Ashby versus white mich Ann ld raym S C Mod S c see S C ld raym with note salk  case will not lie for hinder the plaintiff to vote at the election for a  burgess to parliament case against the constable of ailesbury in buck for  obstruct the plaintiff to vote and for refuse to receive his vote at the  election of burgess for that borough to serve in parliament upon not guilty  plead the plaintiff have a verdict and upon a motion in arrest of Salkeld  judgement three judge hold that this action will not lie till the parliament  have decide whether the plaintiff have a right to vote as a elector a but holt  Ch just be of a contrary opinion sacred scripture that the plaintiff have a  right to vote and that in consequence thereof the law give he a remedy if he  be obstruct and that this action be the proper remedy by the commonlaw of  England every commoner have a right not to be subject to law make without  their consent and because such consent can be give by every individual man in  person by reason of number and confusion therefore that power be lodge in  their representative elect and choose by they for that purpose who be either  knight citizen or burgess that the election of knight of shire be by  freeholder and this be a right which they have in respect of their freehold  arise from and inseparately incident to such freehold for before the statute  of h every freeholder though of never so small a value have a right to vote at  such election and though this be confine by that statute to freehold of a  certain value yet it be still a right as it be at commonlaw and annex to the  estate and therefore it be a real right or franchise as to borough some be not  incorporate but be so by prescription and their representative be choose by  burgess who vote ration burgagii ration tenur and this like the case of a  freeholder beforementioned be a real right annex to the tenure in burgage in  other borough which be incorporate and subsist by charter the right of  election be a personal right grant to the corporation for the use and benefit  of the member thereof for though in point of prender it vest in the  corporation only as a inheritance yet quoad the exercise and enjoyment it be  distributive the personal right of every individual member of the corporate  body for they be person who be represent and therefore they be to pay the wage  to the person who they choose and if they refuse it be to be levy upon the  respective member of the corporation and as this be a personal right so it can  be give but to a corporate body and though my Lord Hobart will have it good in  a place incorporate and this by way of ordinance yet that be not law and all  the other judge be against he the right of citizen to vote for their  representative be of the same nature and build upon the same foundation and  nowise different but in point of eminence as city be more worthy and eminent  than borough this be a noble franchise and right and therefore not without a  remedy where it be oppose for want of remedy and want of right be convertibles  a judgement for defendant reverse bro p c Rep Salkeld er p