Tens of thousands of British nonconformists have been refusing to pay at least a portion of their rates because of their opposition to the provisions of the Education Act of that allow for taxpayer funding of sectarian religious education, which, more often than not, means Anglican or Catholic religious education. In our survey of a sample of newspaper coverage of the movement, we’re now up to .
The Berwickshire News covered a rift among nonconformists. Dawson Burns, “the well-known Nonconformist and Temperance reformer” had put out a pamphlet discouraging nonconformists from joining the passive resistance movement, in spite of his own opposition to the Education Act. It included the standard reductio ad anarchia among other arguments against civil disobedience in general, and, apparently, also included the following woeful argument:
The Society of Friends, says Dr
Burns, have not refused to pay taxes applied in payment of warlike armaments
to which they conscientiously object.
The London Daily News of included a quote from a letter written by John Clifford in response to a request that the passive resistance movement formally align with the Liberal party:
In reply to your note, I wish to say that although the Passive Resistance
movement is wholly independent of political parties in its origin and
progress, yet it is obvious that the protest wee are making against injustice
can only be made efficient through anti-clerical representatives, and,
therefore, I think it the duty of Passive Resisters to support all Liberal
organizations whose members are pledged to get rid of all support by taxes and
rates of sectarian teaching in the elementary and secondary education carried
on by the State.
The Cambridge Independent Press of covered a County Congress of Passive Resisters held . at which a new Cambridge District Citizens’ League was rolled out to coordinate the area’s passive resisters. Excerpts:
Mr. [James] Everett [secretary of the National League], who was cordially
received, said he was glad to know that they had decided to enlarge their
coasts, and take in the men and women of the villages. That had been done in
Derbyshire and Leicestershire, where the movement began, mainly with the
object of strengthening each other’s hands. They must stand by the people of
the villages. (Hear, hear.) It was much more difficult to be a Passive
Resister in a little village than in a large town. There should never be a
summons heard in any place without some representative of the district League
attending to show sympathy and give any help possible. He was of the opinion
that their rule for the admission of associates was too wide, and it seemed to
him that if a man wanted to join the League he must be a Passive Resister.
(Applause.) They might call a man a sympathiser, but those were not the kind
of people they wanted. They wanted men who had the courage of their
convictions, and who were not afraid to declare themselves. Other people were
of no use, and his experience was that they were rather a drag upon the wheel.
His Committee had always insisted that active members should be Passive
Resisters, and associates should be those who would be Passive Resisters if
they could. As to the general outlook, the movement was undoubtedly
progressing. There was no cessation anywhere. (Applause.) It seemed to him,
however, that it was getting too easy to be a Passive Resister, and too
respectable. Where oppression was rampant, there Passive Resistance grew.…
He hoped that the conference would result in real good. Up to the present
there had been no need for organisation. Passive Resisters had sprung up here
and there spontaneously, and there had been 637 Leagues formed without
instigation — by spontaneous combustion as it were. (Applause.) But the time
had now arrived when it would be a good thing if people in a district
combined for common aggressive or defensive work, and he was glad to be
present at the formation of their League. (Applause.)
Some resisters from surrounding villages stood up to give their reports. A League in Bishops Stortford had seven resisters. 16 resisters in Burwell had been summoned recently. The resister from Harston said he was the only one in his village, saying “the vast majority of Free Churchmen seemed to have no interest in this great matter [and i]n his own village his own deacons seemed to oppose him rather than help him.” In Isleham the rate-collector had claimed that no portion of the rates went to education, as there it was funded in another way, but the representative was skeptical and was resisting anyway.
Charles Joseph suggested that the resisters try harder to tie up the courts:
Mr. Upton had said that sixteen Resisters were treated with scant courtesy by
the Newmarket Bench. He took it that the men on the Bench were simply their
neighbours, men of like passions with themselves, and those sixteen persons
were quite as respectable as the Magistrates. (Hear, hear.) They were quite as
honourable, quite as good, quite as honest, and quite as law abiding, and he
took it that the Magistrate would not be impertinent to them in the street, in
their homes, or in the Corn Exchange, or elsewhere. Unless there was
worshipful conduct in the man on the Bench, he was no longer “his worship.”
Personally, he should say, “What is the matter, Mr. Smith?” He would not treat
the Magistrate with the respect generally given to the Bench, unless he
treated him with respect. The Magistrate forfeited all worship from the man
before him when he ceased his worshipful conduct. As to not bing allowed to
address the Bench, every citizen had the right to employ an advocate to plead
his cause, and he had noticed that when solicitors or barristers were engaged
for Passive Resisters, they were generally listened to. Surely a citizen had
all the rights for himself that could possibly be given to his pleader. When
the Magistrate asked the defendant whether he admitted the rate, he generally
said that he did, and that was foolish. He should say at once, “I admit
nothing at all. You must prove everything.” Then they would have to prove the
making of the rate, the service of the demand note,
etc. If he were
not allowed to speak he would admit nothing, and if sixteen persons did the
same thing it would become rather monotonous. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) By
the time these little Jacks-in-office had heard sixteen cases they might see
the wisdom, if not the courtesy, of treating Resisters with some
Consideration.
Joseph asked James Everett for his advice on the legal rights of defendants in such cases, and Everett pulled out the book Passive Resistance Law “and read out such portions as dealt with the questions put by Mr. Joseph.” This may have been The Crusader Manual of Passive Resistance Law by J. Scott Duckers. A brief review of this book in Law Notes (volume ⅩⅩⅣ, page 349) reads in part:
The object of Mr. Scott Duckers’ little manual appears to be to put the
passive resister up to every legal trick and device to obstruct the collection
of the rate; as, for instance, the giving of an absolute bill of sale in
favour of a wife. We can honestly recommend this manual to all those whose
consciences require them to be passive resisters. Within the covers of this
little book they will find full information on the subject, and all possible
assistance to help them in tripping up a collector or justice who fails to
comply with the strict letter of the law.
On the other hand, T.R. Glover didn’t much like the idea of making trouble in the courtroom, seeing it as a distraction from the main thrust of the campaign:
Mr Glover [St. John’s College] said he could not help wishing Passive Resisters said less in the courts.
A good many things had been said on the spur of the moment, which, when the campaign was over and the battle won, they would wish they had not said.
Let Magistrates say whatever they liked, and do what they liked.
(Hear, hear).
He would not ask a single favour of them, and the worse they made things, the better.
Mark Wyatt of Chittering, Waterbeach said during his comments: “He had had the two last summonses framed and dedicated to his two eldest grandchildren, but as he had three families of grandchildren he was looking forward to the next. (Laughter and applause.)”
Mr. E.J. Culyer said some of the reports of the Passive Resistance cases from
Burwell gave the ages of the defendants, and he found that the average of the
16 was 65. The aggregate was 1,040, and the oldest was 86. He regretted that
more young men did not stand up for the honour of Nonconformity.
Rev. R.W. Ayres said the
new League had a roll of 125, and 90 of them were Passive Resisters.
The Kent & Sussex Courier of covered the auction of goods seized from 48 passive resisters at Tunbridge Wells. “It was a bitterly cold afternoon, and everyone was agreed that no time should be wasted. The auctioneer… disposed of the 48 lots in quicker time than had ever been his experience before. The goods were bought in on behalf of the resisters for the sums necessary to satisfy the warrants…” Afterwards, speakers rallied the troops. One, Dr. Usher, said in part:
They were being taxed to pay for [the “advance of Popery in the realm”], and the result of their opposition now seemed to be that they were to be deprived of their votes. That was not quite so bad as they had anticipated, for at first they were “conspirators.” They were few in Tunbridge Wells, it was true, but they were a portion of 80,000 all over the country, who would refuse to lose their votes without an effort, and be satisfied with a judgment which was said to be in accordance with common sense (hear hear).
