Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
religious groups and the religious perspective →
British Nonconformists →
19th Century Edinburgh Annuity Tax resisters →
Thomas Menzies
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.
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, .
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.”
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.”
“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.
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.
A tactic that I’ve encountered on many occasions in my research into tax resistance campaigns is that of disrupting government auctions of goods, particularly those of seized from tax resisters.
Here are several examples that show the variety of ways campaigns have accomplished this:
Religious nonconformists in the United Kingdom
Education Act-related resistance
Some disruption of auctions took place during the tax resistance in protest of the provisions of the Education Act that provided taxpayer money for sectarian education .
The Westminster Gazette reported:
There was some feeling displayed at a sale of the goods of Passive Resisters at Colchester yesterday, the Rev. T. Batty, a Baptist minister, and the Rev. Pierrepont Edwards, locally, known as “the fighting parson,” entering into discussion in the auction room, but being stopped by the auctioneer, who said he did his work during the week and he hoped they did theirs on Sundays.
At Long Eaton the goods of twenty-three Passive Resisters were sold amid demonstrations of hostility to the auctioneer.
A boy was arrested for throwing a bag of flour.
The New York Times reported that “Auctioneers frequently decline to sell goods upon which distraints have been levied.” And the San Francisco Chronicle noted:
Difficulty is experienced everywhere in getting auctioneers to sell the property confiscated.
In Leominster, a ram and some ewe lambs, the property of a resistant named Charles Grundy, were seized and put up at auction, as follows: Ram, Joe Chamberlain; ewes, Lady Balfour, Mrs. Bishop, Lady Cecil, Mrs. Canterbury and so on through the list of those who made themselves conspicuous in forcing the bill through Parliament.
The auctioneer was entitled to a fee under the law of 10 shillings and 6 pence, which he promptly turned over to Mr. Grundy, having during the sale expressed the strongest sympathy for the tax-resisters.
Most of the auction sales are converted into political meetings in which the tax and those responsible for it are roundly denounced.
Edinburgh Annuity Tax resistance
Auction disruptions were commonplace in the Annuity Tax resistance campaign in Edinburgh.
By law the distraint auctions (“roupings”) had to be held at the Mercat Cross — the town square, essentially — which made it easy to gather a crowd; or sometimes in the homes of the resisters. Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine reported of one of the Mercat Cross roupings:
If any of our readers know that scene, let them imagine, after the resistance was tolerably well organized, an unfortunate auctioneer arriving at the Cross about noon, with a cart loaded with furniture for sale.
Latterly the passive hubbub rose as if by magic.
Bells sounded, bagpipes brayed, the Fiery Cross passed down the closses, and through the High Street and Cowgate; and men, women, and children, rushed from all points towards the scene of Passive Resistance.
The tax had grinded the faces of the poor, and the poor were, no doubt, the bitterest in indignation.
Irish, Highlanders, Lowlanders, were united by the bond of a common suffering.
Respectable shopkeepers might be seen coming in haste from the Bridges; Irish traders flew from St. Mary’s Wynd; brokers from the Cowgate; all pressing round the miserable auctioneer; yelling, hooting, perhaps cursing, certainly saying anything but what was affectionate or respectful of the clergy.
And here were the black placards tossing above the heads of the angry multitude — ROUPING FOR STIPEND!
This notice was of itself enough to deter any one from purchasing; though we will say it for the good spirit of the people, that both the Scotch and Irish brokers disdained to take bargains of their suffering neighbours’ goods.
Of late months, no auctioneer would venture to the Cross to roup for stipend.
What human being has nerve enough to bear up against the scorn, hatred, and execration of his fellow-creatures, expressed in a cause he himself must feel just?
The people lodged the placards and flags in shops about the Cross, so that not a moment was lost in having their machinery in full operation, and scouts were ever ready to spread the intelligence if any symptoms of a sale were discovered.
Sheriff Clerk Kenmure Maitland appeared before a committee that was investigating the resistance campaign.
He mentioned that “Mr. Whitten, the auctioneer for sheriff’s sales, was so much inconvenienced and intimidated that he refused to take any more of those sales.”
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.
It was difficult for the authorities to get any help at all, either from auctioneers, furniture dealers, or carters.
The government had to purchase (and fortify) their own cart because they were unable to rent one for such use.
Here is an example of an auction of a resister’s goods held at the resister’s
home, as described in the testimony of Thomas Menzies:
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: 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.
He then described a second such auction:
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.
Sheriff Clerk Maitland also described this auction:
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.
On another occasion, as he tells it, the auction seemed to go smoothly at first, but the buyers didn’t get what they hoped for:
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.
A summary of the effect of all of this disruption reads:
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.
The Tithe War
William John Fitzpatrick wrote of the auctions during the Tithe War:
[T]he parson’s first step was to put the cattle up to auction in the presence of a regiment of English soldiery; but it almost invariably happened that either the assembled spectators were afraid to bid, lest they should incur the vengeance of the peasantry, or else they stammered out such a low offer, that, when knocked down, the expenses of the sale would be found to exceed it.
The same observation applies to the crops.
Not one man in a hundred had the hardihood to declare himself the purchaser.
Sometimes the parson, disgusted at the backwardness of bidders, and trying to remove it, would order the cattle twelve or twenty miles away in order to their being a second time put up for auction.
But the locomotive progress of the beasts was always closely tracked, and means were taken to prevent either driver or beast receiving shelter or sustenance throughout the march.
The Sentinel wrote of one auction:
Yesterday being the day on which the sheriff announced that, if no bidders could be obtained for the cattle, he would have the property returned to Mr. Germain, immense crowds were collected from the neighbouring counties — upwards of 20,000 men.
The County Kildare men, amounting to about 7000, entered, led by Jonas Duckett, Esq., in the most regular and orderly manner.
This body was preceded by a band of music, and had several banners on which were “Kilkea and Moone, Independence for ever,” “No Church Tax,” “No Tithe,” “Liberty,” &c. The whole body followed six carts, which were prepared in the English style — each drawn by two horses.
The rear was brought up by several respectable landholders of Kildare.
The barrack-gates were thrown open, and different detachments of infantry took their stations right and left, while the cavalry, after performing sundry evolutions, occupied the passes leading to the place of sale.
The cattle were ordered out, when the sheriff, as on the former day, put them up for sale; but no one could be found to bid for the cattle, upon which he announced his intention of returning them to Mr. Germain.
The news was instantly conveyed, like electricity, throughout the entire meeting, when the huzzas of the people surpassed anything we ever witnessed.
The cattle were instantly liberated and given up to Mr. Germain.
At this period a company of grenadiers arrived, in double-quick time, after travelling from Castlecomer, both officers and men fatigued and covered with dust.
Thus terminated this extraordinary contest between the Church and the people, the latter having obtained, by their steadiness, a complete victory.
The cattle will be given to the poor of the sundry districts.
Similar examples were reported in the foreign press:
Cork. — A most extraordinary scene has been exhibited in this city.
Some cows seized for tithes were brought to a public place for sale, escorted by a squadron of lancers, and followed by thousands of infuriated people.
All the garrison, cavalry and infantry, under the command of Sir George Bingham, were called out.
The cattle were set up at three pounds for each, no bidder; two pounds, no bidder; one pound, no bidder; in short, the auctioneer descended to three shillings for each cow, but no purchaser appeared.
This scene lasted for above an hour, when there being no chance of making sale of the cattle, it was proposed to adjourn the auction; but, as we are informed, the General in command of the military expressed an unwillingness to have the troops subjected to a repetition of the harassing duty thus imposed on them.
After a short delay, it was, at the interference and remonstrance of several gentlemen, both of town and country, agreed upon that the cattle should be given up to the people, subject to certain private arrangements.
We never witnessed such a scene; thousands of country people jumping with exulted feelings at the result, wielding their shillelaghs, and exhibiting all the other symptoms of exuberant joy characteristic of the buoyancy of Irish feeling.
At Carlow a triumphant resistance to the laws, similar to that which occurred
at Cork, has been exhibited in the presence of the authorities and the
military. Some cattle had been seized for tithe, and a public sale announced,
when a large body of men, stated at 50,000, marched to the place appointed,
and, of course, under the influence of such terror, none were found to bid
for the cattle. The sale was adjourned from day to day, for seven days, and
upon each day the same organised bands entered the town, and rendered the
attempt to sell the cattle, in pursuance of the law, abortive. At last the
cattle are given up to the mob, crowned with laurels, and driven home with an
escort of 10,000 men.
In a somewhat later case, a Catholic priest in Blarney by the name of Peyton refused to pay his income tax on the grounds that the law treated him in an inferior way to his Protestant counterparts.
His horse was seized and sold at auction, where “the multitude assembled hissed, hooted, hustled, and otherwise impeded the proceedings.”
There was precedent for this. During the Tithe War period and thereafter, the
authorities had to go to extraordinary lengths to auction off seized goods. As
one account put it:
In Ireland we pay — the whole people of the empire pay — troops who march up from the country to Dublin, fifty or sixty miles, as escorts of the parson-pounded pigs and cattle, which passive resistance prevents from being sold or bought at home; and we also maintain barracks in that country which not only lodge the parsons’ military guards, but afford, of late, convenient resting-places in their journey to the poor people’s cattle, whom the soldiers are driving to sale; and which would otherwise be rescued on the road.
The women’s suffrage movement in the United Kingdom
The tax resisters in the women’s suffrage movement in Britain were particularly adept in disrupting tax auctions and in making them opportunities for propaganda and protest.
Here are several examples, largely as reported in the movement newsletter called The Vote:
“On a sale was held… of
jewellery seized in distraint for income-tax… Members of the
W.F.L.
and Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn
(Hon.
Sec.) assembled to
protest against the proceedings, and the usual policeman kept a dreary
vigil at the open door. The day had been specially chosen by the
authorities, who wished to prevent a demonstration…”
“The sale of Mrs. Cleeves’ dog-cart took place at the Bush Hotel, Sketty,
on afternoon. The
W.F.L.
held their protest meeting outside — much to the discomfort of the
auctioneer, who declared the impossibility of ‘drowning the voice
outside.’ ”
“Notwithstanding the mud and odoriferous atmosphere of the back streets
off Drury-lane, quite a large number of members of the Tax Resisters’
League, the Women’s Freedom League, and the Women’s Social and Political
Union, met outside Bulloch’s Sale Rooms shortly after
to protest against the sale of Miss Bertha Brewster’s goods, which had
been seized because of her refusal to pay her Imperial taxes. Before the
sale took place, Mrs. Gatty, as chairman, explained to at least a hundred
people the reasons of Miss Brewster’s refusal to pay her taxes and the
importance of the constitutional principle that taxation without
representation is tyranny, which this refusal stood for. Miss Leonora
Tyson proposed the resolution protesting against the injustice of this
sale, and it was seconded by Miss F[lorence]. A. Underwood, and supported
by Miss Brackenbury. The resolution was carried with only two
dissentients, and these dissentients were women!”
“The goods seized were sold at the public auction room. Before selling
them the auctioneer allowed Mrs. How Martyn to make a short explanatory
speech, and he himself added that it was an unpleasant duty he had to
perform.”
“A scene which was probably never equalled in the whole of its history
took place at the Oxenham Auction Rooms, Oxford-street, on
. About a fortnight before
the bailiffs had entered Mrs. Despard’s residence in Nine Elms and seized
goods which they valued at £15. Our President, for some years past, as is
well known, has refused to pay her income-tax and inhabited house duty on
the grounds that taxation and representation should go together; and this
is the third time her goods have been seized for distraint. It was not
until the day before — — that Mrs. Despard was informed of the time and place where
her furniture was to be sold. In spite of this short notice — which we
learn on good authority to be illegal — a large crowd composed not only of
our own members but also of women and men from various Suffrage societies
gathered together at the place specified in the notice. ¶ When ‘Lot
325’ was called Mrs. Despard mounted a chair, and said, ‘I rise to
protest, in the strongest, in the most emphatic way of which I am capable,
against these iniquities, which are perpetually being perpetrated in the
name of the law. I should like to say I have served my country in various
capacities, but I am shut out altogether from citizenship. I think special
obloquy has been put upon me in this matter. It was well known that I
should not run away and that I should not take my goods away, but the
authorities sent a man in possession. He remained in the house — a
household of women — at night. I only heard
of this sale, and from a man
who knows that of which he is speaking, I know that this sale is illegal.
I now claim the law — the law that is supposed to be for women as well as
men.’ ”
“[A] most successful protest against taxation without representation was
made by Mrs. Muir, of Broadstairs, whose goods were sold at the Auction
Rooms, 120, High-street, Margate. The protest was conducted by Mrs.
[Emily] Juson Kerr; and Miss Ethel Fennings, of the W.F.L.,
went down to speak. The auctioneer, Mr. Holness, was most courteous, and
not only allowed Mrs. Muir to explain in a few words why she resisted
taxation, but also gave permission to hold meeting in his rooms after the
sale was over.”
“One of the most successful and effective Suffrage demonstrations ever
held in St. Leonards was that arranged jointly by the Women’s Tax
Resistance League and the Hastings and St. Leonards Women’s Suffrage
Propaganda League, on ,
on the occasion of the sale of some family silver which had been seized at
the residence of Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison for non-payment of
Inhabited House Duty. Certainly the most striking feature of this protest
was the fact that members of all societies in Hastings,
St. Leonards, Bexhill and
Winchelsea united in their effort to render the protest representative of
all shades of Suffrage opinion. Flags, banners, pennons and regalia of
many societies were seen in the procession.… The hearty response from the
men to Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes’s call for ‘three cheers for Mrs.
Darent Harrison’ at the close of the proceedings in the auction room, came
as a surprise to the Suffragists themselves.”
“On , the last item on
the catalogue of Messrs. Whiteley’s weekly sale in Westbourne-grove was
household silver seized in distraint for King’s taxes from Miss Gertrude
Eaton, of Kensington. Miss Eaton is a lady very well known in the musical
world and interested in social reforms, and
hon. secretary of the
Prison Reform Committee. Miss Eaton said a few dignified words of protest
in the auction room, and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Saunderson explained to the
large crowd of bidders the reason why tax-paying women, believing as they
do that taxation without representation is tyranny, feel that they cannot,
by remaining inactive, any longer subscribe to it. A procession then
formed up and a protest meeting was held…”
“At the offices of the collector of Government taxes, Westborough, on
a silver cream jug and sugar
basin were sold. These were the property of
Dr. Marion McKenzie, who
had refused payment of taxes to support her claim on behalf of women’s
suffrage. A party of suffragettes marched to the collector’s office, which
proved far too small to accommodate them all. Mr. Parnell said he regretted
personally having the duty to perform. He believed that ultimately the
women would get the vote. They had the municipal vote and he maintained
that women who paid rates and taxes should be allowed to vote. (Applause.)
But that was his own personal view. He would have been delighted not to
have had that process, but he had endeavoured to keep the costs down.
Dr. Marion McKenzie thanked
Mr. Parnell for the courtesy shown them. A protest meeting was afterwards
held on St. Nicholas
Cliff.”
“Mrs. [Anne] Cobden-Sanderson, representing the Women’s Tax Resistance
League, was, by courtesy of the auctioneer, allowed to explain the reason
of the protest. Judging by the applause with which her remarks were
received, most of those present were in sympathy.”
“The auctioneer was entirely in sympathy with the protest, and explained
the circumstances under which the sale took place. He courteously allowed
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr to put clearly
the women’s point of view; Miss Raleigh made a warm appeal for true
freedom. A procession was formed and an open-air meeting subsequently
held.”
“The auctioneer, who is in sympathy with the suffragists, refused to take
commission.”
“[A] crowd of Suffragists of all shades of opinion assembled at Hawking’s
Sale Rooms, Lisson-grove, Marylebone, to support Dr. Frances Ede and Dr.
Amy Sheppard, whose goods were to be sold by public auction for tax
resistance. By the courtesy of the auctioneer, Mr. Hawking, speeches were
allowed, and Dr. Ede
emphasized her conscientious objection to supporting taxation without
representation; she said that women like herself and her partner felt that
they must make this logical and dignified protest, but as it caused very
considerable inconvenience and sacrifice to professional women, she
trusted that the grave injustice would speedily be remedied. Three cheers
were given for the doctors, and a procession with banners marched to
Marble Arch, where a brief meeting was held in Hyde Park, at which the
usual resolution was passed unanimously.”
“An interesting sequel to the seizure of Mrs. Tollemache’s goods last
week, and the ejection of the bailiff from her residence, Batheaston
Villa, Bath, was the sale held , at the White Hart Hotel. To cover a tax of only £15 and
costs, goods were seized to the value of about £80, and it was at once
decided by the Women’s Tax Resistance League and Mrs. Tollemache’s friends
that such conduct on the part of the authorities must be circumvented and
exposed. The goods were on view the morning of the sale, and as there was
much valuable old china, silver, and furniture, the dealers were early on
the spot, and buzzing like flies around the articles they greatly desired
to possess. The first two pieces put up were, fortunately, quite
inviting; £19 being bid for a chest of drawers worth about
50s. and £3 for an
ordinary leather-top table, the requisite amount was realised, and the
auctioneer was obliged to withdraw the remaining lots much to the disgust
of the assembled dealers. Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, in her speech at
the protest meeting, which followed the sale, explained to these irate
gentlemen that women never took such steps unless compelled to do so, and
that if the tax collector had seized a legitimate amount of goods to
satisfy his claim, Mrs. Tollemache would willingly have allowed them to
go.”
“Under the auspices of the Tax Resistance League and the Women’s Freedom
League a protest meeting was held at Great Marlow on
, on the occasion of the sale
of plate and jewellery belonging to Mrs. [Mary] Sargent Florence, the
well-known artist, and to Miss Hayes, daughter of Admiral Hayes. Their
property had been seized for the non-payment of Imperial taxes, and
through the courtesy of the tax-collector every facility was afforded to
the protesters to explain their action.”
“At the sale of a silver salver belonging to
Dr. Winifred Patch, of
Highbury, Steen’s Auction Rooms, Drayton Park, were crowded on
by members of the Women’s Freedom
League, the Women’s Tax Resistance League, and other Suffrage societies.
The auctioneer refused to allow the usual five minutes for explanation
before the sale, but Miss Alison Neilans, of the Women’s Freedom League,
was well supported and cheered when she insisted on making clear the
reasons why Dr. Patch for
several years has refused to pay taxes while deprived of a vote. A
procession was then formed, and marched to Highbury Corner, where a large
open-air meeting was presided over by Mrs. [Marianne] Clarendon Hyde, of
the Women’s Freedom League, and addressed by Mrs. Merrivale Mayer.”
“Practically every day sees a sale and protest somewhere, and the banners
of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, frequently supported by Suffrage
Societies, are becoming familiar in town and country. At the protest
meetings which follow all sales the reason why is explained to large
numbers of people who would not attend a suffrage meeting. Auctioneers are
becoming sympathetic even so far as to speak in support of the women’s
protest against a law which demands their money, but gives them no voice
in the way in which it is spent.”
“The sale was conducted, laughably enough, under the auspices of the
Women’s Freedom League and the Women’s Tax Resistance League; for, on
obtaining entrance to the hall, Miss Anderson and Mrs. Fisher bedecked it
with all the insignia of suffrage protest. The rostrum was spread with our
flag proclaiming the inauguration of Tax Resistance by the W.F.L.;
above the auctioneer’s head hung Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard’s embroidered
silk banner, with its challenge “Dare to be Free”; on every side the
green, white and gold of the
W.F.L.
was accompanied by the brown and black of the Women’s Tax Resistance
League, with its cheery ‘No Vote, no Tax’ injunctions and its John Hampden
maxims; while in the front rows, besides Miss Anderson, the heroine of the
day, Mrs. Snow and Mrs. Fisher, were seen the inspiring figures of our
President and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, vice-president of the
W.T.R.L.”
“…all Women’s Freedom League members who know anything of the way in which
the sister society organises these matters should attend the sale in the
certainty of enjoying a really telling demonstration…”
“From early in the day Mrs. Huntsman and a noble band of sandwich-women
had paraded the town announcing the sale and distributing leaflets. In the
afternoon a contingent of the Tax Resistance League arrived with the John
Hampden banner and the brown and black pennons and flags. These marched
through the town and market square before entering the hall in which the
sale and meeting were to be held, and which was decorated with the flags
and colours of the Women’s Freedom League. Mr. Croome, the King’s officer,
conducted the sale in person, the goods sold being a quantity of table
silver, a silver toilette set, and one or two other articles. The prices
fetched were trifling, Mrs. Harvey desiring that no one should buy the
goods in for her.”
“Miss Andrews asked the auctioneer if she might explain the reason for the
sale of the waggon, and, having received the necessary permission was able
to give an address on tax resistance, and to show how it is one of the
weapons employed by the Freedom League to secure the enfranchisement of
women. Then came the sale — but beforehand the auctioneer said he had not
been aware he was to sell ‘distressed’ goods, and he very much objected to
doing so.… The meeting and the auctioneer together made the assembly chary
of bidding, and the waggon was not sold, which was a great triumph for the
tax-resisters.… Miss Trott and Miss Bobby helped to advertise the meeting
by carrying placards round the crowded market.”
“There was a crowded audience, and the auctioneer opened the proceedings
by declaring himself a convinced Suffragist, which attitude of mind he
attributed largely to a constant contact with women householders in his
capacity as tax collector. After the sale a public meeting was held… At
the close of the meeting many questions were asked, new members joined the
League…”
The authorities tried to auction off Kate Harvey’s goods on-site, at her
home, rather than in a public hall, so that they might avoid
demonstrations of that sort. “On
morning a band of Suffragist
men carried placards through the streets of Bromley, on which was the
device, ‘I personally protest against the sale of a woman’s goods to pay
taxes over which she has no control,’ and long before
, the time fixed for the
sale, from North, South, East and West, people came streaming into the
little town of Bromley, and made their way towards ‘Brackenhill.’
Punctually at the
tax-collector and his deputy mounted the table in the dining-room, and the
former, more in sorrow than in anger, began to explain to the crowd
assembled that this was a genuine sale! Mrs. Harvey at once protested
against the sale taking place. Simply and solely because she was a woman,
although she was a mother, a business woman, and a tax-payer, she had no
voice in saying how the taxes collected from her should be spent. The tax
collector suffered this speech in silence, but he could judge by the
cheers it received that there were many ardent sympathisers with Mrs.
Harvey in her protest. He tried to proceed, but one after another the men
present loudly urged that no one there should bid for the goods. The
tax-collector feebly said this wasn’t a political meeting, but a genuine
sale! ‘One penny for your goods then!’ was the derisive answer. ‘One
penny — one penny!’ was the continued cry from both inside and outside
‘Brackenhill.’ Then men protested that the tax-collector was not a genuine
auctioneer; he had no hammer, no list of goods to be sold was hung up in
the room. There was no catalogue, nothing to show bidders what was to be
sold and what wasn’t. The men also objected to the presence of the
tax-collector’s deputy. ‘Tell him to get down!’ they shouted. ‘The sale
shan’t proceed till he does,’ they yelled. ‘Get down! Get down:’ they
sang. But the tax-collector felt safer by the support of this deputy.
‘He’s afraid of his own clerk,’ they jeered. Again the tax-collector asked
for bids. ‘One penny! One penny!’ was the deafening response. The din
increased every moment and pandemonium reigned supreme. During a temporary
lull the tax-collector said a sideboard had been sold for nine guineas.
Angry cries from angry men greeted this announcement. ‘Illegal sale!’ ‘He
shan’t take it home!’ ‘The whole thing’s illegal!’ ‘You shan’t sell
anything else!’ and The Daily Herald Leaguers,
members of the Men’s Political Union, and of other men’s societies,
proceeded to make more noise than twenty brass bands. Darkness was quickly
settling in; the tax-collector looked helpless, and his deputy smiled
wearily. ‘Talk about a comic opera — it’s better than Gilbert and Sullivan
could manage,’ roared an enthusiast. ‘My word, you look sick, guv’nor!
Give it up, man!’ Then everyone shouted against the other until the
tax-collector said he closed the sale, remarking plaintively that he had
lost £7 over the job! Ironical cheers greeted this news, with ‘Serve you
right for stealing a woman’s goods!’ He turned his back on his tormentors,
and sat down in a chair on the table to think things over. The protesters
sat on the sideboard informing all and sundry that if anyone wanted to
take away the sideboard he should take them with it! With the exit of the
tax-collector, his deputy and the bailiff, things gradually grew quieter,
and later on Mrs. Harvey entertained her supporters to tea at the Bell
Hotel. But the curious thing is, a man paid nine guineas for the sideboard
to the tax-collector. Mrs. Harvey owed him more than £17, and Mrs. Harvey
is still in possession of the sideboard!”
“The assistant auctioneer, to whom it fell to conduct the sale, was most
unfriendly, and refused to allow any speaking during the sale; but Miss
Boyle was able to shout through a window at his back, just over his
shoulder, an announcement that the goods were seized because Miss Cummins
refused to submit to taxation without representation, after which quite a
number of people who were attending the sale came out to listen to the
speeches.”
“The auctioneer was very sympathetic, and allowed Miss [Anna] Munro to
make a short speech before the waggon was sold. He then spoke a few
friendly words for the Woman’s Movement. After the sale a meeting was
held, and Mrs. Tippett and Miss Munro were listened to with evident
interest by a large number of men. The Vote and
other Suffrage literature was sold.”
“A joint demonstration of the Tax Resisters’ League and militant
suffragettes, held here [Hastings]
as a protest against the sale of
the belongings of those who refused to pay taxes, was broken up by a mob.
The women were roughly handled and half smothered with soot. Their banners
were smashed. The police finally succeeded in getting the women into a
blacksmith’s shop, where they held the mob at bay until the arrival of
reinforcements. The women were then escorted to a railway station.”
“The auction sale of the Duchess of Bedford’s silver cup proved, perhaps,
the best advertisement the Women’s Tax Resistance League ever had. It was
made the occasion for widespread propaganda. The newspapers gave columns
of space to the event, while at the big mass meeting, held outside the
auction room…”
“When a member is to be sold up a number of her comrades accompany her to
the auction-room. The auctioneer is usually friendly and stays the
proceedings until some one of the league has mounted the table and
explained to the crowd what it all means. Here are the banners, and the
room full of women carrying them, and it does not take long to impress
upon the mind of the people who have come to attend the sale that here is
a body of women willing to sacrifice their property for the principle for
which John Hampden went to prison — that taxation without representation
is tyranny. … The women remain at these auctions until the property of the
offender is disposed of. The kindly auctioneer puts the property seized
from the suffragists early on his list, or lets them know when it will be
called.”
American war tax resisters
There have been a few celebrated auction sales in the American war tax resistance movement.
Some of them have been met with protests or used as occasions for outreach and propaganda, but others have been more actively interfered with.
When Ernest and Marion Bromley’s home was seized, for example, there were
“months of continuous picketing and leafletting” before the sale. Then:
The day began with a silent vigil initiated by the local Quaker group.
While the bids were being read inside the building, guerrilla theatre took place out on the sidewalk.
At one point the Federal building was auctioned (offers ranging from 25¢ to 2 bottle caps).
Several supporters present at the proceedings inside made brief statements about the unjust nature of the whole ordeal.
Waldo the Clown was also there, face painted sadly, opening envelopes along with the IRS person.
As the official read the bids and the names of the bidders, Waldo searched his envelopes and revealed their contents: a flower, a unicorn, some toilet paper, which he handed to different office people.
Marion Bromley also spoke as the bids were opened, reiterating that the seizure was based on fraudulent assumptions, and that therefore the property could not be rightfully sold.
The protests, odd as they were, eventually paid off, as the IRS had in the interim been caught improperly pursuing political dissidents, and as a result it decided to reverse the sale of the Bromley home and give up on that particular fight.
When Paul and Addie Snyder’s home was auctioned off for back taxes, it was
reported that “many bids of $1 or less were made.”
Making a bid of pennies for farm property being foreclosed for failure to meet mortgages was a common tactic among angry farmers during the Depression.
If their bids succeeded, the property was returned to its owner and the mortgage torn up.
In some such cases, entire farms plus their livestock, equipment and home furnishings sold for as little as $2.
When George Willoughby’s car was seized and sold by the IRS,
Friends, brandishing balloons, party horns, cookies and lemonade, invaded the IRS office in Chester and bought the car back for $900.
The Rebecca rioters
On a couple of occasions the Rebeccaites prevented auctions, though not of goods seized for tax debts but for ordinary debts.
Here are two examples from Henry Tobit Evans’s book on the Rebecca phenomenon:
A distress for rent was levied on the goods of a man named Lloyd… and a bailiff of the name of Rees kept possession of the goods.
Previous to the day of sale, Rebecca and a great number of her daughters paid him a visit, horsewhipped him well, and kept him in safe custody until the furniture was entirely cleared from the house.
When Rees was freed, he found nothing but an empty house, Rebecca and her followers having departed.
Two bailiffs were there in possession of the goods and chattels under execution… Having entered the house by bursting open the door, Rebecca ran upstairs, followed by some of her daughters.
She ordered the bailiffs, who were in bed at the time, to be up and going in five minutes, or to prepare for a good drubbing.
The bailiffs promptly obeyed, but were driven forth by a bodyguard of the rioters, who escorted them some distance, pushing and driving the poor men in front of them.
At last they were allowed to depart to their homes on a sincere promise of not returning.
Reform Act agitation
During the tax resistance that accompanied the drive to pass the Reform Act in the in the United Kingdom, hundreds of people signed pledges in which they declared that “they will not purchase the goods of their townsmen not represented in Parliament which may be seized for the non-payment of taxes, imposed by any House of Commons as at present constituted.”
The True Sun asserted that
The tax-gatherer… might seize for them, but the brokers assured the inhabitants that they would neither seize any goods for such taxes, nor would they purchase goods so seized.
Yesterday afternoon, Mr Philips, a broker, in the Broadway, Westminster, exhibited the following placard at the door of his shop:— “Take notice, that the proprietor of this shop will not distrain for the house and window duties, nor will he purchase any goods that are seized for the said taxes; neither will any of those oppressive taxes be paid for this house in future.” A similar notice was also exhibited at a broker’s shop in York Street, Westminster.
Another newspaper account said:
A sale by auction of goods taken in distress for assessed taxes was announced to take place at Ashton Tavern on , at Birmingham.
From forty to fifty persons attended, including some brokers, but no one could be found except the poor woman from whose husband the goods had been seized, and the auctioneer himself.
A man came when the sale was nearly over, who was perfectly ignorant of the circumstances under which it took place, and bid for one of the last lots; he soon received an intimation, however, from the company that he had better desist, which be accordingly did.
After the sale was over nearly the whole of the persons present surrounded this man, and lectured him severely upon his conduct, and it was only by his solemnly declaring to them that he had bid in perfect ignorance of the nature of the sale that he was suffered to escape without some more substantial proof of their displeasure.
Railroad bond shenanigans
There was an epidemic of fraud in the United States in in which citizens of local jurisdictions were convinced to vote to sell bonds to pay for the Railroad to come to town.
The railroad never arrived, but the citizens then were on the hook to tax themselves to pay off the bonds.
Many said “hell no,” but by then the bonds had been sold to people who were not necessarily involved in the original swindle but had just bought them as investments.
In the course of the tax resistance campaigns associated with these railroad
bond boondoggles, auction disruption was resorted to on some occasions. Here
are some examples:
St. Clair [Missouri]’s taxpayers joined the movement in to repudiate the debts, but the county’s new leaders wanted to repay the investors.
Afraid to try taxing the residents, they decided to raise the interest by staging a huge livestock auction in , the proceeds to pay off the railroad bond interest.
On auction day, however, “no one seemed to want to buy” any animals.
To bondholders the “great shock” of the auction’s failure proved the depth of local resistance to railroad taxes.
Another attempt was made the other day to sell farm property in the town of Greenwood, Steuben county [New York], on account of a tax levied for the town bonding in aid of railroads, and another failure has followed.
The scene was upon the farm of William Atkins, where 200 of the solid yeomanry of the town had assembled to resist the sale… A Mr. Updyke, with broader hint, made these remarks: “I want to tell you folks that Mr. Atkins has paid all of his tax except this railroad tax; and we consider any man who will buy our property to help John Davis and Sam Alley as contemptible sharks.
We shall remember him for years, and will know where he lives.” The tax collector finally rose and remarked that in view of the situation he would not attempt to proceed with the sale.
The White League in Louisiana
In Reconstruction-era Louisiana, white supremacist tax resisters disrupted a tax auction.
There was a mob of fifty or sixty armed men came to prevent the deputy tax-collector effecting a sale, armed with revolvers nearly all.
Mr. Fournet came and threatened the deputy and tax-collector.
The deputy and tax-collector ran into their offices.
I came down and called upon the citizens to clear the court-house, but could not succeed.
I then called upon the military, but they had no orders at that time to give me assistance to carry out the law.
Mr. [Valsin A.?] Fournet came with eight or ten.
When the deputy tax-collector attempted to make a sale Mr. Fournet raised his hand and struck him.
The deputy then shoved him down.
As soon as this was done forty, fifty, or sixty men came with their revolvers in hand.
…very few people attended tax-sales [typically], because the white people were organized to prevent tax-collection, and pledged themselves not to buy any property at tax-sales, and the property was generally bought by the State.
Miscellaneous
The First Boer War broke out in the aftermath of the successfully resisted
auction of a tax resister’s waggon. Paul Kruger wrote of the incident:
The first sign of the approaching storm was the incident that happened at the forced sale of Field Cornet Bezuidenhout’s waggon, on which a distress had been levied.
The British Government had begun to collect taxes and to take proceedings against those who refused to pay them.
Among these was Piet Bezuidenhout, who lived in the Potchefstroom District.
This refusal to pay taxes was one of the methods of passive resistance which were now employed towards the British Government.
Hitherto, many of the burghers had paid their taxes, declaring that they were only yielding to force.
But, when this was explained by the English politicians as though the population were contented and peacefully paying their taxes, some asked for a receipt showing that they were only paying under protest and others refused to pay at all.
The Government then levied a distress on Bezuidenhout’s waggon and sent it to public action at Potchefstroom.
Piet Cronjé, who became so well known in the last war, appeared at the auction with a number of armed Boers, who flung the bailiff from the waggon and drew the waggon itself back in triumph to Bezuidenhout’s farm.
When the U.S.
government seized Valentine Byler’s horse because of the Amish man’s
conscientious objection to paying into the social security system, no
other Amish would bid at the auction.
Between the Wars in Germany, the government had a hard time conducting
auctions of the goods of tax resisters. Ernst von Salomon writes:
Everywhere bailiff’s orders were being disobeyed.… Compulsory sales could not be held: when the young peasants of the riding club appeared at the scene of the auction on their horses and with music, nobody seemed willing to make a bid.
The carters refused, even with police protection, to carry off the distrained cattle, for they knew that if they did they would never again be able to do business with the peasants.
One day three peasants even appeared in the slaughter yards at Hamburg and announced that unless the distrained cattle disappeared at once from the yard’s stalls the gentlemen in charge of the slaughterhouse could find somewhere else to buy their beasts in the future — they wouldn’t be getting any more from Schleswig-Holstein.
Environmental activist Tim DeChristopher disrupted a Bureau of Land
Management auction by making winning bids on everything that he
had no intention of honoring.
During the Poujadist disruptions in France, “They also took to spiking
forced tax sales by refusing to bid until the auctioneer had lowered the
price of whatever was up for sale to a laughably small figure. Thus a tax
delinquent might buy back his own shop for, say 10 cents. At an auction
the other day, a brand-new car went for one franc, or less than one-third
of a cent.”
in roughly the same region
of France:
It was in the south where the wine growers refuse to pay taxes to the government.
A farmer had had half a dozen rabbits sent him by a friend; he refused to pay duty on them, whereupon they control or local customs tried to sell the six “original” rabbits and their offspring at auction.
The inhabitants have now boycotted the auction sales so that the local officials must feed the rabbits till the case is settled by the courts.
In York, Pennsylvania in , a group
“surrounded the crier and forbid any person purchasing when the property
which had been seized was offered for sale. A cow which had been in the
hands of the collector was driven away by the rioters.”
In the Dutch West Indies in “The
household effects of a physician who refused to pay the tax were offered
for sale at auction today by the Government. Although the building in
which the sale was held was crowded, there were no bids and the articles
were not sold.”
In Tasmania, in , “Large quantities of
goods were seized, and lodged in the Commissariat Store [but] Lawless mobs
paraded the streets, tore down fences, and, arming themselves with rails
and batons, smashed windows and doors.… The fence round the Commissariat
Store was torn down…”
During the Bardoli tax strike, “There were meetings in talukas contiguous
to Bardoli, not only in British territory, but also in the Baroda
territory, for expression of sympathy with the Satyagrahis and calling
upon people in their respective parts not to cooperate with the
authorities engaged in putting down the Satyagraha… by bidding for any
forfeited property that may be put to auction by the authorities.”
