Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868 (31 and 32 Vict. cap. 48), sec. 3, enacts—“Every man shall … be entitled to be registered as a voter, and, when registered, to vote at elections for a member or members to serve in Parliament for a burgh, who, when the Sheriff proceeds to consider his right to be inserted or retained in the register of voters, is qualified as follows—that is to say … (2) Is and has been for a period of not less than twelve calendar months next preceding the last day of July an inhabitant-occupier as owner or tenant of any dwelling-house within the burgh.…”

The Representation of the People Act 1884 (48 Vict. cap. 3), sec. 2, establishes a uniform household franchise at elections in all counties and burghs throughout the United Kingdom, and provides that every man in possession of a household qualification in a county in England or Scotland shall be entitled to be registered as a voter, and when registered, to vote. Section 7 (4) enacts—“The expression ‘a household qualification’ means, as respects Scotland, the qualification enacted by the third section of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868, and the enactments amending or affecting the same, and the said section and enactments shall, so far as they are consistent with this Act, extend to counties in Scotland.…”

This was an appeal by way of special case stated by the Sheriff of Roxburgh, Berwick, and Selkirk ( Chisholm) from a decision at a Registration Court held by him at Hawick on 4th October 1905.

Page: 292↓

The facts stated by the Sheriff in the case were—“At a Registration Court for the county of Roxburgh held by me at Hawick on 4th October 1005, George Enunerson, Whitrope, Riccarton Junction, claimed to be enrolled as tenant of a house at Whitrope aforesaid, which claim was objected to by Thomas Henry Armstrong, Solicitor, Hawick, as mandatory for John Oliver, Solicitor, Hawick, a voter on the roll. The facts are that Emmerson entered on his tenancy of the house on 1st August 1904, and has been in continuous occupation thereof until now. There is no written lease. It is also to be noted that the 31st July in the year 1904 was a Sunday. I held that there had not been occupation for twelve months previous to 31st July 1905 as required by the statute (see Waddell v. Macphail, 1 S.L.R. 50), and further, that the provisions of section 35 of the Burgh Voters Registration Act 1856 (19 and 20 Vict. c. 58) do not apply to the case.”

The question of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal was—“Was there a tenancy giving the household qualification?”

Argued for the appellant—The occupancy here was sufficient. The terms of the statute fell to be liberally construed so as to afford a qualification if the occupation was begun at any time during the first day of August. It would be too strict a reading of the statute to exclude the appellant here. The case of Waddell v. Macphail, December 2, 1865, 4 Macph. 130, 1 S.L.R. 50, relied on by the Sheriff, was a very old case.

Counsel for the respondent was not called upon to reply.