Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In this appeal the Sheriff stated the following special case:—

“At a Registration Court for the burgh of Cromarty, held by me at Cromarty on the 5th day of October 1868, under and in virtue of the Act of Parliament 31 and 32 Vict. cap. 48, intituled ‘The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868,’ and the other statutes therein recited, John Grant, writer in Tain, a voter on the roll made up for the burgh of Tain, objected to William Mackenzie, mason in Cromarty, being continued on the roll made up for the burgh of Cromarty as a voter for the said burgh of Cromarty. The said William Mackenzie stood enrolled as a voter in Cromarty, as owner of dwelling-house at Shore. It was objected by the said John Grant that the said William Mackenzie was not owner of the subjects on which he was enrolled. The said William Mackenzie declined to produce any writ in support of his enrolment, or to discuss the objection on the merits, and pleaded that there being no competent objection stated to his enrolment, he was not bound to do so.

“The following facts were also proved:—(1) That the said John Grant stood on the roll for the burgh of Tain as a voter for the said burgh; (2) that he did not stand on the roll for the burgh of Cromarty as a voter for Cromarty.

“I repelled the objection, and continued the name of the said William Mackenzie on the roll, on the ground that there was no competent objection to his enrolment. Whereupon the said John Grant required from me a special case for the Court of Appeal; and in compliance therewith I have granted this case.

“The question of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal is, whether it is competent for the said John Grant, as a voter appearing on the roll for the burgh of Tain, but not appearing in the roll made up for the burgh of Cromarty, to object to the enrolment of voters entered in the list made up for the burgh of Cromarty?”

It was argued for the appellant that the right to object is given by the 4th section of the Burgh Voters’ Act to any voter on the roll of the burgh. The question was whether “burgh” includes “district of burghs.” That question was to be determined by reading the New Reform Act along with the “Burgh Voters Act,” and, reading these two Acts together, the word “burgh” includes district of burghs. The present point was decided by the Sheriffs at Inverness in the year 1839, and the appellant's view was supported by every consideration of justice and policy.

It was answered for the respondent that the question falls to be determined by reference to the Burgh Voters Act alone. That Act provides the whole machinery of registration, and provides it exhaustively. The terms of that Act are clear. The word “burgh” is used throughout as confined to the individual burgh, and the interpretation clause does not declare that “burgh” shall include “district of burghs.” That is conclusive of the present question, and it is of no moment what the Sheriffs decided in 1839 with reference not to the Burgh Voters Act, but to the Reform Act of 1832.