[1791] Mor 1894
Subject_1 BURGH ROYAL.
Subject_2 SECT. III. Burgh Election.
Date: Alexander Birtwhistle
v.
Lord Daer
23 February 1791
Case No.No 34.
The being a Peet's eldest son does not disqualify for a place in the council of a burgh.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Lord Daer, the eldest son of the Earl of Selkirk, having been a candidate for the office of provost of the burgh of Kirkcudbright, it was
Objected: That being the eldest son of a Peer, he could not be elected either as a magistrate or as a counsellor of any burgh.
Answered: There exists no law or regulation, to disqualify the eldest son of Peer from being a counsellor in a royal burgh. Were it even supposed to have been determined by the Scottish Parliament, that a Peer's eldest son could not sit as the representative of a county or a burgh, and that this should have the effect of excluding from the British House of Commons, such a disqualification could not be extended, by implication, to the case in question.
The Lords repelled the objection.
Act. Solisitor-General, Rolland. Alt. Dean of Faculty. Clerk, Menzies.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting