Today, some news accounts and testimony of resistance to the annuity and other church taxes by Scottish and other British nonconformists in the .
These accounts include such tactics as passively-resisting arrest (going limp), disrupting auctions of seized goods, boycotts of such auctions by sympathetic auctioneers and carters, intimidation of auctioneers, public shaming of businesses that participated in tax auctions, publicizing of tax auctions so as to draw a crowd of sympathizers, disrupting arrests of resisters, going into hiding to evade arrest, use of barricades to prevent property seizure, resignation of government officials, and raising money by subscription to assist resisters who had property seized.
First, an article from The British Friend:
An Address to the Inhabitants of St. Austell, on the Subject of the Church Rate.
It is painful to our feelings to be engaged in differences with our friends
and neighbours; but when matters of principle are in question, and especially
those connected with civil and religious liberty, we dare not shrink from
avowing our sentiments, and maintaining them to the utmost of our power. The
subject of the church rate, which is now agitating this parish, is, with us,
one of these matters of principle. We consider that the end and object of
every good government is the protection of our dearest rights; that is,
person and property, and the worship of God in the manner which we
conscientiously believe to be most acceptable to Him.
Perhaps many of you are not aware of the forcible seizure of our goods to
support a place of worship from which we conscientiously dissent. We
therefore deem it to be our duty to give you the following information upon
the subject:—
For a church rate of 7s.,
demanded of J.E. Veale, articles were taken value £1
7s.
For a church rate of 5s.
1d., demanded of R. Veale,
articles were taken value £1
12s.
For a church rate of 2s.,
demanded of W. Veale, articles were taken value £1
5s.
For a church rate of 12s.
5½d., demanded of W. & A.H.
Veale, articles were taken value £2.
For a church rate of 7s.
1d., demanded of W. Clemes,
articles were taken value £2
10s.
You see, then, that our property has been forcibly taken from us in direct
opposition to all the precepts of the Gospel. Christianity is to be spread
through the world by persuasive and spiritual means. The people who meet in
an Episcopal place of worship have no more moral right to forcibly take our
property from us to support their worship, than we have to take their goods
to support ours.
Now, if we honestly pay the taxes levied by Government for the support of
civil society, we have a right to its protection. While a man does
this, and fulfils the social and relative duties of life respectably,
conscientiously refraining from doing any injury to any one, the State has
nothing to do with the manner in which he conceives it to be his duty to
worship his Maker. This is a matter entirely between his God and himself,
with which no earthly power has a right to interfere; and therefore, since
mutual protection is the sole object for which we submit to a form of
government, and pay taxes, laws made to compel subjects to support any
particular form of religion are unjust in their principle, and ought not to
be complied with.
Now, overlooking for a moment the circumstance, that these rates can be
legally enforced only by a majority of rate-payers in any given parish, let
us examine this position, on which, the advocates for the compulsory
maintenance of an ecclesiastical establishment take their stand. The whole
force of their argument lies in the very words employed by those who
condemned the Saviour of men, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to
die,” (John ⅹⅸ. 7.) We will, in the first place, tell them, that the
mere circumstance of having a law, is not sufficient to justify them
in the execution of it. Have they never heard of unjust, cruel, and wicked
laws? Can they forget, that Bishops Ridley and Latimer, and a glorious
company of martyrs, were burnt to death according to law, because
they could not conscientiously conform to the State religion? Had these
champions for law lived in Spain and Portugal, when the laws of the land in
those countries subjected conscientious men and women to the horrors of the
Inquisition, would they have considered it their duty to support those
proceedings, because there was a law for it? But we will tell them,
that every law which is contrary to the precepts and doctrines of the Gospel,
is more honoured in the breach than in the observance; and ought not to be
considered binding upon any Christian. And be it ever remembered, that it was
because they could not conform to the State religion, that the early
Christians suffered martyrdom; that the Protestants on
St. Bartholomew’s-day were
butchered; and that a great number of the members of the religious society to
which we belong, laid down their lives in prison, in the time of King Charles
the Second.
Under these circumstances, we appeal to the liberal portion of the Church of
England resident in this parish, whether they think it right to
compel their brethren to support forms of worship to which they
conscientiously object? and whether it is fair, or consistent with common
honesty, to put their hands into the pockets of their Dissenting neighbours,
for the support of their own particular forms and ceremonies of religion?
With best wishes for all our neighbours, we are, their sincere friends,
John Edey Veale.
Riciunn Veale.
William Veale.
Andrew Kingston Veale.
William Clemes.
St. Austell, .
The British Friend editorialized thusly:
State Church Injustice And Oppression.
We direct attention to the Address, in another column, by some Friends at
St. Austell to their townsmen,
on the subject of church-rate exactions. Their case is calmly, yet pointedly
reasoned; and we feel persuaded, these Friends have the sympathy of their
brethren in religious profession throughout the nation. In connection with
the above, we have given an account from the pages of a cotemporary, of
certain proceedings at Edinburgh for refusal to pay the Annuity Tax; this Tax
being the mode adopted for obtaining the stipends of Clergymen belonging to
the Established Church of Scotland in that city. We quote these proceedings,
not by any means because we approve of the conduct of the parties who
attended the Roup, and obstructed the Auctioneer in disposing of the
articles; but as evidence of the strong feeling which exists in the minds of
the citizens of Edinburgh, against the unjust and oppressive system by which
the State Church is upheld;— a system, the agents of which may, for aught we
know, be one of these days laying their hands, as they have done before, on
the goods or furniture of some of our own members; thus robbing those to whom
the Clergy “perform no services, and on whom, consequently, they can
have no equitable claims.”
At a public meeting of the inhabitants, held subsequently to the attempted
Roup, resolutions approving of the refusal of the poinded parties to pay the
Annuity Tax, and condemnatory of the State Church oppression and in justice,
were passed; and it affords us pleasure to find the Chairman, Professor Dick,
disapproving of the uproarious conduct manifested by the populace on occasion
of exposing the Furniture for Sale:— “He was not at all surprised,” he said,
“at the offering of passive resistance in Edinburgh to tho Annuity Tax, on
the ground, first, that they considered the principles of an Established
Church to be unsound; and on the ground, secondly, that they did not believe
in the doctrines of an Erastian Church. He must take leave to say, that he
did not agree with all the steps which had been adopted at the sales for
Annuity Tax the other day. They did not want anything like physical force to
put down the Annuity Tax. He did not consider that it was proper to defeat
the officers of the law in their purpose. He deeply sympathised with the
feeling which existed against the Annuity Tax, but he did not think that the
exhibition made the other day was the best way of showing that feeling. The
proper way to get quit of this obnoxious impost was by a quiet, determined,
and peaceful agitation. He was persuaded that by a moral force resistance,
they would eventually overcome the iniquity. He was convinced that if they
showed a bold front — if they told the Government that there was an
unparalleled injustice perpetrated on the inhabitants of Edinburgh — with the
exception of the town of Montrose — they would be successful in getting
exempted from it.”
These sentiments are highly creditable to the learned Professor; they were
warmly applauded by the meeting, and encouragingly indicate an advance
towards the views and the practice of our Society; and we do sincerely trust,
that should any Friends in Edinburgh be called upon to suffer after a similar
fashion, they may be enabled to “adhere stedfastly to the original grounds of
our testimony; not allow themselves,” in the words of the
Book of Discipline, page 260, “to be led away by
any feelings of party spirit, or suffer any motives of an inferior character
to take the place of those which are purely Christian. May none amongst us
shrink from the faithful and upright support of our Christian belief, but
through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ seek after that meek disposition,
in which our Society has uniformly thought it light to maintain this
testimony, and which we desire may ever characterize us as a body.”
Next, from the Portland Guardian and Normanby General Adviser (Australia):
“The Established Church of Scotland,” says the Spectator, “is in
very hot water at this moment, in consequence of the wrong-headed policy
which has maintained the Annuity-tax, and which now logically compels the
responsible official functionaries to enforce payment. Strange scenes have
occurred in Edinburgh. An order went forth that the tax should be demanded
from certain persons. Three were pounced upon. Two, a Mr. Fairbain and a Mr.
William Brown, went quietly to gaol, rather than pay. A third, Mr. Hunter,
conceived the brilliant idea of refusing to pay the tax and of offering no
resistance, beyond a passive resistance, to the constables. Forthwith ensued
a scandalous scene of lugging and hauling. Hunter, a heavy person, was
carried out of his shop by the head and feet. Thrust into a hack cab, he lay
on his back with his legs dangling outside. Handcuffs were placed upon him
in order apparently that the chief of the arresting party might obtain a
greater purchase on their passive prisoner. A mob intervened. Resistance to
the law is not a Scotch characteristic. If a felon were apprehended in the
streets of Edinburgh, the mob would, if it were needed, assist in the
capture. But in this case, the phrase ‘arrested for refusing to pay
Annuity-tax,’ roused the passions of a people who have always been ready to
take fire at the sight of what looks like religious persecution. When it was
the fashion to seize the goods of those dissenters who refused to pay the
odious tax, a great array of soldiers and police was required to protect the
auctioneer instructed to sell the goods; and when purchasers could not be
found in Edinburgh, they were sought for and found in Glasgow. Opposition to
the payment of this impost, therefore, is an idea familiar to the minds of
the people of Edinburgh. Moreover, there was an air of novelty in the attempt
to imprison the malcontents. It was deemed a harsh measure to distrain, it is
regarded as odious to arrest. To the multitude, the officers, hauling at the
passive and manacled Hunter as he lay helpless beneath their hands, appeared
somewhat in the light of familiars of some Scottish inquisition. The people
acted on the impulse of the moment, obstructed the constables, and put them
to flight; and we have no doubt it would now require a strong armed force to
arrest the man in broad daylight. He therefore goes free; but we hear that
the constables are on the alert each night to catch the marked men; and that,
fearing a visit in the dark, these persons quit their homes and sleep abroad.”
And this comes from the Hobart Mercury:
Another annuity tax seizure has been made in Edinburgh on behalf of the city
clergy. The victim in this case was Mr. James Millar, an extensive furnishing
ironmonger in Princess street. From Mr. Millar’s residence, Hope-terrace, the
whole dining-room furniture was carried away, even to the carpet, which was
torn off the floor. The goods taken are in value upwards of £150; the tax
refused to be paid is less than £8. “Such,” says the Caledonian Mercury, “is
a specimen of Christian Edinburgh, with its Synod sitting, and its
assemblies, with her Majesty’s representative, about to sit, to further the
cause of Christ and His kingdom.”
And now, some excerpts and other notes from the Report from the Select Committee on the Edinburgh Annuity Tax Abolition Act (1860) and Canongate Annuity Tax Act.
“Abolition” as used here was a misnomer, if not a deliberate attempt at deception, since the act did not abolish the tax, as many had hoped it would, but instead tried to disguise it by subsuming it within the police tax and explicitly refraining from itemizing it, as critics quickly pointed out:
By the 11th section it is enacted that the
“increased assessments under the powers of this Act shall not, in the
imposing, levying, or collecting thereof, or in the notices or receipts
relative thereto, be in any way separated or distinguished from the
assessments to be imposed, levied, and collected under the said Edinburgh
Police Act, , and Edinburgh Municipality
Act, .” It will be observed that the only
object of this clause is to conceal from the inhabitants the amount in which
they are assessed for the support of the established clergy…
David Lewis, a member of the Edinburgh town council, testified about the effects of the Bill that lumped the annuity tax in with the larger police tax. People who conscientiously resisted the small annuity tax and only paid the police tax portion found that their entire tax bill was rejected for being underpaid, and then the sheriff came after them (and penalized them) for the whole amount. The sheriff had a good motive to do this, as he could then collect a percentage of the total and keep it for himself.
Q: Just to illustrate the working of the
arrangement, supposing a shop or a house is rated for the police rate at
60l., and the police rate
1s.
3d., that would be
3l.
15s., would it not?
A: Yes.
Q: Then there would be
5s. added for this penny
[annuity tax] which is in dispute?
A: Quite so.
Q: Then for your house, which is rented at
60l., you tender
3l.
15s. for the police, and
you tender all the small rates for registration and everything else, but you
refuse to pay this
5s., unless you are
compelled, for the penny?
A: Yes.
Q: Then the collector gets 12½ per cent. on the
4l., because you have refused
to pay 5s.?
A: Yes.
Q: You offered the town council
3l.
15s., and they would not
take it, but they have taken
3l.
10s. through the sheriff’s
officer — because they never levy the
10s. from the recusants at
all; they cannot recover it, and it is a loss to the city fund, is it not?
A: Quite so; I have a case which illustrates the
question perfectly. One of my neighbour’s (a clergyman) rates come to
2l.
19s.
7d., he refuses to pay this
penny, which amounts to 3s.
4d.; in consequence of refusing
to pay the 3s.
4d., there are expenses to the
amount of
1l.
1s.
4d. charged against him in the
recovery of the 3s.
4d., and the city are charged
12½ per cent. on the entire amount of
2l.
19s.
7d.
The effect of this was that for tax years , the government pursued 861 tax refusers (of some 3,475 warrants they issued) in order to try to get £2,981, of which only £497 were actually being resisted for conscientious reasons. In order to get this disputed £497 from the resisters, the town paid the sheriff’s office 12.5% of the total, which is to say, £372. Some of this included costs of prosecution, which were charged against the resisters: “although the warrants cost the council only 3d. or 4d. per head,” Lewis testified, “those who are prosecuted were charged from 1s. 6d. to 2s. 6d. per head; so that we are making a large profit out of the prosecutions in addition to the enforcement of the rate.”
Q: Are you personally sure of that fact; because
it is a serious charge to make against the council that they collect money
under false pretenses?
A: I am personally sure of it.
Q: Besides those expenses, am I correct in
assuming that the sheriff’s officer charges all the legal expenses and the
expenses of cartage, and everything of that kind over and above?
A: He does.
Q: And these expenses amount to a very
considerable sum?
A: I should say they average about
10s. where there are no
sales, and from
15s. to
18s. where there are sales,
in addition. There is one statement I should like very particularly to submit;
and it is with regard to a gentleman, a Quaker, one of the most respectable of
our citizens, and I should say one who upon no condition could be objected to
as not having conscientious scruples. His rates amounted to
2l.
18s., the amount which he
disputed was 3s.
3d.; he offered to pay the whole
of the money less the 3s.
3d.; it was repeatedly refused;
the officer carried away goods to the amount of exactly
9l.; (I have the receipt here);
the goods were sold; in conscience he refused to purchase them; and he got
back out of the 9l. the sum of
9d.; so that refusing to pay
3s.
3d., cost him
8l.
19s.
3d.
Lewis also testified about the solidarity area businesses were exhibiting with the tax strikers and against the government seizure-and-sale apparatus:
Q: Does it consist with your knowledge that no
auctioneer could be got to sell the goods?
A: It does.
Q: Does it consist with your knowledge that none
of the dealers in old furniture in Edinburgh will buy the goods that are
exposed?
A: None, to my knowledge
Q: Is it pretty generally arranged that somebody
buys them at the Cross?
A: Yes; in many cases there is such an
arrangement.
Q: Does it consist with your knowledge that
there has been great difficulty in getting any carter to hire his cart for
carrying away the property?
A: Yes.
Q: In point of fact, were the council checkmated
in their efforts to get a carter?
A: They were.
Q: You know that personally?
A: I do.
Q: Can you mention an instance?
A: I may mention that, after two carts had been
engaged belonging to two different parties, there was an action of damages
raised on both occasions against the proprietor of a journal for having
notified the circumstance that these parties had so hired their carts.
Q: It was held to have a damaging influence on
the business of the carters, was it?
A: Yes; these were the points argued in court.
Next interviewed was John Greig, who had been a town council member:
Q: Do you remember the introduction of the lorry
or police cart?
A: I read it in the newspapers.
Q: Has that made a considerable difference in
inducing people to pay?
A: Applying the screw, which has been done very
severely, has had very great effect in bringing in arrears.
Thomas Menzies, a dissenter, was questioned next.
Q: Was there a feeling among the Dissenters so
strong against the tax, that it induced some of them to leave the Council,
and prevented others from coming forward as candidates at the municipal
elections?
A: That was very striking indeed, in the case of
such men as Bailie Russell, Bailie Grieve, Ex-Counsellor Burns, and other
distinguished Dissenters, who retired from the Council rather than administer
the Act.
Q: Until the last year, has it prevented others
from coming forward as candidates for the vacant wards?
A: Most decidedly there has been great difficulty
in getting voluntary Dissenters to go into the Council, and in consequence of
voluntary Dissenters not going into the Council, the Free Church dissenters
have found great difficulty in carrying out this measure in the Council, and
many of the most influential of them also retired.
Q: Have great complaints been made in consequence
of expensive prosecutions being brought forward in the Court of Sessions
against parties?
A: An intense feeling of indignation has been
roused at the selection of some of our most distinguished citizens, and
dragging them into the Court of Session. We felt that we were under
persecution, and as to two of the parties in particular, subscriptions were
raised to mark our indignation at such a mode of prosecuting Dissenters. I
refer particularly to the late Thomas Russell, who when the money was
presented to him, said, “We shall give it to the Annuity Tax League, to
enable them to carry out their operations in the abolishment of the tax.”
Q: When was that?
A: That was in . A similar sum was raised for Mr. M‘Laren, of Saint Andrew’s
Hotel, and the expenses in each of those cases were from
27l. to
30l. Mr. M‘Laren was dragged
into Court the year following, and very summarily dealt with, because Mr. Caw
would not take the money, unless it was immediately presented to him,
although a very respectable citizen; Mr. Dixon, of the firm of Knox, Samuel,
and Dixon had offered him the money. The furniture was taken away; his
dining-room was left almost empty; and he spent to the extent of between
30l. and
40l. in pleading for redress
before the sheriff. He employed Mr. Trainer as his advocate.
Q: Do you know the result of the application to
the sheriff?
A: The sheriff decided against Mr. M‘Laren, and
he had, of course, to pay all costs.
Q: What was the amount for which he was sued?
A: I could not get the accounts before I came up,
and I am ignorant of the expense.
Q: Was it a large sum?
A: In the first prosecution, between
20l. and
30l.
Q: In that case was there a distraint?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know that 52 police officers were
employed to distrain?
A: I have seen police officers in great numbers,
in several detachments, waiting on these sales, in quiet corners.
Q: Has any action been taken against you for the
recovery of your arrears?
A: Yes; I was summoned to the Sheriff’s Court for
three years’ arrears, and a decree was obtained against me, but no action has
been taken, and those three years’ arrears are still in my hands; I tendered
to the sheriff’s clerk, the police tax proper; the sum for the clerical tax
is 4s.
2d. Previously to this, I also
tendered it to Mr. Thomson, the collector, by a draft on the bank, and the
same to Mr. Saunders, who was employed as his agent. I have their respective
letters, showing that I have done so, but it was refused, because I would not
pay the clerical portion of the tax.
Q: Did you ask for a discharge for the whole
amount, or were you willing to acknowledge that a balance remained?
A: In the year that partial payments were agreed
to be paid I had not signed a document that it was due, because I considered
the tax to be unconstitutionally put on, and that we ought to protest against
such measures being thrust upon the community.
Q: Did the sheriff’s officer come to your house
and carry off your things?
A: He did.
Q: When?
A: ; he carried
off a hair-cloth sofa, and a hair-cloth easy chair, which I purchased back.
We were in the habit at these sales for the clerical portion of the tax, of
allowing our furniture to be taken as a protest. The auctioneer and sheriff
officer who are one person (Mr. Caw) put them up slump, and put this out of
my power, so that we could not make our protest so decidedly on that point.
Q: What do you mean by “slump?”
A: Instead of putting them up singly he put them
up in one lot.
Q: You have stated that you have always taken a
deep interest in this class of questions; did that induce you to go and see
several of the sales?
A: Yes, it induced me to go to the sales under
the small debts summons at the house of the parties to sympathise with them.
Q: Were you present at a sale at the house of Mr.
Hope, a wholesale merchant in West Preston-street?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you state briefly what you saw?
A: I saw a large number of the most respectable
citizens assembled in the house, and a large number outside awaiting the
arrival of the officers who came in a cab, and the indignation was very
strong when they got into the house, so much so that a feeling was
entertained by some that there was danger to the life of Mr. Whitten, the
auctioneer, and that he might be thrown out of the window, because there were
such threats, but others soothed down the feeling.
Q: There was no overt act or breach of the peace?
A: No. The cabman who brought the officers,
seeing they were engaged in such a disagreeable duty, took his cab away, and
they had some difficulty in procuring another, and they went away round by a
back street, rather than go by the direct way.
Q: Was there a strong body of police present in
case, of an outbreak?
A: Not so many on this occasion as on succeeding
occasions. They gradually increased.
Q: Did Mr. Whitten, from his experience on that
occasion, refuse ever to come to another sale as auctioneer?
A: He refused to act again, he gave up his
position.
Q: Were you present at a sale of Mr. Stewart’s
furniture, in Rankeillor-street in ?
A: I was.
Q: Did anything of the same kind occur?
A: The house was densely packed; it was
impossible for me to get entrance; the stair was densely packed to the third
and second flats; when the policemen came with the officers, they could not
force their way up, except with great difficulty. The consequence was, that
nearly the whole of the rail of the upper storey gave way to the great danger
both of the officers and the public, and one young man I saw thrown over the
heads of the crowd to the great danger of being precipitated three storeys
down. Then the parties came out of the house, with their clothes dishevelled
and severely handled; and the officer on that occasion will tell you that he
was very severely dealt with indeed, and Mr. Sheriff Gordon was sent for, so
much alarm being felt; but by the time the Sheriff arrived things were
considerably subdued.
Q: Was the officer (Mr. Caw) then present?
A: Mr. Caw and his assistants.
Q: Were you present at the sale at Mr. Adair’s
hotel?
A: I was. That produced great sensation in the
city. The whole of the Highstreet between
St. Giles’s Cathedral and Tron
Church was crowded. I am not a great judge of numbers, but I should say there
were from 5,000 to 10,000 people. There was a miller’s cart passing, and some
of the policemen were powdered with flour out of the bags by the public.
Q: Is Mr. Adair a Roman Catholic?
A: Yes. I was present at that sale, and Mr.
Linton, the superintendent of police, ordered me to be pulled out; but Mr.
Adair protected me in his house, and I was allowed to remain. They carried
off a sofa, a piano, and a picture to the police office. In that case Mr.
Adair was able to give his protest.
Q: What were you doing at the time the
superintendent of police ordered you to be taken out?
A: Quietly observing the sale.
Q: Were many complaints made of the rough way in
which the police acted on those occasions?
A: Very many complaints, because the inhabitants
were very severely handled at these sales, and pulled out of the rooms by the
policemen; and even when there was room for them, as at Mr. M‘Laren’s sale,
they would not allow them to enter; and at Mr. Musgrove’s sale only six were
allowed to enter.
Q: You were also present at Mr. Musgrove’s sale?
A: Yes, but I was refused admittance; although it
is a large shop, and will hold 150 persons, Mr. Musgrove had cleared away all
his counters, being afraid of damage to his haberdashery goods, and yet only
six people were allowed to go in, and the policemen stopped the right of the
public to get in.
Q: Is Mr. Musgrove an intimate friend of your own?
A: A very intimate friend.
Q: And the police would not allow you to go into
the house and witness the sale?
A: No.
Q: Practically the police prevented people from
bidding by excluding all but six?
A: Yes; and I saw them refuse another gentleman
besides myself. I tried it again, but was refused again.
Q: Were you present at Mr. Dun’s, iron merchant,
in Blair-street, when his effects were distrained?
A: Yes: I saw sledge hammers and other
instruments there to open the premises and get at the goods, but after
labouring for half an hour or more they could not effect an entrance.
Q: Was that because Mr. Dun used some of the
metal in which he was a dealer to barricade his premises?
A: Yes; tons of metal were put up against the
back door, and it was impossible for them to get in. On the second occasion
they got the goods after removing about ten tons of iron from the top of
them; but they disputed the things, and Mr. Dun threw them out, and I saw
children running away with copper springs, and tossing about sheets of brass.
Q: You were present at the sale at Mr. M‘Laren’s
hotel, in St. Andrew’s-street?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you briefly describe the state of matters
there?
A: That sale reminded me a good deal of the
features of the former annuity tax agitation, when the cavalry and infantry
were turned out in Hanover-street; although there were no such accompaniments
on this occasion, the interest of the public was very great, and so great was
it, that when a sofa (for in this case the protest was to allow the clerical
portion to be sacrificed), when a sofa was thrown out by the crowd it was
burned, and continued to burn half an hour, large crowds occupying each side
of the street, and creating a very great sensation; and this is close to one
of our great public thoroughferes, Prince’s-street, and at 12 o’clock in the
day.
Q: Were there several thousand people there?
A: Altogether there would not be so many as in
Mr. Adair’s case; I should think 1,500 people.
Q: Did the police act very roughly to the crowd
on that occasion?
A: In driving off, the officers used the whip
very freely, because they always came and went off in cabs.
Q: Do you see any prospect of this feeling being
diminished?
A: By no means; it is getting more intense every
day.
Q: Do you think it will continue to be so as long
as any portion of this tax remains?
A: I have not the slightest doubt of it; it is
not the amount, but it is the principle, which the Dissenters feel.
Q: Do you think, although greater progress was
made last year in collecting the tax by means of that new engine, the lorry,
that indicates any change of feeling?
A: By no means; it has just irritated the public
more and more; and the indignation against the lorry is so intense, that it
has become associated with Treasurer Callender’s name, as the party who
invented it and ordered it, and brought crowbars, and everything connected
with it.
Q: Is the lorry one of those large low carts such
as are used in Manchester, Glasgow, and Liverpool, to take away goods?
A: Four wheel carts, with a large surface.
Q: Is there anything particularly obnoxious in a
cart of that shape?
A: Yes.
Q: It is an English invention, I suppose?
A: It is obnoxious if crowbars and sledge hammers
form part of its fittings.
Q: Is there a contrivance for putting instruments
of war behind it in a chest?
A: Yes.
Q: Crowbars and sledge-hammers?
A: Yes; otherwise the machine is like any other
lorry.
Q: What do you say about the “implements of war”?
A: They are carried in case they are required.
Q: Is there in the lorry a place kept apart for
conveying arms?
A: I do not think there are any arms; but I
think, on one occasion, our citizens were threatened with arms from one of
the officers, but I do not suppose they carried any.
Q: Perhaps they attacked the officer?
A: No; there was some altercation, and the
indignation was so great that they came to high words.
And later, under the more hostile questioning of Major Cumming Bruce:
Q: Do you consider that the proceeding in
resisting this tax, which you have described in your evidence, favourable to
the spread of true religion and morality?
A: I think so.
Q: And in accordance with the spirit of Christian
religion?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you consider that any minority of people,
however small, are entitled to resist a law passed by the Legislature of the
country?
A: Not to resist it with violence, but to take
the spoiling of their goods joyfully.
Q: Do you consider they took the spoiling of
their goods joyfully when the police were called in and the peace of the city
endangered?
A: I assure you that the Voluntaries of Edinburgh
have sacrificed large sums of money, and it has cost them a great deal to
resist this tax.
Q: My question was, whether you considered they
took the spoiling of their goods joyfully when the police were called in, and
the peace of the city endangered?
A: I believe it will bring about a happy
termination of this iniquitous tax system.
Q: Then you consider that the end justifies the
means?
A: Not to use violence, but simply to submit to
the penalty of the law.
Q: According to your own statement, was there not
violence used?
A: Not that I witnessed, although I was told
there was some riot.
Q: Do you believe that report which was told you?
A: Yes; I saw one of them, a Sabbath-school
teacher, taken along the street with his coat off, irritated by the officer,
and he was carried to the police office. I cannot explain how the thing
happened; but the officer was blamed for irritating and first attacking.
Q: There was a certain going on?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you consider that a minority, however
small, were justified in resisting a law which was passed by the Imperial
Legislature of this country?
A: On the same principle that John Hampden
resisted a law, when it was unconstitutionally put on.
Q: By violence?
A: Submit to the penalty, but not by violence.
Q: You cited the case of John Hampden as
analogous. Are you aware what it was John Hampden resisted?
A: He resisted ship-money, because it had been
put on by the king, and not by the Parliament.
Q: In this case there is an Act of Parliament by
the Legislature of the country, and an act having the force of law by the
decision of the Legislature of the country. In John Hampden’s case, was it
the law which he resisted, or was it merely a tax levied by the despotic
authority of the king?
A: Perfectly so, and in this case it has been
despotically put on.
Q: In this case the Act was passed through both
Parliaments?
A: Yes.
Q: Then there is no sort of analogy with the
resistance of ship-money which had been ordered to be levied by the king’s
authority?
A: To my mind things pass through Parliament, and
are put into Acts of Parliament which are not facts; for instance, that Act
states that which is not the fact, because it states that it is an abolition
of the annuity tax.
Q: I ask you whether you consider the case of
John Hampden’s resistance founded upon an illegal act of the king a parallel
case?
A: Not quite parallel, but there is some parallel
between them.
Sheriff Clerk Kenmure Maitland was examined next. He was one of the authorities who attended some of the auctions of seized goods. Early in his testimony he quoted from some of the newspaper announcements of these auctions as a way of explaining why he expected trouble:
Rouping for Ministers’ Money. Come and see. R.H. Whitten selling off. East
Preston-street. .
Poinding for the Clerico-Police Tax. — Instructions to the Public. — In order
to defeat the illegal attempts made to roup the goods of Dissenters for
payment of ministers’ stipends, without notice of day or hour given, and
without, therefore, the possibility of a real sale being effected, it is
recommended that so soon as the goods are poinded, the individuals to whom
they belong should have a placard printed, in terms like the following, and
posted at their doors: “Poinded for Clerico-Police Tax.” “Goods to be sold
here for city clergy, on [give day when notice expires], or following days,
between 12 and 3.” “Who’ll buy. Shame! Shame! to so outrage Dissenters and
religion!”
In cases where the door may not be suitable, it is recommended that a black
flag, bearing the notice or suitable inscription, be suspended from the
windows, so as to be generally seen. It is also suggested that in the event
of an attempted sale, the proprietors of the goods should bid to the full
amount of the police portion of his tax on the first article put up, whether
that article be worth 10s.
or 10l., leaving the
clerico-police portion to be satisfied in whatever way the officers of the
law find themselves best able to effect it.
Efforts being made in the name of religion and law to sacrifice goods by a
mock sale, or sale without due notice, corresponding efforts must be made in
the same name to secure the utmost publicity, and as large an attendance as
possible.
To this end it may be worthy of consideration whether the doors of the houses
in which the sales are to take place should not be kept locked till they are
unlocked by the sheriff officers. This process of unlocking the doors by the
police officers will excite the attention of the general public, and an
opportunity thus afforded of a fair sale taking place.
Robbery and Religion. — Fellow citizens, the furniture of one of your number
is to be sold by public roup, at 4, Rankeillor-street, on
, for the behoof of the city clergy. As the
effects have been poinded at less than one-sixth of their real value, it is
expected that those who “love justice and hate robbery” will be in time to
ensure a vigorous competition.
Christians are informed that, among other valuable articles, there is a
beautiful engraving of the “Last Supper of Christ and his Apostles” (name of
auctioneer unknown).
Another example was given in an appendix:
“To your Tents, O Israel.” — Anti-Clerico Police Tax.
Friends, be at 14, St.
Andrew-street before .
“Robbery for Burnt Offering, Isaiah ⅼⅺ. 8. — Annuity Tax Persecution,”
&c.
&c.
&c.
He also describes some of the tactics of auction disruption used by the resisters and their supporters:
A: On the first sale that I attended at Mr.
Hope’s in Prestonstreet, I only took two or three police officers with me,
and they were in plain clothes to make as little show as possible; but we
were very much obstructed in carrying out that sale; we were hustled and
rudely used by the crowd, and there was a great deal of noise during the
sale. Mr. Whitten, the auctioneer for sheriff’s sales, was so much
inconvenienced and intimidated that he refused to take any more of those
sales. At the second sale, I arranged with Mr. Linton, the superintendent of
police, that he should have a body of police in attendance in case I should
require to send for them, and I considered that necessary in the case of the
sale in Rankeillor-street.
Q: What took place at the sale in
Rankeillor-street?
A: On proceeding there, I found a considerable
crowd outside; and on going up to the premises on the top flat, I found that
I could not get entrance to the house; the house was packed with people, who
on our approach kept hooting and shouting out, and jeering us; and, as far as
I could see, the shutters were shut and the windows draped in black, and all
the rooms crowded with people. I said that it was necessary to carry out the
sale, and they told me to come in, if I dare. I said that I should send for
the police to clear the place, if they did not allow me to carry out the
sale. They hooted and jeered again. I sent for Mr. Linton, and he brought the
police. There was a good deal of opposition to the police at the head of the
stairs, and it looked a little serious for a time. The stairs are protected
on the outside by a banister and railing, and that banister and railing gave
way in a dangerous manner. I was afraid if the resistance was maintained
there might be an accident or a breach of the peace, and I sent for the
sheriff. Before he arrived, Mr. Linton and his assistants had ejected the
most troublesome into the street, and the sale was being carried out when the
sheriff arrived.
Q: Did you see on that occasion any of those
persons whose faces had become familiar to you?
A: Some of the parties there had been at the
former sale, and I noticed them again at subsequent sales.
Q: Was that the most serious of the obstructions
that you met with?
A: It was; because after that sale the police
went down beforehand, and kept the door pretty clear, so that we could get in
without obstruction. At Mr. McLaren’s sale everything was conducted in an
orderly way as far as the sale was concerned. We got in, and only a limited
number were allowed to go in; but after the officials and the police had
gone, there was a certain amount of disturbance. Certain goods were knocked
down to the poinding creditors, consisting of an old sofa and an old
sideboard, and Mr. McLaren said, “Let those things go to the clergy.” Those
were the only things which had to be taken away. There was no vehicle ready
to carry them away. Mr. McLaren said that he would not keep them. After the
police departed, he turned them out in the street, when they were taken
possession of by the crowd of idlers, and made a bonfire of.
Q: What is the last sale that took place?
A: Mr. Dunn’s, in Blair-street; I was not present
on the first occasion at that sale, where the officials were defeated in
gaining entrance; Mr. Dunn had barricaded the door of the room where the
poinded effects were, so that an entrance could not be had. My deputy was
there, and the other officials; they gave the matter up, and reported that
they could not get in. Sometime afterwards the warrant was attempted again; I
went down myself on that occasion; I found that the room where the poinded
goods were was filled up to above the centre of the room with boxes filled
with plates of iron of immense weight. We were told that the poinded goods
were lying beneath those, and that we might get at them as we could. I sent
for labourers, and had the whole of those boxes removed into the front shop
until I got access, after great trouble, to the sheets of brass, which were
the poinded articles. These were then declared by the sheriff officers to be
of a different description, and inferior to what they had previously poinded;
they refused to take them; and the only articles they recognised were some
coils of copper wire; those they took to the police office, and those were
all that were obtained on that occasion. Mr. Dunn afterwards settled the
amount due by him. That was the last sale that was carried out under
proceedings at common law; after that sale the summary form of application
was adopted, and has been found to work well, I should say principally
because the parties who refused to pay on presentment of the summary
application having now no notice of the exact day or hour their goods are to
be taken, have no opportunity of getting up a scene; and the expense is
certainly less to them under the summary form than under the other mode of
proceeding.
Q: What was Mr. Whitten’s express reason for
declining to act as auctioneer?
A: He was very much inconvenienced on that
occasion, and he believed that his general business connection would suffer
by undertaking these sales, and that he would lose the support of any
customer who was of that party.
Q: It was not from any fear of personal violence?
A: That might have had a good deal to do with it.
Q: Was Mr. Whitten the only auctioneer who
declined?
A: No. After Mr. Whitten’s refusal I applied to
Mr. Hogg, whose services I should have been glad to have obtained, and he
said he would let me know the next day if he would undertake to act as
auctioneer; he wrote to me the next day saying, that, after consideration
with his friends, he declined to act.
Q: Any other?
A: I do not remember asking any others. The rates
of remuneration for acting as auctioneer at sheriffs’ sales are so low that
men having a better class of business will not act. I had to look about among
not first-class auctioneers, and I found that I would have some difficulty in
getting a man whom I could depend upon, for I had reason to believe that
influence would be used to induce the auctioneer to fail me at the last
moment.
The report then quoted, in one of its appendices, from a paper submitted by a public meeting in Edinburgh which said in part:
So strong was the feeling of hostility, that the town council were unable to
procure the services of any auctioneer to sell the effects of those who
conscientiously objected to pay the clerical portion of the police taxes, and
they were consequently forced to make a special arrangement with a sheriff’s
officer, by which, to induce him to undertake the disagreeable task, they
provided him for two years with an auctioneer’s license from the police
funds. In , it was found necessary
to enter into another arrangement with the officer, by which the council had
to pay him 12½ percent, on all arrears, including the police, prison, and
registration rates, as well as the clerical tax; and he receives this
per-centage whether the sums are recovered by himself or paid direct to the
police collector, and that over and above all the expenses he recovers from
the recusants. But this is not all; the council were unable to hire a cart or
vehicle from any of the citizens, and it was found necessary to purchase a
lorry, and to provide all the necessary apparatus and assistance for enforcing
payment of the arrears. All this machinery, which owes its existence entirely
to the Clerico-Police Act, involves a wasteful expenditure of city funds,
induces a chronic state of irritation in the minds of the citizens, and is
felt to be a gross violation of the principles of civil and religious liberty.
