The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY., OCTOBER 19, ISM

their imperious duty, to declare it to be their deliberate and fixed
judgment, that the Church Rate is a tax unjust to the Dissenter,
since it compels him to support a religious system which his con-
science disapproves ; disgraceful to the Churchman, since it implies
unwillingness to meet the expences of his own worship ; and impo-
litic in the Government, since it creates vexatious distinctions and
discussion amongst citizens, and especially since the Legislature
have conceded the principle in the case of Ireland.
3. That this Meeting do not ask for an alteration of the Rate—
they demand its utter extinction. That it is not with them a ques-
tion of mode, nor a question of value, be it more or less, but that it
is a question of principle. That they must regard any attempt,
come from whence it may, to give the impost a less palpable and
obtrusive character, by blending it with the general taxation of the
country, as weak and futile in itself ; as an insult not only to their
consciences, but to their understandings also ; and as calculated
to throw difficulties in the way of the peaceful collection of the
revenue.

4. That a Society be now formed, under the denomination of
the Church Rate Abolition Society, for the purpose of using all
constitutional means by peaceable but firm, consentaneous, and
vigorous action, to effect the abolition of the unjust and vexatious
impost of Church-rates; and that the following gentlemen bo
the Committee of the Society, with power to add to their num-
ber :

' Besley, Robert Mills, J. Remington
Bousfield, John Peachey, James
Bateman, Henry Pewtress, Thomas
Brown, Thomas Peek, Richard
Challis, Thomas Pellatt, Apsley
Conder, Josiah Powell, James
Cooper, Emanuel Sparke, J. W.
East, Joseph Smith, Edward
Haddon, John Wire, David
Johnson, William Wilson, Joshua
Lee, Roger Wilson, Thomas
5. That in the opinion of this meeting it is desirable that a Ge-
neral Meeting of Delegates from local Societies, formed to effect the
abolition of Church-rates, should be held in London previously to
the opening of the next Session of Parliament.
6. That the thanks of this meeting be presented to Charles
Lushington, Esq., M.P., for his able and impartial conduct in the
chair.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
(THIS DAY.)

(Before Mr. MYLNE and Mr. CRAIG.)
NOTICES OF OBJECTIONS SENT BY TUE POST.

Messrs. MYLNE and CRAIG this morning gave judgment in
the case of Mr. Cook, of the Barbers' Company, and several
other persons to whom notices of objection had been sent by
the Post, which notices, according to the course adopted by
the Post Office, could not reach the parties till after the 25th
of August, the last day allowed by the Act of Parliament for
giving notices of objections.
Mr. MYLNE said that the sole question for the decision of the
Court was, whether the service of a notice of objection by a
party upon an elector of London, as a liveryman, was good,
where the notice was put in the Post-office at so late an hour
that it could not be delivered till after the 25th of August.
Although he had himself no doubt upon the subject at the
time, yet still, as the question appeared a rather important
one, and one which he did not wish to decide has-
tily, he expressed a desire that it should be argued
before his colleague and himself. Mr. Rowcroft in arguing
the case, had contended that by analogy to the proceedings
with respect to bills of exchange, the notice must be con-
sidered valid. He ( Mr. Mylne) could not go along with him
in that argument, because it must be recollected that the
course pursued with respect to giving notice of the dishonour
of bills of exchange, was a usage long adopted in all commer-
cial transactions, while giving notice of objection to a person's
vote, was the creature only of the Reform Bill.' Several cases
in Delane's Revising Barristers' Reports had been referred
to, hut upon looking into them attentively, he did not think
they had any bearing upon the present question. Those
cases deciding only that the letter-carrier must be con-
sidered as the agent of the party delivering the notice,
and that if he delivered it within proper time it would do.
The only case in his (Mx. Mylne's) opinion which touched
upon the present question, was one decided by a Revising
Barrister, to whose judgment every one must pay great de-
ference, Mr. Manning, at Newport. That was a decision not
of transmission by the Post, but upon the construction of the
79th section of the Act :—" That whenever any notice is by
this Act required to be given to the overseers of any parish or
township, it shall be sufficient if such notice shall be delivered
to any one of such overseers, or shall be left at his place of
abode, or at his office or other place for transacting parochial
business, or shall be sent by the Post." Mr. Manning
decided there, though the last day for giving notice
of objections was the 15th of August, that a notice
put into the Post on that day, which turned out to be put
in too late, to be delivered before the next morning,
was a good notice. That, however, was a case of claim where
no injury could be done by a laxity of construction of the Act.
In the case, however, of objections, it was widely different.
The Legislation had given large powers for objections to
voters, and it had at the same time thought fit to guard the
voter by prescribing a particular time within which the objec-
tions should be taken. The question was, whether that provi-
sion of the Act had been complied with; in his opinion it had
not. Such being the case, and he (Mr. Mylne) considering
it most important that in cases of objections the Act should be
strictly adhered to, his judgment was, that all the objections
should be overruled. He wished it to be distinctly understood
that he gave no opinion whatever as to whether letters put into
the Post was a sufficient service.

Mr. CRAIG concurred with the opinion that had been ex-
pressed by his Learned Colleague. He thought, if even the
analogy adopted in the case of bills of exchange applied, the
notice would not be sufficient.

(Before Mr. CRAIG.)
The Learned Gentleman gave his judgment on the claim of
Mr. Godfrey Goddard, a solicitor, who occupied part of a
house in Wood-street, where he carried on his business. There
was a warehouse on the ground floor, but Mr. Goddard was
rated, and paid the taxes for the house, and had the full com-
mand of the street door key. Mr. Craig held that the " oc-
cupation" was a good one, and inserted the name on the Re-
gister.
The overseer of the parish of St. Olave's appeared and
handed in a paper, which he said was a list of those entitled to
vote for property in the parish. Instead of its being headed
as directed by the Act of Parliament, " A list of persons enti-
tled to vote," &c., it was " A list of claimants."
Mr. Rowcroft cited the 44th section of the Reform Act,
and contended that the objection he took to the reception of
the list, as a list of voters, must prevail, according to the di-
rections of the Act, and that it must be rejected as a list of
voters. If it was received as a list of claimants, then the
parties must prove their claims.
Mr. CRAIG said he observed that Mr. Rogers had objected
to the names of three parties on the list, and, of course, had
adopted it as the list of voters and not of claimants, for there
was no need to object to any name on the claimants' list. Mr.
Rogers, then, would not now repudiate it as the list of voters.
Mr. Rowcroft said Mr. Rogers had objected to the names
of three persons, before he discovered the mariner in which
the list was headed. The moment he discovered the mistake
which had been made, he ceased taking other objections. He
might and ought to have taken objections to twenty-three
other names.

Mr. CRAIG looked at the notices of objections served by
Mr. Rogers, and found them objections to persons on " the
list of voters"—be thought it was clear by that that Mr.
Rogers had treated the list 23 a list of voters, and was not
now is a situation to repudiate it as such. There was a sub.
sequent section to that quoted by Mr. Rowcroft, which left it
in the discretion of the Revising Barrister to put aside any
misnomer or other irregularity. Under that power he (Mr.
Craig) would receive the list as the list of voters, notwith-
standing the irregularity, but he trusted that in future years
the overseers would look more carefully to the provisions of
the Act of Parliament, and comply with them. It would be
the means of saving much time in the revision of the lists.
The list was then received.