They were: JW Robson, 2 Avenue Road 2s; Miss M Acworth, 5 All Saints Road 2s; Alfred Kitson, 17 Valley Bridge Parade 9s 7d; Rowland G Heys, Greystones, Valley Road 10s; Mrs Frances Wood, 111 Castle Road 1s 8d; Wm Morley Wright and Son, 31 and 32 Newborough 8s 10d; Wm Lord Wright, back 35 Newborough Street 5d and in respect of 101 Castle Road 2s; John Edmondson, Sunny Bank, Park Street 1s 2d and 1s 8d; Walter J Farthing, 34 Raleigh Street £1 16s; Wm T Morley, 189 Prospect Road 1s 2d; Edwin Smith, 109 Prospect Road £1 8s 5d; the Rev JN Britton, 99 Murchison Street 1s 4d; Hubert Brand, 101 Murchison Street £2 4s 4d; Charles Nelson, 97 Tennyson Avenue 1s 5d; James H Delday, 50 Castle Road 2s; ETW Dennis, Brookleigh, Westbourne Grove 2s 10d; Wm Boyes, Chesterfield, Seamer Road 6s; Thomas Eden, 47 and 48 Queen Street £1; JL Hopwood, 3 and 4 Queen Street 9s; Harry Marks, 11 Queen Street 2s 8d.

Mr E Smith, speaking for the others, of whom about nine or 10 appeared, said they had hoped before this that the matter would have been settled. An attempt was made at the latter and of last year on the lines of compromise. As far as the passive resisters were concerned there were no tears to be shed over the fact that the compromise broke down, but there was this to be emphasised, that their case on the compromise was clearly made out, and it was.

Admitted by the archbishop and others under him that the passive resisters had a case of injustice. Therefore, they said they had justified their position. They recognised the courtesy and kindness always shown them by the bench, and were there that morning to protest, and would go on doing so long as the injustice remained.

Mr Marks said he was sorry they had this to do, but while the present law was in force he was compelled to follow that course. The injustice under which they suffered had been admitted, and an effort made to remedy it, but a certain section of the community, no doubt with tremendous power, had thwarted that effort, so that they were now face to face with a new principle, namely that the House of Lords said that anything the Lords did not approve of should not pass in to law. Thus they had double cause of complaint.

Mr Morley Wright said he was sorry to be there again, but as the law was unaltered so was his position, and the rate would have to be got in that way.

Mr WL Wright said that his firm paid last August in rates £64 5s 10d. They only held back the small amount mentioned. Yet the demand note was worded as though the whole of the rates were owing. He thought that the wording should be altered, so as to show it was only a portion of the rate which was owing.

The chairman said it might be difficult to persuade who came, there they had the sympathy of the bench, but the magistrates always tried to remember that it was their duty to be sympathetic. In this case the bench had no power but to make the usual order. He would have thought from the optimistic tone of Mr Smith's opening remarks that he would have been led to pay his rates at once in the hope of getting what he sought. However, there would be orders made for the payment of the district rate as far as it applied, and the poor rate within 14 days and warrants would be made out.