borough of Salford, it appeared that, acting under 6 Vict. c. 18. s. 13, the overseers had placed the name of Martha Wilson (who was the appellant) on the list of voters for the said borough. Martha Wilson was not objected to; but the case on appeal stated, that "the Revising Barrister held that the overseers had mistaken their duty in placing the name of Martha Wilson on the list of voters, as she was disqualified on account of her sex, and her name was expunged from the list."

J. A. Russell (R. G. Williams with him), for the appellant, contended that, assuming Martha Wilson to be prima facie a woman, and therefore disqualified according to the decision of the Court in Chorlton v. Lings (1), still notice of objection ought to have been given, since the person, though bearing the name of a woman, might be a man and duly qualified, and that, without objection having been previously made, the Revising Barrister had no power to expunge the name from the list. [As, however, the case was met by the respondent and disposed of by the Court on a very different ground, it is unnecessary to state fully the argument in support of the appeal.]

Manisty (Crompton with him), for the respondent. The appellant, being a woman, is incapable of appealing. The power of appeal from the Revising Barrister's decision is given by section 42. of 6 Vict. c. 18. That section enacts, that it shall be lawful for any person, whose name shall have been expunged from any list, and who shall be aggrieved, &c., "either himself, or by some person on his behalf, to give to the Revising Barrister in court"

"a notice in writing that he is desirous to appeal, and in such notice shall shortly state the decision against which he desires to appeal." Martha Wilson is not within that section.

[BOVILL, C.J.-This enactment was before 13 Vict. c. 21.]

Yes; and it has never been held that that act has a retrospective operation. Moreover, it has now been decided that notwithstanding that act, the words in the Representation of the People Act, 1867, importing the masculine gender do not include females.

(1) Ante, page 25.

J. A. Russell, in reply.-This is an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, and ought to have been made in the first instance.

[BOVILL, C.J.-If we have no jurisdiction how can we hear this appeal?]

The 60th section of 6 Vict. c. 18. states that all appeals from the decision of any Revising Barrister "shall be prosecuted, heard and determined in and by Her Majesty's Court of Common Pleas, at Westminster, according to the ordinary rules and practice of that Court with respect to special cases," or in such manner as that Court shall direct. By not making the objection in the first instance, the respondent has acquiesced in the power to appeal, and cannot be allowed now to object that there is no such power.

BOVILL, C.J.-On this 42nd section the present appellant clearly has no locus standi. We have already decided that females have no right of voting for members of parliament, and from the statement of the case on appeal there is no doubt that the present appellant is a female, and therefore disqualified. The appeal must be dismissed.

BYLES, J.-I am of the same opinion. It is not necessary to give any opinion on the nature of the proceedings before the Revising Barrister. It is clear now from the case that Martha Wilson is a woman, and therefore she has no power of appealing.

KEATING, J.-I also think that this objection, which has been made by Mr. Manisty, is fatal, and that Martha Wilson has here no locus standi. In so deciding, I wish it to be understood that it is not, therefore, to be taken that I think an objection was necessary to have been made in order to have enabled the Revising Barrister to have done what he did.

Appeal dismissed.

Attorneys-E. K. Randell, agent for Cobbett & Wheeler, Manchester, for appellant; Chester & Urquhart, agents for Brett, Hankinson & Kearsley, Manchester, for respondent.

-was duly objected to by Thomas Web

ster.

It was admitted that the said Henry Bunting was lessee for a term of 999 years of the messuages or dwelling-houses described in the fourth column of the said list of voters, viz., at Nos. 33 and 35, Hyde Street.

The property, in respect of which the name of the said Henry Bunting was upon the register for the township of Ardwick, is situate within the borough of Manchester, but inasmuch as the clear yearly value of each of the said dwelling-houses did not amount to 10l., it was admitted that the said Henry Bunting was, before the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, entitled to be on the register of voters for the said township of Ardwick in the southern division of the said county. It was also admitted that since the passing of

the Representation of the People Act, 1867, the said Henry Bunting would not be entitled to be put on the list of voters for the south-eastern division of the said county (which, by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 46, became a separate division of the said county) in respect of a new claim for such qualification, inasmuch as by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, mere occupation and payment of rates, irrespective of any amount in value of the house occupied, gives a vote for the borough.

It was objected that, by the 25th section of 2 Will. 4. c. 45, the said Henry Bunting was not entitled to have his name retained on the said list of voters for the township of Ardwick, each of the said dwellinghouses referred to in the said fourth column being now sufficient according to the provisions of the said 3rd section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, to

confer on the tenant or occupier thereof the right of voting for the said borough of Manchester.

On behalf of the said Henry Bunting it was contended that, inasmuch as his name was upon the register of voters for the said southern division of Lancashire at the time of the passing of the said Representation of the People Act, 1867, the right of the said Henry Bunting to have his name retained on such list of voters for the township of Ardwick, in respect of his county vote, was reserved by the said Representation of the People Act, 1867 (see section 56), and that the operation of the said statute was limited, and applied only to leaseholders claiming to be placed upon the register after the passing of the said act.

The Revising Barrister held and decided that the said Henry Bunting was not entitled to have his name retained on the list of voters for the said township of Ardwick, and the name of the said Henry Bunting was therefore erased from the said list of voters for the said township of Ardwick.

Mellish (Hopwood with him), for the appellant. Before the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), Henry Bunting had a right to vote for the county in respect of the leasehold premises mentioned in the case; and the question is whether his name is to be taken off the register because his tenants have, by virtue of the 3rd section of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, acquired a right to be borough voters in respect of the same premises. The 20th section of the 2 Will. 4. c. 45. gave this franchise to leaseholders of a term originally created for a period of not less than sixty years; but the 25th section of that act enacted that, notwithstanding anything therein before contained, no person should be entitled to vote for the county in respect of his interest as such lessee or assignee of a house where such house would, "according to the provisions hereinafter contained," confer on him or on any other person the right of voting for any borough. The effect of that section was not to disfranchise any one, but to prevent any person from acquiring a county franchise in respect of leaseholds which would confer on his tenants a right to a borough vote. As a general rule, the old Reform

Act (2 Will. 4. c. 45.) preserved the rights of all then existing voters. Now, section 5. of the late act, 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, has altered the right to a county franchise in respect of leases for a term of sixty years and upwards by reducing the annual value of the premises from 10l. to 5l. The material sections are, however, the 56th and 59th. By the 59th section it is enacted that in construing the provision of the 25th section of 2 Will. 4. c. 45, the expression "the provisions hereinafter contained," is to be deemed to refer to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, conferring rights to vote as well as to the provisions of the act of 2 Will. 4. c. 45. But, on behalf of the appellant, reliance is placed on the words of the 56th section as impliedly shewing that all rights existing at the time of the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, were to be reserved, and that there is therefore, for the purpose of the present case, a distinction between leaseholders who were entitled to the county franchise before the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and those who have since become so entitled. The 56th section says, "The franchises conferred by this act shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for any existing franchises, but so that no person shall be entitled to vote for the same place in respect of more than one qualification."

Quain appeared for the respondent, but was not called upon.

BOVILL, C.J.-Reading the two acts together, it is impossible to draw the distinction which Mr. Mellish has contended for. We are all of opinion that the Revising Barrister was right.

The other JUDGES (1) concurred.
Decision affirmed.

Attorney-P. H. Lawrence, agent for Blain & Chorlton, Manchester, for appellant; Johnson & Weatheralls, agents for Sudlow & Hinde, Manchester, for respondent.

(1) Byles, J. and Keating, J.

dule A. to 6 Vict. c. 18. s. 7, and the notice of objection to the person on the register be in accordance with form No. 2. in Schedule A. to 28 Vict. c. 36. s. 6, without, in either case, particularly specifying the list of voters to which the objection applies.

At a Court held for the revision of the lists of voters for the township of Moss Side, in the south-eastern division of the county of Lancaster, by one of the Barristers appointed to revise the said lists, Herman Philip Ree was described on the register of voters as follows:

Street, Lane or other like Place in this Parish or Township, and Number of House (if any) where the Property is situate, or Name of the Property, if known by any, or Name of the Occupying Tenant; or if the Qualification consists of a Rentcharge, then the Names of the Owners of the Property out of which such Rent is issuing, or some of them, and the Situation of the Property.

Ree, Herman Philip

Whalley Range, Moss Side.

The Holme, Whalley Range.

-and was objected to by Thomas Web

ster.

It appeared that there were the following lists for the said township of Moss Side:

1. A list of persons entitled to vote in respect of the franchises conferred by or existing previously to the 2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 45. (being the list upon which the name of the said Herman Philip Ree appeared), prepared according to the provisions of the Registration Act, 6 Vict. c. 18.

2. A list of persons claiming to vote in respect of the franchises conferred by or existing previously to the said statute 2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 45, and made out pursuant to 6 Vict. c. 18. s. 5, and form No. 3. in Schedule A.

3. A list of persons entitled to vote under and by virtue of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the Parliamentary Electors Registration Act, 1868, in respect of the occupation of lands and

tenements within the said township of the rateable value of 127. and upwards.

4. A list of persons omitted by the overseers from such list of occupiers, and who claimed to vote in respect of occupation of lands and tenements within the said township of the rateable value of 121. and upwards, and made out pursuant to the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and the Parliamentary Electors Registration Act, 1868, s. 17.

A copy of each of the above lists was annexed to and formed part of this case.

The name of the said Herman Philip Ree appeared only on the list No. 1. above referred to.

The notice of objection given by the said Thomas Webster to the overseers of the said township of Moss Side, against the name of the said Herman Philip Ree was in the following form :"NOTICE OF OBJECTION.-To the Overseers

:

of the Township of Moss Side, in the South-Eastern Division of the County of Lancaster.-I hereby give you notice that I object to the name of the person mentioned and described below being retained on the list of voters for the south-eastern division of the county of Lancaster:

"CHRISTIAN NAME AND SURNAME OF THE VOTER OBJECTED TO, AS DESCRIBED IN THE LIST OR REGISTER: Ree, Herman Philip. "PLACE OF ABODE AS DESCRIBED: Whalley Range, Moss Side.

"NATURE OF QUALIFICATION AS DESCRIBED: Freehold house and land.

66 STREET, LANE OR OTHER LIKE PLACE WHERE THE QUALIFYING PROPERTY IS SITUATE, &c., AS DESCRIBED IN THE LIST OR REGISTER: The Holme, Whalley Range. "Dated this 18th day of August, in the year 1868.

(Signed)

"Thomas Webster,

of No. 41, Vine Street, Hulme, in the city of Manchester, on the register of voters for the township of Crumpsall."

And the notice to the persons objected to was in the form following:

:

"Notice of Objection.--To Mr. Herman Philip Ree, of Whalley Range, Moss Side. -Take notice, that I object to your name being retained in the Moss Side list of voters for the south-eastern division of the county of Lancaster.

And I ground my objection on the third column of the register.

And the objection, so far as grounded on the third column, relates to the nature of your interest in the qualifying property; and to the value of the qualifying property. "Dated this 18th day of August, in the year 1868.

(Signed)

"Thomas Webster, of No. 41, Vine Street, Hulme, in the city of Manchester, on the register of voters for the township of Crumpsall."

It was contended on behalf of the said Herman Philip Ree, the person objected to, that the notice to the overseers and the notice to the said Herman Philip Ree were respectively invalid for the following reasons: That inasmuch as there were two separate and distinct lists of persons entitled to vote for the said division of the county of Lancaster-viz., the lists above referred to as Nos. 1. and 3. respectively, and also two separate and distinct lists of persons claim

ing to vote, viz., the lists above referred to as Nos. 2. and 4. respectively-the notice to the overseers and the notice to the person objected to respectively ought to specify the list to which the objections refer, as directed in the note to form No. 10. in Schedule B. of 6 Vict. c. 18, and in the Representation of the People Act, 1867, ss. 59. and 61, and Parliamentary Electors Registration Act, 1868, s. 19.

It was contended on behalf of the objector, Thomas Webster, that it was not necessary to specify the list to which the objection referred, and that the said notices of objection respectively were valid, they being respectively in accordance with the forms given in the Schedule A. to the 6 Vict. c. 18, forms Nos. 4. and 5, and the Schedule to the 28 Vict. c. 36; the objections being to a county vote.

The Revising Barrister decided that both notices were valid, and as the said Herman Philip Ree was duly called and did not appear, his name was erased from the said list No. 1.

Mellish (A. Wills with him), for the appellant. The question is whether a notice of objection to a county voter ought not to state the list in which his name appears? Formerly there was only one list of county voters, but now, since the Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), there are two lists, and it is therefore submitted that the notice should specify the list on which the voter's name is to be found, as in the case of a notice of objection to a borough voter given to the overseers according to form 10, Schedule B, in 6 Vict. c. 18, in which case it has been held that the list should be mentioned where there are more than one list in the boroughBarton v. Ashley (1). The notices which were given in the present case followed, as regards the notice to overseers, the form No. 4. in Schedule A. to 6 Vict. c. 18. s. 7, and as regards the notice to the voter himself, the form No. 2. given in Schedule A. to 28 Vict. c. 36. s. 6. These forms do not specify any particular list, because at neither of the times when they were enacted was there more than one list for county voters. But by

(1) 2 Com. B. Rep. 4; s. c. 15 Law J. Rep. (N.S.) C.P. 36.