronised by his Grace, they did not think themselves at liberty, as men of honour, to vote in opposition to his wishes; and that they could not with propriety refuse to renounce
* 6th March 1789, No 150, supra.
their freehold qualifications, when it was necessary for the Duke's accommodation.
The Lords unanimously found, that the freehold qualifications in question were nominal and fictitious, and appointed the names of the respondents to be expunged from the roll of freeholders.
Dean of Faculty, Wight, C. Hay, et alii.Alt. Tait, Gordon, et alii.Clerk, Gordon.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 420. Fac. Col. No 139. p. 275.
In some other cases from the same county, the persons whose freehold qualifications were brought under challenge, gave in no answers to the questions put to them. The Court, considering their silence as an acknowledgment of the particulars they were required to confess or deny, appointed them to be struck off the roll.
