House, this second day of September, one thousand eight hundred and thirty years. (Signed) EPH. LOCKHART. A true copy of the original Protest tendered by me to the Deputies of the Lord Clerk Register, written on these three pages. EPH. LOCKHART. Copy of the Protest against the officiating Clerks at the Peers' Election, 3d June, 1831, by the Duke of Buccleuch and the Earl of Lauderdale; with the EARL OF STIRLING'S Answer thereto. COPY of the Protest against the officiating Clerks receiving and giving efficacy to the Votes of a person claiming to be EARL OF STIRLING, at this Election. First, Because, when we reflect that the House of Lords, in the case of a former claimant to the title of EARL OF STIRLING, resolved, that it is the opinion of this House that 'the said William Alexander ought, to all intents and pur'poses, to be considered as having no right to the said title by 'him assumed, until he shall have made out his said claim, and procured the same to be allowed in the legal course of deter'mination; and that in the mean time, until the same shall be so allowed, the said William Alexander, or any person claiming under him, shall not be admitted to vote by virtue 'of the said title at the election of any Peer of Scotland 'to sit and vote in this House pursuant to the Articles of ' Union.' It appears to us evident that the same principle applies to the case of the present claimant of that Earldom, and ought to have guided the Clerks officiating under a commission from the Lord Register, in rejecting his votes, until the same be allowed in the legal course of determination. Secondly, Because to us it appears that if the claim of the person who voted at this election, under the title of EARL OF STIRLING, is founded on an alleged patent to heirs male, it was his duty to have proved before tendering his votes, that he did not claim as descended from or connected with the said William Alexander; and that without satisfactory evidence to establish this fact, the Clerks of Session, under the resolution of the House of Lords, cannot be justified in receiving and giving efficacy to his votes. Thirdly, Because if the claim of the person who on this occasion has assumed the title of EARL OF STIRLING, is founded on an alleged patent to heirs general of the original patentee, we know that under these circumstances there are others who have a preferable claim to that dignity. Besides, we have great reason to suspect the authenticity of the documents, such as they are, on which the claimant is said to rest his assumption of that title. (Signed) BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY. LAUDERDALE. Copy of the EARL OF STIRLING's Answer to the above ALEXANDER, EARL OF STIRLING, answered to the Protest of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry and the Earl of Lauderdale, First, That the first reason of Protest is without application, and wilfully perverted in its statement, for the purpose of misrepresentation-inasmuch as the resolution of the House of Lords there cited, that William Alexander, assuming the title of EARL OF STIRLING, should not be admitted to vote by virtue of the said title until it was allowed by law, proceeded from the cause that he was at that very time claiming the same title by petition before the House, and as such, until the House had decided upon his petition, he could not be warranted in its assumption, or in exercising any of its privileges. The principle, therefore, acted upon with reference to the said William Alexander, is foreign to the case of the respondent, who has no claim depending for the judgment of the House of Lords. Farther, the respondent is lineally descended of a son of the FIRST EARL OF STIRLING, while the said William Alexander only claimed as an heir-male by a dubious collateral descent. Secondly, That the allegation that the Clerks, under the said Resolution of the House of Lords, could not be justified in receiving and giving efficacy to the respondent's vote, is contrary to the facts which were particularly stated when the respondent first claimed to vote, on which occasion the said Resolution was publicly read, and explained to have no reference to the respondent. And the respondent having already done all that is required by the law of Scotland, to prove his descent from the First EARL OF STIRLING, is not bound to prove further the line of descent from any collateral presumptive heir to the said Earl. Thirdly, The noble protesters were much mistaken in supposing, in the third reason of protest, that the respondent claimed as heir general of the original patentee. He claimed in quite another character; and the unfair and unwarrantable inference there made with reference to the authenticity of the documents in support of that character, is irregular and irrelevant, as well as false, groundless, and malicious; and their selection of the respondent's case for an invidious attack, while there were several cases of Peerages within the late resolution of the House of Lords, as to which no objection was offered to the votes given, was evidently vexatious, and compatible only with a disposition to go any length to answer particular private and political purposes. The interference of the noble protesters on the occasion in question, was inconsistent with their previous approbation of the respondent's right of voting, both of them having been personally present at the general election that took place at Holyrood House on the 2nd day of September last past, as well as other Peers, who all, by their silence, then gave their unqualified sanction to the legal principle of the respondent's right in pursuance of his former admission to vote causa cognita. Separately, The respondent takes leave to submit, that the mere announcement of a protest, for reasons to be afterwards assigned, as his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch stated at the time, was in itself null and inefficacious, as the reasons ought to have been set forth before the Parliamentary meeting had been dissolved, when His Majesty's commission was terminated, and all the privileges of the Peers, as to the business of the election, were virtually at an end. Edinburgh, 4th June, 1831. (Signed) STIRLING. |