We’re up to in our traipse through the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” movement against the Education Act.
The first example comes from the Essex Newsman. Excerpts:
Sale of Passive Resister Goods at Earls Colne.
On the goods distrained upon for the non-payment of the Education-rate at Earls Colne were sold by auction by Mr. Thomas Howard. The auctioneer said: We have met, I trust, for the last time to rock this cradle of iniquity, woven out of the bleached bones of the women and 15,000 innocents who were done to death in the murder camps of South Africa.…
To understand this requires some context. The Conservative government, which had passed the Education Act, had come into office with a sort of Nixonian pledge to end the war in South Africa with honor. The British had pioneered the infamous art of “concentration camps” during the Boer War. One of the complaints of the Nonconformists was that the Conservatives really only had a mandate for their war policy, and things like the Education Act had been muscled in by opportunists without any democratic legitimacy. Howard continues:
…This cradle was wrought by the most blatant set of scolopendra and scallywags that ever defiled our House of Parliament, made at the behest of the idolatrous priests and bishops of the great lying church, who hold a brief for the Man of Sin, the great Hierarch of the Papal See.
The second article comes from the Derby Daily Telegraph. One of the resisters in this case sought to expand the grounds on which he was resisting. Excerpts:
Passive Resistance In Derby.
Mr. H. Davison’s Objections to Paying.
There were no fewer than 212 summonses returnable at the Derby Borough Court for the non-payment of rates, and amongst the defendants was Henry Davidson, furniture dealer… He also had an objection on another ground, and that was a legal one. Some time ago, he continued, he heard one of the borough elective auditors had objected to an item of £41 for “spirituous liquors, whiskies, and cigars” for the Asylum, these being supplied to the servants for services rendered. Many years ago the Truck Act was passed, and he understood that that Act prohibited the supply of intoxicating liquor in lieu of wages. The ratepayers of Derby ought not to be taxed for these things, and he objected to the ratepayers’ money being spent in this way. If people wanted these things they ought to pay for them themselves, and if they had servants at the Asylum they ought to pay their proper wages, and not provide these things. He objected to being called upon to have to pay towards these things.
The authorities were unmoved and made their usual distraint orders.