The barrister who revises the lists has no power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, and if he had such power, as the witnesses who attended before him might be dead, or unable to attend at the trial before the committee, it would be most unreasonable that the parties should be prevented from calling other witnesses. Monmouth, K. & O. 413; Reading, F. & F.

555.

In the 1st Harwich, 1851, Minutes, p. 207, a voter had been objected to before the barrister; no witness was there called in support of the objection, and only one witness was examined in favour of the right to be on the register, several witnesses were examined on both sides before the committee.

In Scotland.] The mode of preparing the register in burghs is now governed by the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 58, and as has been already pointed out, the register is conclusive evidence of the continuance of the qualification. That act however does not contain any provisions with regard to the power of committees to inquire whether the sheriff came to a right decision, or whether the name was properly inserted in the burgh register. And with regard to county elections the question still depends upon the construction of the Reform Act, 2 & 3 Wm. 4, c. 65. The only cases of scrutiny from Scotland since the year 1832, have been in the case of counties.

In the first case that occurred, the Linlithgow, P. & K. 280, the committee resolved, in Ritchie's case, page 296, that as the voter who had tendered his vote at the election had neglected to appeal to the Court of Appeal when the sheriff had rejected his claim, they

would not allow his case to be gone into. In another case, Rennie's, page 299, the voter was on the register, and as he had not been objected to before the sheriff the committee would not permit his vote to be objected to. In another case, Tait's, page 300, the voter, though not objected to before the sheriff, was rejected by him as he had not made out a primâ facie case on his claim; the voter afterwards appealed to the Court of appeal, who reversed the judgment of the sheriff and put him on the register: the committee determined that this case could not be gone into.

It is impossible to extract any principle out of these decisions, unless it be that in all cases the register is final in Scotland, which is directly at variance with the language of the Scotch Reform Act.

In England the right of the voter may be gone into by the committee, if the revising barrister has given an express decision upon it. In Scotland, as appears from the clauses of the Reform Act, the sheriff gives a decision in every case, whether any one objects to the voter or not. The manner of giving that judg ment by writing the words "admit," or "reject," is the same whether the claimant is objected to or not; and these are indifferently spoken of in sect. 23, as the sheriff's judgments, granting or refusing registration; and such judgments, as well as those of the Court of appeal, may be questioned before a committee of the House of Commons; section 25.

In Ritchie's case, p. 296, the committee seem to have thought the appeal was necessary to give them jurisdiction to enter on the vote. In Tait's case, though there had been an appeal and an express judgment of

the Court of appeal, the committee refused to enter on the vote because there had been no objection before the sheriff.

The question of opening the register, was raised again in the Invernesshire case, K. & O. 305. The voter had been inrolled in 1832, at that time he was objected to and rejected by the sheriff, but was afterwards admitted by the Court of appeal, his name remained on the register unobjected to for two years, up to the time of election in 1834, the committee refused to enter upon the case.

In like manner the Peeblesshire committee, 1848, Minutes, 24 Feb. (a), refused to inquire into the right of persons to vote, who had not been objected to at the last revision before the sheriff. A voter of the name of W. Scott was objected to as having a fictitious qualification. He had never been objected to, either when his name was first placed on the register, or in any subsequent year. The committee resolved, "that the vote of W. Scott being on the former registers, and not having been objected to before the sheriff at the registration of 1846, which was in force at the time of the last election, and not having, therefore, been judicially decided upon by the said sheriff, it is not competent for the committee to enter upon the question of his qualification to be on the register of voters."

The counsel for the petitioner then stated that he had cases to bring forward of voters, whose names had

(a) The Minutes in this case were not printed. The decision is cited from the original Minutes in the House of Commons. The arguments are reported in the Times, 24th and 25th Feb. 1848.

been objected to before the sheriff, but not at the registration of 1846.

The chairman said, the principle laid down by the committee prevented their going into such cases, the terms of the resolution being strictly confined to the registration of 1846, which was in force at the time of the last election.

These cases of Invernesshire and Peeblesshire, seem to be in accordance with the principle adopted with regard to English cases. But, it must be observed, that in England the register is renewed each year; in boroughs fresh lists are made out, and every person on the lists may be objected to; in counties, though the new register is formed in great measure by reprinting the old, any person may be objected to though he is on the former register, and though unobjected to, if he has parted with his qualification before the 31st of July, his vote may be questioned before the committee. But in Scotland it is very doubtful whether the sheriff has any power to remove from the register of a county, the name of any person who has once been placed on it, unless such person has parted with his qualification after having been registered.

By sect. 22, the sheriff is authorized to correct any mistake or omission which may be pointed out or discovered in the registers, in the name, residence or condition of any person already registered or otherwise.

This enactment does not seem to give the sheriff any power to re-open the question, whether the person had any title originally to be upon the register; but only to make the entry more perfect, by removing any

error as to the name or condition of the voter, or It is true that the same section, 22nd, requires that notice shall be given to parties "to object to the title of any person already on the register," and the sheriff, it would appear (though the section is rather confused) is authorized to decide on such objections. Many, if not the majority, of the sheriff's however, have refused to entertain any objection to any person on the register, except on account of matters which have arisen subsequently to his being placed on the register. So that if a person altogether unqualified were once on the register, his name must remain there, unless a committee of the House of Commons have power to inquire into his title.

description of his residence.