Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
religious groups and the religious perspective →
British Nonconformists →
Early 20th Century resistance to publicly-funded sectarian schools →
Alick Gray
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
Continuing from where I left off , here are a few more examples of the newspaper coverage of the tax resistance campaign against provisions of the Education Act, a long-term, widespread campaign with mass participation that proved very influential to other tax resistance campaigns that followed.
First, some excerpts from the Western Times:
Passive Resistance.
An Enthusiastic Meeting at Stratton.
A large and enthusiastic meeting to hear an address on this subject by the Rev. S.B. Lane, of Brighton, was held the Lecture Hall, Stratton, .
The audience consisted chiefly of men who came from the district round, Mr. J.P. Baker presided and he was supported on the platform by the Rev. S.B. Lane, Rev. J. Seldon (Kilkhampton), Rev. E. Craddock (Holsworthy), Rev. F. Rabey (Bude), and Mr. Williams (Schoolmaster Kilkhampton).
After a hymn and prayer by the Rev. J. Seldon, the Chairman said they had met to welcome Mr. Lane and to give passive resistance to the wretched Education Act which he said was bad from the crown of its head to the sole of its foot.
It was an unfair Bill, it imposed tests, and the country would not rest until it was wiped out of the land.
He hoped the audience had come with an open mind and he trusted some would be convinced.
He (the Chairman) was prepared to go to prison, if need be, rather than pay the rate.
The Rev. S.B. Lane said they wanted no bitter feelings against anyone, what they wanted was religious equality.
Some of them were passive resisters.
He was glad to see some Churchmen present, he wanted deal with the question fairly.
He (the Speaker) formed one of the deputation to Mr. Balfour when Dr. Fairbairn said to Mr. Balfour that they would not submit.
He would not have agreed to the compromise On questions being invited, an Elector enquired if he refused to pay the rate, whether he should lose his vote.
The Chairman thought there was no fear of losing the vote.
It depended upon the overseer whether he would take part of the rate or not.
Mr. Williams (Wesleyan Schoolmaster, Kilkhampton) said in England and Wales he would debarred from 16,000 schools.
In Cornwall, 162 schools, and within six miles seven schools were closed against him.
Why?
Because went to chapel.
“Is that right?”
he asked, and added.
“I shan’t pay!”
The Rev. E. Craddock moved “That this meeting strongly denounces the Act and earnestly seeks its early repeal, and sympathises with those who refuse pay the sectarian rate on conscientious grounds.”
This was carried with no dissentients.
Hearty votes of thanks were passed to Mr. Lane and the Chairman.
Invitation was given to join the Passive Resistance League, names to be given in to Mr. Williams.
The first reports of reprisals begin to come in: from the Aberdeen Journal:
Objectors to the Education Act
Distress Warrants Granted.
Two Baptist ministers, a coal merchant, and a Dissenting schoolmaster, were summoned at Stroud (Gloucester) Police Court for not paying their rates.
They pleaded that they conscientiously objected to pay the full rate because part was devoted to the maintenance of sectarian schools.
The chairman advised the defendants to pay under protest.
The bench could only carry out the law.
Distress warrants were issued.
An article by the Rev. A. Gray in the Burnley Express included a tribute to John Hampden, and this note about how the campaign was proceeding in Wales:
Wales is leading the van in this great fight against the Education Bill of .
The “rock of offence” in their eyes, as well as in ours, is the teaching of denominationalism at the public expense.
At Cardiff, on , a Welsh National Convention was held, “which was remarkable for the determined spirit manifested thereat.”
As is well known most of the Welsh County Councils have determined to administer the Act in “the spirit and along the lines of the motto, ‘no rate aid without public control.’ ” Mr. Lloyd-George made a great speech at the evening meeting, in which he counselled ratepayers to adopt Passive Resistance in “those areas where the county councils are determined to administer the Act in the interests of denominationalism.”
“In these infected areas where the councils had betrayed the people, let the people withhold the rate from them.”
The Sheffield Daily Telegraph had an anonymous letter opposing the passive resisters that included a comment about Quaker war tax resistance that caught my eye:
Formerly our Quakers rebelled in like manner against war taxation.
They had far better grounds, for war not absolutely defensive is no actual or imaginary injustice; it is confessedly unchristian.
But Quakers are more sensible in these days.
Their opinions are known, and they pay their war tax with that reservation.
That paper also covered additional cases of passive resisters being taken to court.
“Considerable interest was evinced in the cases, as the two defendants were well known, being the Rev. T. Collins, resident Primitive Methodist Minister for the Patrington Circuit, and the other Miss Lilla Talbot, daughter of the late Mr. E. Talbot, Methodist minister.”
Distress warrants were granted against each.
At Alnwick on , George William Thompson and the Revs. John Oman, John Otty, and Ernest Oliver, Nonconformist ministers, were summoned for refusing to pay the Education Rate.
— Mr. Joel, barrister, who prosecuted, said some people sought the martyrdom, which might be the object of those proceedings.
— Mr. Thompson said he had no desire to be a mock martyr, but those proceedings were the only remedy the law allowed him of expressing disapproval of the rate.
— The other defendants objected to pay the portion of the rate devoted to education purposes, on the ground that it inflicted gross injustice on Nonconformists.
— The magistrates made an order on all the defendants to pay the rate demanded.
The News and General Advertiser brought this news:
Berwick Passive Resistance League.
This League met in the Baptist Church on , the Rev. R[obert] Leggat presiding.
The Chairman explained that the meeting had been called for the purpose of taking into consideration what measures should be adopted when the demand notes were issued by the overseers, which would take place within the next few days.
He was given to understand that the overseers had already discussed whether they had to instruct their collector to take the rates less the Education rate, or whether they should insist on having the full pound of flesh.
The discussion, he understood, had been a very animated one, and lasted for over an hour, practically degenerating into a wrangle between Church and Dissent.
It had been ultimately agreed by 4 to 2 to refuse anything except the whole rate.
The Churchwardens had voted solidly for this motion which meant of course that they would put the Nonconformists to as much expense and trouble as possible.
On the other side of the river the demand notes had already been issued, and some persons had paid the full rate in ignorance of the fact that the Education rate was included in the Borough rate.
It would be well that they should understand that this new rate was not specified on the demand note, but was included under the heading of the Borough rate.
Mr George Martin said that as the Council had the appointment of overseers it would be for the community to see at the next election whether churchwardens as such should be appointed overseers.
The Rev. Lamb Harvey said that the Education rate was 4d. in the £ rental, and the rate for sectarian schools would therefore be about 1d. in the £ so they should recommend to members of the League that they should tender payment of all with the exception of the 1d. in the £ rental for sectarian schools.
It was also agreed to issue a further manifesto making plain the position of the League, and the reasons which had led them to adopt this attitude.
The manifesto followed that article.
It lays out their complaints about being forced to pay for sectarian schools and says “we earnestly invite all lovers of religious liberty and even-handed justice to join us in refusing to pay this rate.”
The Hull Daily Mail covered a meeting presided over by parliamentarian Robert W. Perks, in which he slammed the Education Act and had this to say about the passive resistance campaign:
He deprecated the idea that people should always submit to Parliamentary enactments, that a law abound the property and conscience of the people.
That was not English, it was not in accordance with British history.
He believed the Education Rate was an unjust and an immoral tax, and he did not believe it would be defended upon any righteous ground.
When the bailiffs came to his house they would have to worm it from him by distraining upon his goods (applause).
The Burnley Express and Advertiser of covered a meeting of the Burnley and District Passive Resistance League which was attended by about 400 people.
The meeting entertained the following resolution:
That this meeting protests against the so-called Education Act, , because it is unconstitutional in character, and seriously violates the principles of religious liberty, and hereby pledges itself to make every effort for its early repeal, and meanwhile gladly recognises the patriotic action of those who are prepared to resist the payment of that portion of the rate which may be levied for dogmatic teaching in rate-aided schools.
A G.W. King moved the resolution and added: “There was one weapon left with which they could deal out some heavy blows against the Act, and that was the weapon of passive resistance.”
The Rev. T. Seaton Davies seconded the resolution.
He spoke of what he called the marvellous growth of the passive resistance movement, and said the passive resisters were becoming a force which would have to be reckoned with.
On the whole he thought they had gained rather than lost in popularity by the sneers of their enemies and the criticisms of their friends.
“Alderman White, M.P.” spoke next, and in part, “replied to the charge made against the passive resisters that they were revolutionists and anarchists, and remarked that it did not matter whether the education rate was 1d. or £100, he would resist it.”
What he felt as the most serious part of that business was this, that the Protestantism of the nation was very largely at stake in that matter, for none of them knew what the insidious influence of High Church was, how it was burrowing underground in many ways.
Therefore, he said that one means in his judgment of keeping that thing alive was to resist paying the rate, as it was necessary for the maintenance of their Free Church principles, and for their Protestantism, to do so, and many of them felt they could not do less, whatever the consequences were.
They alone could do it.
It was the Free Churches which must do it.
It was not a single combat, but a war.
In entering upon that position they were entering upon a long struggle which could end only in the disestablishment of the Church — (applause) — which was the sole cause of putting the educational clock back.
Being on the right in that matter, they were bound, in the long run, to gain the victory.
(Applause)
Below this was an accompanying article:
“Resistance” at Padiham
On the executive of the Free Church Council met at Mount Zion Baptist school, the Rev. D. Muxworthy presiding, and it was decided to form a Passive Resistance League for the town, and a public meeting will follow, probably next week.
We are informed that a deputation has waited upon the accountant and assistant overseer (Mr. R.T. Whitehead), with reference to the deduction of that portion of the poor rate which is put down for education purposes — 3d. in the £, and the president of the Free Church Council states that the answer was that resisters could pay the rate with this reservation, and that the law would have to recover this separately.
On , the Rev. G.W. Bloomfield, pastor of the Mount Zion Baptist Chapel, preached on passive resistance, and gave the following reasons for refusing to pay the education rate, having already refused… [the usual grievances follow]
An editorial in the Coventry Herald decrying the passive resistance movement, put the danger in these terms:
Not only is resistance to the law being made or contemplated, but, in some cases at least, the particular methods taken to encourage it constitute an additional defiance of the law, amounting to legal conspiracy.
There may be nothing illegal in passive resistance, in itself considered; legal authorities have been cited to that effect.
In such cases the law executes itself; those who refuse their money have to part with their goods; they pay in the end.
A peaceful acquiescence in this solution of a legal liability exemplifies the theory of passive resistance.
In a by-gone generation Quakers took this attitude in regard to war taxes; but they did not seek to emphasize their action by public demonstrations, or to make it spread beyond their own borders.
What is called passive resistance to the Education Act is, for the most part, of another character; it is organised, and, practically, missionary.
The author quotes from a letter by James Guinness Rogers that appeared in the London Times, in which that nonconformist minister and disestablishment activist warned that “Passive resistance may be regarded… either as a piece of political strategy, or as an act of supreme loyalty to conscience, and the two cannot be confounded without serious misunderstanding as to the issue at stake.”
The editorial adds this note about the “missionary” strategy of the resistance movement:
We have in Coventry a Passive Resistance League for the city and district.
A week ago, the number of members was stated at 150, and it is believed to be increasing.
There was recently a public meeting in Queen’s Road Chapel, at which a manifesto, setting forth the case against the Act, was approved.
This manifesto, addressed “To the People of Coventry,” is about to be distributed from house to house; eighteen thousand copies have been printed.
Attached are two forms; one is for those who desire to be added to the list of passive resisters; the second is for persons “who unable to decline” to pay the education rate (compounders and others presumably) desire to show their sympathy with those who refuse it and their willingness to contribute to an indemnity fund.
Sympathisers with the manifesto are invited to fill either of the forms, and to send the same to one of twenty-five gentlemen whose names are given; the twenty-five include nine Nonconformist ministers.
This is “passive resistance” up-to-date.
Next, from the Gloucester Citizen:
Passive Resistance.
The Mayor of Wisbech declares that he will suffer distraint of goods rather than pay the education rate.
It is thought that the distrained goods of some “passive resisters” at Matlock Bath will be taken to some distant town and sold.
Mr. Lloyd-George, M.P., speaking at Stratford on , extolled the passive resistance movement, and incidentally expressed the opinion that Mr. Chamberlain had started his new idea of taxing the people’s food for the purpose of withdrawing public attention from the iniquitous Education Act.
On , Prime Minister Balfour released a lengthy letter to the press in which he attacked the arguments against the Education Act and in particular the Passive Resistance campaign against it.
This suggests that the government had begun to become alarmed.
The gauntlet was taken up by the reverend A.S. Hollinshead, who devoted his sermon to “Christ and Cæsar” — insisting that this time Caesar had gone too far and it was the duty of Free Churchmen to refuse.
On a meeting in Cheltenham of “large attendance, including a number of ladies in the gallery” discussed the question: “Shall we resist?”
A report was given in ’s Cheltenham Chronicle.
Balfour’s letter was derided, but also held up as a sign that the movement was making headway in becoming a genuine thorn in the side of the powers that be.
The Rev. Walker Blott, during whose speech a collection was taken on behalf of expenses, explained the basis on which the Cheltenham and District Passive Resistance Union had been formed.
The refusal of the Cheltenham overseers to make a simple concession that they might easily have made showed that they would have no consideration in the battle; but they did not yet know how far persecution would be carried.
They wished to collect funds sufficient to enable them to support the poorest townsmen in the struggle, and also to distribute literature (cheers).
The reverend Hirst Hollowell included the following in his remarks:
Here the speaker referred to the action of several Christian ladies in Suffolk who had boldly entered the precincts of a police-court and stated before the magistrates their reasons for refusing to pay this rate.
… Not only were people refusing to pay this rate all over the country, but were going before the magistrates, and that very day the Government had commenced business on behalf of the Churches of Rome and England.
At Worksworth, in Derbyshire, the auctioneer had commenced to flourish his hammer, for there they were taking the lead in this historical refusal to pay the rate.
Nine o’clock was the time secretly fixed for the first sale by public auction of a passive resister’s goods and chattels; but men heard of it, and drove 14 miles to the nearest telegraph station, messages being dispatched in all directions.
One reached Dr. Clifford, who left London by the newspaper train at 5.15 in order to be present (loud cheers).
Six hundred men faced the auctioneer, and not a public bid was given (loud cheers); but someone privately bought the articles seized and restored them to their owners.
Then a huge crowd surrounded Dr. Clifford, who spoke to them for over an hour in the rain (loud cheers).
He believed they were on the eve of one of the greatest triumphs for liberty England had ever seen: and he trusted that in the preceding battle and sacrifices the harassed and brilliant town of Cheltenham would take a foremost and glorious place (loud cheers).
The meeting continued:
The Chairman then put the resolution– “That this meeting approves of the formation of a Passive Resistance Union for Cheltenham, and resolves to give it hearty support.”
— The meeting rose to support it, and on those against it being also asked to stand up, Mr. Alf.
Mann and Mr. Bradfield proved to be the only dissentients.
The Rev. J. Foster, in moving a vote of thanks to the speakers, expressed the hope that they should have 500 or even 1,000 pledged passive resisters (applause).
… He warned people to ask before paying their rates if anyone had already paid the sectarian proportion for them, and to make a further deduction if necessary.
The Rev. J. Lewitt seconded, saying that he had never paid an ecclesiastical rate in his life, and that by God’s help he never would do so (applause).
The motion was heartily carried, and the meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the chairman.
And that takes us through …
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
The “passive resistance” campaign against the Education Act continued to heat up in .
Here are some excerpts from news reports of from the time.
First, from the Chelmsford Chronicle comes a report of a meeting at the Braintree Baptist Chapel with designs to form a passive resistance coalition.
The following comes from remarks made by “A.C. Wilkin, of Tiptree,” who presided:
There was no weapon left nearly so effective as passive resistance.
[Hear, hear.]
If it were largely adopted it would have the power of law.
Believers in passive resistance would use their influence in the polling booths and on every convenient occasion; but in another way some meant to form citizens’ leagues in order to protect the poor who should resist the rate.
In their cases all goods seized should be bought in for them, and richer people could afford to buy in their own goods.
[Applause.]
Stand by the poor!
[Applause.]
The citizen’s undoubted right could be used without a breach of the constitution.
[Hear, hear.]
Later…
The Rev. A. Curtis, Baptist minister, Braintree, moved a resolution re-affirming detestation of the Act, expressing sympathy with those who passively resisted the rate, and promising assistance to such.
“The resolution was carried without dissent.”
Mr. Henry Gibbs moved that a Citizens’ League be formed, and said that while he had not taken up the position of passive resistance he honoured those who had.
The league would comprise full members, who resisted, and associate members, who did not.
This motion was also carried and “[a] number gave in their names as members of the League.”
An article critical of the passive resistance movement in the Leamington Spa Courier and Warwickshire Standard included this detail:
At Hastings, on , and again at Stroud, on , auction sales were held on goods seized under distraint for the non-payment of the education rate.
The Sussex sale proved abortive; the auctioneer, a Mr. Firdinando, having to leave the town under police protection.
“The blackguardism of Hastings was let loose,” he said when subsequently interviewed by a London press representative.
“We will not answer for your life” was the declaration of the constable, who in the hall forced a way for him through the mob.
At the Gloucestershire sale, the crowd abstained from violence, amused itself by song and banter, and ultimately permitted a prominent Nonconformist townsman to bid for the spoil — ten chairs and a couch.
These the generous sympathiser secured for £3 7s. 6d. the lot, presumably his own price.
He returned the chattels without delay to their respective owners.
At Hastings, as also at Stroud, the “passive resisters” themselves behaved as gentlemen.
To the rowdy element and the comic element in the respective cases is to be ascribed all the demonstration.
It may be taken that neither the rowdies nor the comics cared in the remotest degree for the issue which the “resisters” imagine they have at stake.
The Evening News of Portsmouth carried this news in its issue:
Passive Resistance.
Bournemouth Ladies in Court.
Free Church Ministers of Bournemouth, led by the Rev. J.D. Jones and the local secretary of the Citizens’ League, with a number of people, crowded the Court at Branksome , where two Bournemouth ladies — Misses Townsend — were summoned to show cause why distress warrants should not be issued against them for 3s. 9d., being the balance of the rate for educational purposes.
Defendants refused on religious grounds.
The Magistrates ordered distress warrants, remarking that it was contrary to good citizenship because they thought the law was bad to take it into their own hands.
This was the first case heard in the district, and the ladies were loudly cheered in Court.
The Court was ordered to be cleared, but the police could not carry out the instruction.
A public demonstration was held outside the Court.
A letter by an “E. Hopkins” dated which appeared in the Shields Gazette complained that the overseers had returned his partial rate payment with a statement saying that they could not accept anything but a full payment.
Hopkins clarified his[?] grounds for refusal and gave the justification for the amount he intended to refuse, along with the usual arguments against the Education Act.
He concluded “I understand a number of ratepayers have tendered part payment and have met with a similar refusal.”
An anti-passive-resistance editorial in the Kent & Sussex Courier added a bit more about the supposed goings on at the auction in Hastings:
Even those whose passivity assumes a paradoxically aggressive form will, we are sure, recognise that no good purpose can be served by a display of physical force against an auctioneer, or by meeting a legal process by the illegal method of smothering in flour a Sheriff’s Officer, as the passive resisters of Hastings did.
The Derbyshire Times of reported:
The Nonconformist View.
The Rev Ambrose Pope at the service at the Bakewell Congregational Church announced his intention to decline payment of that portion of the rate recently levied that would be required for educational purposes and he invited those sympathising with this attitude to meet in the schoolroom on for the purpose of formulating a plan of campaign.
Rather go to Gaol than have his Goods Sold.
At this meeting there was an attendance of about 30. The Rev A. Pope, as chairman of the Bakewell and District Free Church Council (under whose auspices the meeting was called) explained the purpose of the meeting, and thought that considering the shortness of the notice given — time did not permit of longer — the attendance was very satisfactory.
The meeting was not for the purpose of discussing the Act or even for the consideration of whether or not a Passive Resistance League should be formed.
The Free Church Council at its meeting on were unanimously of opinion that such a league should be formed, and that meeting was called to enlist sympathisers, and to form the machinery of the league.
That sympathy might take two forms. A few might feel that they could not conscientiously pay the Education rate, and there would be others who had not yet reached that stage, who would want to know a little more about the question but were prepared to sympathise with the movement.…
Mr Joshua Barrett was elected to the chair and said he had long since determined that he must resist payment of the rate under the new Education Act.
He said he would rather go to gaol than have his goods sold.
“Same here,” was the cry from several others.
The league was then formed… The names of members were then taken in two divisions: (1) those determined to “passively resist” payment of rates; and (2) those “sympathising” with the movement.
The same issue carried a few articles about Citizens’ Leagues in other regions and about actions taken against, or expected against, passive resisters elsewhere.
A letter in the Bristol Western Daily Press from F.W. Bryan, “Co-Secretary of ‘Bristol Citizens’ League’,” complained that some of the leaders of the passive resistance movement had had their rates paid for them by some anonymous “benefactor” in a way that was decidedly not cricket:
The announcement in your columns this morning that some person has paid the Rev H. Arnold Thomas’s rate calls for vigorous protest on the part of all right-minded people.
However others may differ from us in our principle of passive resistance, we at least are open in our dealings, giving the greatest publicity to our names and motives; and this anonymous, mole-like method of fighting us, as already practised on Mr Thomas, Mr Hiley, and others, is most unsportsmanlike and un-English.
The man who will do it is no gentleman, and most certainly reveals a lack of any fine sense of honour.
I believe men on both sides of this controversy most strongly condemn this unworthy method of tampering with the sacred convictions of others.
Mr Thomas calls him “friend” in his usual courteous and kindly way, but the man who would practise this lie upon the Rates Office, and by stabbing me in the dark tend to injure my reputation in the eyes of the public by making them believe I am a hypocrite, can be no friend, however kindly I may feel towards him.
There appears to be no legal redress; it is simply a position in which one must trust to the honesty and honour of our fellow citizens; and the man who imperils that sense of trust is a menace to the highest life of the city.
It is unlikely that this “friend” (?) will have compassion on the rank and file of the hundreds of “Resisters.”
I presume he aims at weakening our cause by removing our prominent leaders from the fighting line.
Poor misguided man; he evidently thinks the spirit of resisters is as weak as his own.
Does he dream that in this matter of conscience the absence of the active co-operation of these esteemed leaders would have a damaging effect?
We still retain their sympathy, influence, and support, and two or three out of the hundreds who will be proceeded against can make little difference.
Neither does it delay the issue in the slightest.
These gentlemen will still refuse to pay, and next time will refuse in such a way as to prevent any recurrence of such measures.
The attack upon good and true citizens like the Rev Arnold Thomas will tend to embolden many of the rank-and-file who may have been wavering.
The Gloucester Citizen carried this news:
Passive Resistance.
Magistrate and Minister.
At Wirksworth Police-court the Rev. Macdonald Aspland, secretary to the first contesting Passive Resistance League, was summoned with another Nonconformist minister and others for failing to pay poor-rate tax.
Aspland’s defence was that he had not refused as stated in the summons.
The Court held that neglect to pay was refusal.
In the case of the Rev. B. Noble, one of the magistrates said: “You must understand if every fool in the place were to refuse to pay there would be no rates or taxes to collect.”
The defendant answered: “I have no reply to make to language of that kind.”
Distress warrants were issued.
Mr. T.B. Silcock, the Liberal candidate for the Wells Division, is among the latest additions to the ranks of the passive resisters.
Summonses against 45 passive resisters, including several well-known people, were applied for at Weston-super-Mare Police-court on by the overseer.
The North Devon Journal reported on the launch of the passive resistance campaign in Barnstaple, under the auspices of the newly-formed Barnstaple Citizens’ League, in its edition.
It described the meeting as “largely-attended” and said “it was a highly successful gathering, the addresses being listened to with deep interest and appreciation, and not a dissentient note being struck throughout the meeting.”
Among the things reported at the meeting was that someone had investigated what percentage of the rate would be going to offensive expenses in their area (1½ pence in the pound) and that the recommended method of resistance would therefore be to refuse to pay that percentage of their rates.
Much of what is reported of the speeches given is a recitation of complaints about the Education Act, the sinister motives behind it, and the control of the local education authorities by Church of England adherents with a few lurking Roman Catholics in the background.
The Rev. J. Hirst Hollowell, representing the National Passive Resistance Committee, gave a nice shout-out to the Concord civil disobedience set: “Ralph Waldo Emerson had said that the progress of the world had been greatly promoted by the refusal of good men to obey bad laws; let them write that on their banner of passive resistance.
(Applause.)”
The Northampton Mercury brought us up-to-date in its issue:
Passive Resistance.
William Ramsill and Samuel Newbold, of Donisthorpe, were summoned at Ashby-de-la-Zouch on for the nonpayment of poor rates, amounting to £1 2s. 8d. and 12s. 7d. respectively.
The Bench decided to issue an order for the recovery of the rate and for the payment of the costs.
They refused to state a case.
The number of passive resisters to appear before the Bath Bench on has now been increased to 65, which is believed to be the record batch for any borough in the country so far.
Nine of them will be Nonconformist ministers:– Baptist: The Revs. F.J. Benskin, T.R. Dann, A. Sowerby, B. Oriel, and Mr. J.R. Huntley.
Congregational: The Revs. J. Turner Smith and T.B. Howells.
Primitive Methodist Revs. Thomas Storr and T.H. Bryant.
At Brigg, on , goods seized from “passive resisters” were sold by auction by Mr. Grassby.
The effects included a hearthrug, the property of the Rev. J. Spensley, Primitive Methodist; a swing chair, belonging to the Rev. H.J. Parry, Congregationalist; a wicker chair, seized from Miss Blanchard.
Bidding was brisk, and the articles were mostly bought in for the owners.
Though there was considerable excitement no disturbance took place.
A demonstration followed.
At the Bath County Police Court, on , the adjourned summonses were heard for nonpayment of a portion of their rates against three parishioners at Bathford.
An adjournment had been allowed as the result of a point of law raised by Mr. W.F. Long, representing the Bath and District Passive Resistance League, that the rate was invalid because the Somerset County Council had no power to raise money for the administration of the Education Act before that Act was in force in the county.
After hearing the arguments, the Bench made orders for the payment of the rate, and declined to grant a stay of execution or to state a case.
Lively scenes were witnessed at Pocklington on on it becoming known that the goods of nine passive resisters were to be sold, and excitement prevailed.
All the auctioneers in the place refused to sell, and Mr. Sharp, of Market Weighton, was prevailed upon to officiate.
He arrived at the railway station and was met by a large crowd of passive resisters and sympathisers.
Accompanied by the assistant overseer, he made for the solicitor’s office, followed by a hooting crowd.
A rotten egg was thrown, and just missed his hat.
He remained inside the office some time, and the crowd, becoming impatient, erected a tailor’s dummy on a trolley, which created great amusement.
At last Mr. Flint, a prominent resister, announced that the auctioneer had declined to sell, owing to being unable to come to terms. Cheers followed the announcement, and the crowd, which numbered about 500, marched in procession to the marketplace, where an enthusiastic meeting was held, and the Education Act was strongly condemned.
The auction mart in Herne Bay was filled to overflowing on , when the distrained goods of the Rev. J.S. Geale, the Rev. C. Pockney, Mr. J. Watkinson, and Mr. E. Ellwoof, who had refused to pay that part of the poor rate for the maintenance of Sectarian Schools, came under the hammer.
Mr. P.E. Iggulden, an auctioneer of the town, officiated, and by his consent Mr. Beale made a short speech before the sale, in the course of which he denounced the Education Act as retrograde, unconstitutional, and unjust.
Mr. Pockney also vigorously attacked the measure.
As the distrained goods were preceded by more than 200 other lots, the interval of waiting was filled by an enthusiastic meeting in the Baptist Church, almost opposite the mart.
Addresses were delivered by ministers from Whitstable, Margate, and Ramsgate.
Returning to the mart just as the passive resisters’ goods were to be offered, the Rev. C. Pockney moved the following resolution:– “That this assembly protests against the Education Act of , that makes the sale of respected citizens’ goods possible for the payment of an unjust rate, and sympathises with those in the stand they are taking for conscience sake, and hopes that it will result in the speedy amendment of the law.”
This was carried amid tremendous enthusiasm, and the sale then proceeded.
The articles were all bought by a friend of the resisters.
Outside the mart the Doxology was sung, the street being crowded.
Another article on the same page briefly mentions a meeting between “a deputation from the Wellingbborough Citizens’ League” and “the overseers” to try to convince the latter to accept partial payment of the rates from resisters and only pursue them for the part they were refusing, rather than refusing to accept payments not in full.
The Sunderland Daily Echo reported on a passive resistance meeting that had been held alongside the United Methodist Free Churches Assembly .
It “was only moderately attended,” according the account, which the speakers attributed to the weather and to the fact that most of their target audience had already been in meetings all day.
One “Councillor Hardy (Riddings)” said:
He used to be an overseer of the parish in which he lived, but two weeks after the Bill passed he made it known that he could not be a party to levying, collecting, or receiving the rates under this Act.
His Council elected him again, and pointed out that, if he was elected, he must accept the position.
He admitted the law compelled that, but also made it clear that the law could not make him do the duties.
They, therefore, elected his successor, who, it was strange to say, was stronger in his convictions than he (Councillor Hardy) was.
(Laughter.)
The Northampton Mercury of reported:
Passive Resistance.
At the Bath County Police Court on , Mr. T.B. Silcock, an ex-Mayor of Bath, and Liberal candidate for the Wells Division of Somerset, was summoned as a passive resister, and an order of distraint was made.
The first sale in Huntingdonshire in connection with the passive resistance movement took place at Alconbury, six miles from Huntingdon, on .
Mr. R.C. Grey, of Brooklands Farm, had been summoned at Huntingdon Divisional Police Court, and ordered to pay 9s. 7d., but he refused, and a distress warrant was issued.
For a long time, however, the police could not get an auctioneer to act, and eventually the sale was conducted by a gentleman named Bingham, from Peterborough.
There was a large and excited crowd, including many prominent local Free Churchmen, and the proceedings were characterised by considerable feeling.
The auctioneer was met with a perfect storm of booing and shouting, so vehement that nothing else could be heard till all was over, when it was understood a set of harness had been sold to a friend of Mr. Grey for 51s. When the sale was over, the auctioneer, who was accompanied by a number of police officials, retired to a constable’s house.
The crowd remained discussing the event; but threw rotten eggs at him as he eventually rode off on a bicycle.
Cheers were given for Mr. Grey, and groans for Mr. Balfour and the auctioneer.
Remarkable proceedings took place at Bath Police Court on , when 70 passive resisters were summoned.
The defendants included two lady members of the Church of England — the Misses Goldie — Mr. Walter, a supporter of the Government at the last election, chairman of the Bath Chamber of Commerce, and nine Nonconformist ministers — the Revs. F.J. Benskin, A. Sowerby, B. Oriel, T.R. Dann, W. Burton, and Mr. J.R. Huntley, Baptists; the Revs. T.B. Howells and J. Turner Smith, Congregationalists; the Revs. T. Storr and T.H. Bryant, Primitive Methodists.
The Court was crowded with sympathisers, who welcomed the summoned, but after their first attempt to applaud during the proceedings they were sternly rebuked by the magistrates’ clerk.
The demonstration being renewed, an officer was stationed to watch for any one not “keeping order,” but the officer’s vision must have been like Sam Weller’s, for there were no ejections and many applauders.
In fact, towards the end of the lengthy proceedings applause was unrestrained, and as the Court cleared hearty cheers were given for the passive resisters.
— Mr. W.F. Long appeared for all the defendants.
An unexpected point was scored as to the powers of magistrates in hearing applications for distress warrants.
On at Bath another Bench held that the magistrate could not go behind the rate-book if on the face of it the rate was in order.
On the present occasion, however, the Bench expressed the opinion that if it appeared from evidence that the rate was illegal they would have a discretion in enforcing it.
Counsel’s second objection that the rate was illegal, inasmuch as the City Council issued the precept in April before the Education Act had come into force, was overruled, the Bench deciding that the rate was justified under the Municipal Corporation Act, .
A distress warrant was issued against Mr. Pitt, and the other cases were then taken in rotation, orders for payment being made.
Among the protests of the defendants were the following:– Mr. James Hewitt: I gladly render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s, but I cannot render unto Cæsar the things which are God’s. — The Rev. T.H. Bryant: I have a conscientious objection, and that for me is enough.
— The Rev. T.B. Howells: I admit the rate, but will not help to endow the Church of England again.
— Mr. C.H. Hacker: I admit the rate and deem it an honour to fight for religious freedom.
(Much applause.)
— The Rev. B. Oriel, asked if the rate was all right, replied: “No, wrong — wrong to compel us to pay for the proselytising of our own children.
The amount is right, but the principle is wrong.”
— A mild sensation was created when, after the names of the Revs. F.J. Benskin, T.R. Dann, and J. Turner Smith, and Mr. Hodges had been called, the assistant overseer said that the rates in their cases had been paid.
Demands were made to know by whom, but the assistant overseer only replied: “I cannot tell.”
This was met with loud cries of “Shame.”
— At a subsequent protest meeting the Rev. T.R. Dann described the act of the person who had paid his rate as “contemptible cowardice.”
Dr. Clifford writes: “I am asked what those persons should do who have had to suffer the indignity of having the ‘tax on conscience’ which they have refused to pay paid for them by somebody else.
A ‘Catholic Priest’ pays for a Nonconformist minister.
An individual appropriating to himself the title of ‘Charity’ pays for a citizen, and then insults the whole Free Church people of the land by writing a letter which insinuates that they have caused the present strife, and ignores the patent fact that this unjust and immoral policy is the work of the Bishops of the Anglican Church.
For myself, I should meet such tactics as those of the ‘Catholic Priest’ and ‘Charity’ by refusing to acknowledge any such payment as mine, and should accordingly deduct the amount of the rate from my second payment; and again, if necessary, from a third payment; and so on ad infinitum.
Probably the ‘Catholic Priest’ and ‘Charity,’ and others like-minded, would thus be induced to cease from interfering with the rights of citizenship.”
The reverend A. Gray of Briercliffe penned a piece for the Burnley Express of that included these observations on the nonviolence strategy:
There have been up to the present time about 300 summonses issued against those who for conscientious reasons refuse to pay that portion of the education rate which goes to the support of non-provided schools — or rather the religious education in such schools.
In most cases distress warrants have been issued and distraint has taken place.
In some cases goods far exceeding in value the amount of the rate and the costs of distraint have been taken.
The illegality of such excessive distraint is being considered by the legal advisers of the National Passive Resistance Committee.
If the decision be that such excessive distraint is legal, nevertheless right-minded citizens, even though opposed to passive resistance, will undoubtedly condemn it as unjust and dishonest.
Such excessive distraints, together with the harsh and tyrannical treatment Passive Resisters have received at the hands of certain magistrates, may explain, in part, the unseemly behaviour of the crowd at certain sales of distrained goods.
Such scenes as were witnessed at Hastings, Bury St. Edmunds, etc., are deeply to be regretted.
Were, though, the Passive Resisters in those towns responsible for the uproar?
We think not.
The auctioneer at Hastings has borne this testimony:– “The Passive Resisters behaved like gentlemen.”
We have no doubt if impartial eye-witnesses in other towns where disturbances have taken place were asked for their opinion it would be in the same strain.
We are not responsible for the actions of the crowd.
Passive Resisters may be relied upon to carry out to the utmost the principle of the movement.
Our resistance will be passive.
We deprecate any scene whatever at the auction.
As we cheerfully admit the bailiff to our homes to mark and take away our goods, so we in like manner shall abstain from any interference with the auctioneer.
Both perform their respective duties in a purely professional spirit.
Our opportunity to demonstrate may be before or after the sale, but not at the sale, and our demonstration must be characterised by good humour, courtesy, and fairness.
The more calmly we bear our suffering, the more courteously and honourably we fight this battle, the more converts shall we win, the stronger will be our cause, and the sooner will victory be won.
An article in The Derbyshire Times of under the unflattering subhead “Belper Passive Resister’s Stupid Action” concerned a Mr. James Bakewell, whose goods were sold under distraint at auction to cover his income tax and the costs of the sale.
Bakewell bid on and won the goods himself, making this a convoluted way of paying.
Although the article refers to Bakewell as “one of the ‘passive resisters’ of Belper,” it’s not entirely clear whether he was acting along with the Education Act protest, which did not typically involve the income tax.
The overseers in Portsmouth decided they would not take partial payment of the rates, but would insist on all-or-nothing.
This angered the resisters there.
One wrote a letter to the Portsmouth Evening News saying in part
That we resent the treatment goes without saying, and the gentlemen responsible for the harsh decision cannot expect us to go out of our way to make things work over-smoothly after what they have done for us.
… The question of the day for Portsmouth is not… whether “Passive Resisters will be distressed,” but is it to be peace or war.
The Overseers can decide.
Also noted was a “largely-attended” meeting of the Portsmouth Passive Resistance League at which “It was decided to form an indemnity fund for the benefit of members with slender means, and to open the membership to residents in the surrounding district.
On the same page was this article:
Prosecutions and Sales.
The batch of Passive Resisters before the Oxford City Magistrates on included some well-known citizens.
Among them was Dr. Massie, until recently Vice-Principal of Mansfield College.
The amount claimed of Dr. Massie was £9 5s. 4d., and he had tendered £8 19s. 1d..
In a letter to the collector he said he neglected to pay the 6s. 3d. as a protest against the Education Act, .
The Magistrates having consulted, the Mayor said they had come to the conclusion they must make an order for the full payment of £9 5s. 4d. and costs.
At the Longeaton Police Station, on , Mr. Webster, of Wirksworth, auctioneer, held a sale of goods of Passive Resisters.
A force of 50 police were present, but they did not prevent the crowd from jeering at the auctioneer, who sold the goods in a doorway.
After the sale an indignation meeting was held in the Market Place, at which a letter was read from Dr. Clifford, urging the continuance of the fight “till we win.”
Good humour prevailed, and police interference was unnecessary.
At Ashford, on , summonses were issued against two ministers and four other Passive Resisters.
Goods have been seized at Tenterden, but a difficulty is being experienced in finding an auctioneer to sell them.
All of this represents only a portion of what I found being printed at this time on the subject.
I have omitted many examples of people arguing back and forth about the legitimacy of the grievance that led to the passive resistance campaign, in order that I might concentrate on how that campaign was carried out, what challenges it faced, and how it met such challenges.
Henry Joseph Wilson, member of Parliament and tax resister
Nobody knew at the time that the struggle would go on for years.
In the tax resistance campaign against the provisions of the Education Act that allowed for taxpayer funding of sectarian religious education was still ramping up.
It was a campaign that would inspire the later tax resistance struggles of the women’s suffragists and of Mahatma Gandhi, and which would associate the term “passive resistance” with nonviolent civil disobedience and with tax resistance in particular (a phrase that Gandhi chafed at, leading him to coin his own term: satyagraha).
The editions of The Sheffield Daily Telegraph and Evening Telegraph carried a letter from Henry Joseph Wilson, a Liberal Party member of parliament, to the assistant overseer for Sheffield in which he explained his refusal to pay the complete taxes.
Some excerpts:
I beg to enclose cheque for the amount of your demand note, less the sum of £1. I decline to pay that sum, as a protest against the education policy of the Government, and particularly against the Education Act of
I wish to state, briefly, why I make this protest.
He then makes the by now familiar case against the Act’s “encroachments on popular rights, and on freedom of conscience, which, so far from enduring any longer, we are bound to resent, and to oppose to the utmost of our power.”
Under these circumstances, my wife and I, having protested in every way hitherto open to us, have decided that I ought to make the further protest involved in the indignity of a summons, magisterial proceedings, and distraint.
Below this were these articles:
“Passive Resisters” in Sheffield.
The Sheffield magistrates will be busy with “Passive Resisters” in a few days.
Already 47 summonses have been issued at the instance of the Sheffield overseers, and now the overseers for Ecclesall are about to take action against some 67 defaulters.
In both instances the lists contain ministers of religion, and leaders of the “Nonconformist conscience.”
The Sheffield cases will be heard on , and those from Ecclesall township probably .
The amount involved in Sheffield is about £14, out of the £117,000 that the rate will produce.
One of the Ecclesall “resisters” had a singular experience.
He had appealed against his assessment, but while awaiting the result of the appeal, his rate fell due, and he paid it less a small amount, which he withheld because of his so-called “conscientious objection to pay for the maintenance of Church Schools.”
His appeal was successful, and the balance in his favour was greater than the amount he had withheld, so that he has been robbed of all the glory of posing as a “Nonconformist martyr.[”]
The overseers of Nether Hallam have agreed to allow “Passive Resisters” to pay the undisputed portion of their rates.
A “Case” at Chesterfield.
The assistant overseer for the borough of Chesterfield (Mr. George Broomhead) has received a letter from the Rev. J.E. Simon, who is the pastor of the Congregational Chapel, Brampton, which the Mayor (Mr. C.P. Robinson) attends, stating he is unable to pay that part of the rate “which is levied for the support of sectarian schools.
By this rate I am required to pay directly for the teaching of Romanism and doctrines of the Established Church, which I believe to be untrue.
This I, as a Protestant and Nonconformist, refuse to do voluntarily.”
The amount which Mr. Simon was “prepared to pay” has been tendered to the rate collector, but as it was not the amount the last-named was “prepared to receive,” the sum was refused.
Interesting developments are anticipated.
The Rights of Overseers.
Mr. Vicary Gibbs, M.P., has sent the following reply to a constituent in the Albans Division, who asked whether he could obtain from Mr. Walter Long a definite opinion in regard to the rights of overseers in accepting or refusing part payment of local rates in connection with the Passive Resistance campaign:– “Mr. Walter Long writes me that he has looked very carefully into the question, and finds that the overseers are vested by law with the responsibility of deciding whether or not they will accept part.
I think you will agree that nothing would be gained by my asking him a public question.”
The Burnley Gazette of told the tale of another new resister:
Rev. W. Robinson as a
Passive Resister
This week, Rev. W. Robinson, formerly pastor of Hollingreave Congregational Church, Burnley, and now pastor of Market street Congregational Church, Farnworth, was one among others summoned before the magistrates for not paying a portion of the Education rate.
Mr. Martin, assistant overseer, produced the poor rate book for the rate laid .
Mr. Robinson’s rate was £7 19s., of which he had paid £6 16s. 11d., leaving £1 2s. 1d. unpaid.
He had received the following letter from Mr. Robinson:–
, — Dear Sir, — Herewith find my cheque to cover the amount of the demand made by the overseers on the note enclosed, less that part of the amount demanded for the Education Committees’ expenses.
This I shall not voluntarily pay, as it goes to the support of schools not popularly controlled, and to some schools in which teaching is given that has for its end the destruction not only of Free Churchmanship, but the overthrowing of English Protestantism.
— Yours, sincerely, William Robinson.
Mr. Martin, continuing, stated that he had received a precept from the Farnworth Education Committee for £1,650, to be devoted to educational purposes.
The Rev. W. Robinson was sworn in the Scottish fashion [this apparently means that he was sworn in by raising one hand, rather than by kissing the bible which was the default; this may have been for a number of reasons, hygiene among them], and Mr. Hall suggested that as he admitted owing the rate, he should simply be asked if he refused to pay on conscientious grounds.
They had all their own opinions on this matter.
The magistrates had theirs, and he didn’t think it worth while going further — Mr. Robinson said he objected to payment of the rate on conscientious grounds, and had deducted the amount which would be devoted to what he termed sectarian schools.
He would have deducted this money if all demanded had been going to the education of children in Congregational schools.
He was a Congregationalist minister, but objected to pay money towards any denomination whatsoever.
He thought if any man held a religious opinion or a negative opinion on matters of religion it was no affair of the State, and that no man ought to be penalised because he did not believe or because of what he believed. he would have objected to pay this money were it all going to Francis-street Congregational School — Mr. Hall: I suppose you pay income tax?
— Mr. Robinson: I do.
— Mr. Hall: And you know that a proportion goes to the Consolidated Fund, and for educational purposes?
— Mr. Robinson: The matters are entirely different.
My income tax is a mere trifle.
I know I may be charged with inconsistency, but surely you do not suggest that I should object to pay the income tax.
It would lead to much more contention than this.
— Mr. Hall: I suggest that to be consistent, you should.
— Mr. Robinson said that supposing he had two properties, and in order to have the opportunity of expressing his conscientious objection he paid the rate on one and not the other, would that not be equally inconsistent?
— Colonel Ainsworth: It depends upon the law.
— Mr. Robinson: Of course, and we Congregationalists are among the most law-abiding subjects.
When, however, the law encroached on a man’s conscience, he could not pay the money.
— Mr. Hall: With all due respect to you, I think we have heard enough.
— Colonel Ainsworth: We are here to administer the law, and we cannot help it if you think the law is wrong.
It is your business to get the law altered…
Here the article begins to lose legibility.
There is an interesting exchange in which Mr. Hall asks whether the defendants would pay up without going through the process of distraint (the panel evidently having decided against them).
On hearing that they would not, Hall asserts: “I remember the Church Rate days, when the Quakers refused to pay [illegible].
They, however, did not go to the extent of having their goods taken.
If shopkeepers, they would leave [illegible] open, and tell the officers to help themselves to the cash.”
Distraint warrants were issued.
The article notes that “The Court fees… were considerably reduced owing to the cases being taken together…” — evidently Robinson had been joined by some others at some point in the illegible paragraphs — “This will be much less than if they were not acting in concert.”
On the same page as the above article appears a letter from the Rev. J.B. Parry to the Burnley Borough Treasurer explaining why he was under-paying his general rate, giving a subset of the usual arguments.
The Rev. A. Gray, who seems to have become a spokesperson for the movement, penned an article for the Burnley Express and Advertiser:
The Passive Resistance Movement
The Right Hon. W.H. Long, President of the Local Government Board, in an address delivered at Devizes, Wilts, on , “appealed to passive resisters not to defy the law, but to try by constitutional means to obtain a repeal of the Education Act if they considered it to be unjust.”
We are glad to note that at least one member of the Government is sufficiently impressed with the strength of the movement as to “appeal” to the passive resisters on the point at issue.
Whilst we appreciate the spirit of the right hon. gentleman towards us, we cannot acknowledge the ground of his appeal.
We disavow any intention “to defy the law.”
Perhaps the name we bear is responsible somewhat for that misconception of our attitude toward the law.
Just as the term “Nonconformist,” which is purely negative, is being slowly but surely changed for that of “Free Churchman,” which is positive, and more truly expresses our position to-day, so the term “resister,” which is negative, should be changed to obeyer, which is positive.
Whilst we cannot, for conscientious reasons, pay the education rate, that is, the portion of the rate which is to be devoted to denominational schools, but leave the authority to collect it in such a way as it deems good, we thereby do render obedience to the law.
It is “not active obedience,” but it is “obedience.”
It is “passive obedience.”
We intend “to give the State the honour which is due to it, without depriving the conscience of the honour which is due to it.
The State was entitled to assistance only within its own proper sphere, and when the State went beyond its own sphere, it could not rightly claim the assistance of the citizens.”
I’m not sure what Gray is quoting there at the end.
A little further on, he continues:
Because we feel [the Act’s] injustice we have taken this step.
The injustice will be impressed upon the minds of the people as they see the goods of their fellow men distrained and sold to pay this rate.
Further, we can assure Mr. Long, that we shall in addition to passive resistance work earnestly for the repeal of the sectarian clauses, and the general amendment of the Act.
He quotes a Sir Walter Foster, member of parliament for Ilkeston Division, who said in part: “As to passive resisters, he was glad that he had hundreds of them in his own constituency.
If there was one thing that could save the nation, it was the men of strong conscientious conviction…”
He also addresses the dilemma of Free Church schools that qualified for funding under the same objectionable clauses that might fund Catholic or Anglican schools.
Some of these Free Church schools were refusing to accept such funds, but others, like the schools in the Wesleyan Conference, could not resist the temptation.
This raised the spectre of some nonconformists being distrained upon for their refusal to pay education rates that were destined for sectarian schools run by their own sects, which threatened to appear ridiculous.
Gray reprinted the remarks of Robertson Nicoll, who condemned the Wesleyan Conference’s decision.
Nicoll also wrote:
“Public opinion will shortly make it impossible for overseers and magistrates to refuse part payment, and as soon as the slow processes of the law permit, we shall know how far the authorities are entitled to make excessive distraints.
We believe it will be found that they are not entitled, and that they can be punished for going beyond their commission.
If so, steps will be taken to call every transgressor to account.”
Gray continued:
Whilst we are waiting the decision of the legal authorities consulted by the National Passive Resistance Committee on the question of excessive distraint, attention may be called to the fact that at Sheffield the following declaration by a K.C. was quoted:– “It is beyond question illegal to make an excessive distraint.
The bailiffs have no right to remove more goods than are estimated in reason to meet the account of the rate and the cost of distraint.
If the people who are taking part in the passive resistance movement feel that the bailiffs have been unreasonable, they can claim damages in court, and it is for the jury to decide.
A vindictive distraint is also illegal.
A distraint has been held to be vindictive where valuable goods have been removed against the wishes of the occupier, who has tendered other goods.
A bailiff is not necessarily to take what is offered him, but if he take things that he is requested to leave, he may be convicted of vindictive distraint, and the owner may be awarded damages.”
The Shields Daily Gazette reported in their edition:
The Policy of Passive Resistance
In not a few Tyneside towns, including South Shields, the past few days have witnessed the painful spectacle of the invasion of the homes of respectable law-abiding citizens by police and bailiffs, and the carrying off of household treasures to be stored in common sale rooms and sold “for non-payment of the rates.”
In most places the overseers have taken what we cannot but think the very high-handed course of refusing to accept part of the rate when tendered, and of levying execution for the whole amount.
This may be law — although the question is not yet definitely settled, pending the appeal from West Ham to the High Court — but it is certainly not equity.
Moreover, it is contrary to what appears to be the general usage of the overseers, whose collectors frequently accept part payment of the rate.
Indeed, every demand note issued bears the significant line at the top “arrears of former rates” and arrears could hardly exist unless the collectors were in the habit of accepting part of the rate when tendered.
…it seems nothing short of monstrous that warrants should be issued and costs imposed for the full amount of the rate, when in reality the defendants have only declined to pay a very small proportion thereof.… The local authorities who are apparently bent upon making matters as unpleasant as possible for the Passive Resisters are unquestionably arousing deep and wide-spread sympathy for those sturdy protestants, even amongst those who do not see eye to eye with them in the course they have taken.
The following article comes from the Kent & Sussex Courier:
Passive Resistance at Tunbridge Wells.
Auction Sale Under Distraint Warrants.
.
Scene in the Police Yard.
“Boohing” the Auctioneer.
Prayer Meeting Precedes Sale.
the sale by auction of the goods and chattels of the four defendants who were recently summoned for non-payment of the Education Rate took place in the police yard, adjoining the Town Hall, in the presence of some hundreds of sympathisers and other spectators.
The local Passive Resistance Committee had organised a demonstration for the occasion of the sale, on the morning of which the Town Crier was sent round to remind the public of the fact contained in the auctioneer’s announcement placarded about the town, as follows:–
In the County of Kent.
Borough of Tunbridge Wells.
Sale by Public Auction, under distress warrants, in the yard adjoining the Police Station, Calverley-street, Tunbridge Wells, on .
MR. W. LAING, Auctioneer, will OFFER for SALE, at the time and place above-mentioned, by PUBLIC AUCTION, the undermentioned goods, which have been seized under warrants of distress, issued by the Court of Summary Jurisdiction acting in and for the Borough of Tunbridge Wells:–
Lot 1.—Silver Cake Basket and Silver Salver.
Lot 2.—Thirteen Silver Spoons.
Lot 3.—Five Mahogany Chairs.
Lot 4.—Copper Coal Scuttle and Scoop, and Silver Fish Servers, in case.
Each Lot to be paid for and cleared immediately after the Sale.
Chas. Prior, Chief Constable.
.
A big crowd had consequently assembled and awaited the unlocking of the gates of the station yard, and a good many people had evidently come in from the surrounding districts to witness the proceedings.
, the Chief Constable escorted the Rev J. Mountain and the Rev H.C. Palmer, with several ladies, to the gates, and the crowd, recognising the ministers, gave them a very cordial reception, to which they bowed their acknowledgments.
As soon as the gates were open there was an excited rush to enter the yard, in which a considerable proportion the fair sex came in for some derangement of their toilette, and in a very few seconds the crowd in the street had transferred itself en masse into the yard, where a posse of stalwart constables was drawn up on either side of a temporary rostrum erected for the auctioneer, and directly communicating with the door leading into the police officer — a strategic arrangement in view of possible contingencies.
The Chief Constable had very diplomatically discounted any likelihood of a disturbance of the peace by affording the demonstrators the greatest possible latitude.
The platform erected for the sale was placed at their disposal for a protest meeting both before and after the sale.
It was eminently judicious of Mr Prior not to confine himself to the strict letter of the law, but to permit the demonstrators to demonstrate as much as they pleased within orderly limits.
The station yard being full and a further crowd in the street beyond, the preliminary protest meeting was at once proceeded with.
The Chief Constable smilingly escorted the Rev. Dr. Usher, the Rev. J. Mountain, the Rev. W.H.C. Palmer, and the Rev. Dennis Cooper to the rostrum, and an outburst of cheering greeted their appearance, which was renewed when the word went round that the redoubtable Dr. Clifford was also present.
Placards of protest were affixed to the rostrum to give place later to a bill of the auction, and then Dr. Usher gave out the hymn “O God our help in ages past,” after which the Rev. Dennis Cooper engaged in prayer.
The Rev. Dr. Usher then explained that they were allowed to meet by the courtesy of the Chief Constable, a gentleman whose acquaintance they had been proud to make.
He had met them in the kindest and most conciliatory manner (hear, hear).
They had met as citizens to protest against a law which went against the religious beliefs of millions of his Majesty’s subjects.
The grievance was as real as those under the Uniformity Act, the Conventicle Act, and the Five Mile Act, or as the progress of Ritualism in the eyes of their evangelical brethren.
It had been said they did this for political purposes, but Free Churchmen had been in advance of political leaders in this matter.
They were called law breakers, but he denied that they were.
They submitted passively.
Their doors were open and their furniture could be seized for that which they could not as matter of conscience pay voluntarily.
But if they were law breakers, they were proud to bear the shame in such company as Latimer and Ridley, who went to the stake when the Law said do one thing and God said do another.
They heartily sympathised with their four friends in what they had had submit to.
They protested not against the auctioneer or the Chief Constable, but against the political power of the land and particularly the Bishops, for the way in which they had misused political power.
If those present wished to show true sympathy with their cause, they would allow the proceedings which were to follow to be conducted in an orderly manner.
Those proceedings would be repeated if need be a dozen times.
There were plenty more defaulters waiting to have their goods seized for conscience sake, and he asked them never to forget that in , in a town like Tunbridge Wells, they had seen the goods of true citizens sold for religious purposes.
The protesters then proceeded to vacate the platform, but the Chief Constable informed them that they had another five minutes yet in which to demonstrate, as the sale would not commence before .
Accordingly the hymn, “Stand up, stand up for Jesus,” was given out, and was immediately succeeded by a decided contrast.
The hymn-singing changed to a different sound as the crowd proceeded to booh at the top of their voices when the auctioneer made his appearance and hung his card over the rostrum.
This bore the inscription, “Wm. B. Laing (late Savage and Son), Auctioneer, 127, New Road, and Whitechapel Road.”
Above the groaning and hooting could be heard various insulting expressions hurled at the auctioneer, who smilingly informed the crowd that he was not in a hurry and could wait.
The address appeared to take the fancy of the crowd, who shouted “Whitechappeler,” “Coster,” “Hooligan,” “German-Jew” until they were hoarse.
Dr. Usher appealed in pantomime for silence, and Mr Fryer, who was standing conveniently near the rostrum to buy in some of the effects, was heard by those near to shout to the crowd that the auctioneer was not a German, but a Scotchman.
“More shame to him” roared the crowd, and the boohing was renewed with redoubled vigour, in which even the shriller voices of the ladies present could be heard above the hubbub.
The auctioneer lost no time in announcing the sale and putting up the first lot.
“You have not read out the conditions of sale,” bellowed a gentleman, who had been doing his best to drown the auctioneer’s voice.
“I have just done so,” retorted the auctioneer.
“I never heard you,” retorted the gentleman, with unconscious humour, as he proceeded to booh louder than ever as the auctioneer attempted to make himself heard.
Had the devotional exercises failed to soothe the passions of the crowd?
The auctioneer, amid laughter, removed his silk hat to a place of greater security, and pointed to the auction bill as he stentoriously called for Lot one.
Several gentlemen who had arranged to buy in goods stood on the alert, and Mr Mountain and Mr Palmer supported each other in the absence of the other two defaulters — Mr Alexander and Mr Edmonds — who are enjoying themselves on the Continent.
The Chief Constable, notwithstanding the eulogy just passed on him, found it quite as difficult to obtain a hearing as he stated, amidst renewed hooting, that he was there to do his duty by carrying of the magistrates’ orders under the distress warrant, and that the auctioneer, who was doing his duty, had come down at a very moderate charge to carry the law into effect.
Amidst considerable hubbub, the articles in the first lot were then handed out from the police office window under the guardianship of the constables.
This lot consisted of a silver cake basket and silver salver, the property Mr Edmonds.
“Who bids £1”? shouted the auctioneer.
Mr Elwig promptly bid £2 15s on behalf of the owner, and the auctioneer knocked down the bid, and before the crowd realised it, the goods were handed back into the police office.
Lot 2, a dozen silver spoons, the property of Mr Alexander, were next handed up in the same way, and at once knocked down to Mr Drake, acting for Mr Alexander, for £2. Lot 3, five mahogany hair stuffed chairs, the property of the Rev J. Mountain, were promptly bought in by the Rev Dennis Cooper, for £2, and the concluding lot, a copper coal scuttle and silver fish servers, the property of Rev. W. Palmer, were similarly knocked down to Mr Fryer, on Mr Palmer’s behalf, for 30s.
The auction, which concluded in dumb shew had not lasted five minutes, was over before the crowd had finished hooting the auctioneer, and then some missile was heard to strike the window behind the auctioneer.
It turned out to be only a match box, and the police, who were interspersed in the crowd, at once seized the offender, bat as he appeared to have only jocularly thrown the missile, which was first thought to be a stone, he was not arrested, and no proceedings will taken against him.
The auctioneer and his clerk, Mr E. Smith, promptly vanished within the police office, where the bidders followed them to write out their cheques, and claim the furniture, after which the protest meeting was resumed, and proceeding without incident, except that an elderly man, named Sewell, living in Kirkdale road, was overcome by the heat, and had to be removed to the Hospital on the police ambulance.
Dr. Clifford then mounted the rostrum, and had an enthusiastic reception.
His remarks were somewhat inauspicious, as they related instances of other sales, where the auctioneers had “not dared show themselves,” but the doctor as he went on cleared himself from any suspicion of arriere pensee by congratulating the crowd on their orderly behaviour.
He went on to add that their protest was not against magistrates or chief constables, but against the bishops.
He congratulated Tunbridge Wells on having a Chief Constable of such fairness and moderation — a remark which the crowd, who had just hooted Mr Prior, now responded to by cheering in the utmost good humour.
He was glad that the vindictiveness of magistrates at other places was passing away, and they were being treated with consideration.
They were being forced to pay for religious teaching they did not believe in, and to submit to their children being proselytized.
A Voice: That is Christianity.
Dr. Usher: No, Churchianity.
Dr. Clifford: It illustrates the tyranny of the Established Church.
It was one of the most atrocious spectacles that the opening of the 20th Century could witness — a pampered, favoured, law-established sect forcing itself by political means upon those who conscientiously differed from them.
This Act could not last.
It would have to be repealed, because it would injure the Established Church more than it would injure these who resisted it.
These scenes would have to go on until the Act was repealed.
His father took him as a boy to witness a distraint sale for refusing to pay a Church rate, but the Education Act was more iniquitous than that.
The Church rate was to maintain church buildings, but the education rate was to proselytise their children.
This Act would be swept away, and they would not rest till they had a free system fair to the children, fair to the parents and teachers, and fair to the ratepayers.
J. Mountain spoke next, saying nothing particularly unexpected, unless it was to call Clifford “the Oliver Cromwell of this century.”
Then W.H. Palmer spoke:
Rev. W.H. Palmer said they had been taunted that this was a matter of pocket, but it was not so.
His education rate was 4s 9d but the recovery of it would cost him 30s.
They had the expense of an auctioneer from London, because no local auctioneer would lower himself to perform the task of selling goods which were suffered to be seized for conscience sake, or, rather, the Chief Constable had not asked any local auctioneer to so degrade himself.
At a local auction the goods could have been sold more cheaply, viz, for 2s in the £, but they were glad no local auctioneer could be found, even though to obtain 4s 9d from him 30s had been spent.
This would show it was not a question of pocket, and they did not keep their conscience in their pocket.
He was proud to be one of the first to be summoned, but there were plenty more waiting to stand in the same position.
Some 40 persons had already intimated their readiness to be summoned.
The Rev. Dr. Usher expressed the sympathy of those present with the four martyrs, and added that he himself expected to be in the next batch, and they should go on till the victory was won.
In conclusion, he asked those present, for the sake of the ladies, to leave the yard with less of a rush than they came in.
The Doxology and a verse of “All hail the power of Jesu’s name,” and a verse of the National Anthem concluded the proceedings; while outside the cheering was renewed as the furniture was displayed on a cart decorated with flags and evergreens, and bearing an inscription.
“This the furniture of gentlemen who refused for conscience sake to pay the Priest’s rate.”
The cart was drawn in triumph to the owner’s residences, and a sale of memorial cards adorned with coffins, to represent the burial of the Education Act was proceeded with among the crowd.
The proceedings, though noisy, were orderly; and the Chief Constable is to be congratulated on his excellent arrangements.
Immediately following this article was another, featuring many of the same cast of characters, describing a meeting “on the Common in the evening,” and then another, describing an “evening meeting at the Great Hall” that followed.
These were rallies that were meant to remind attendees of what was at stake and to encourage them to keep up the struggle to the bitter end, but the reports do not otherwise shed much light on how the campaign was progressing.
One thing I thought was noteworthy was a slideshow that included scenes from that afternoon’s distraint auction:
The room was then darkened for local views of passive resistance taken by Mr Lankester and Mr Jenkins, to be exhibited and explained by Dr. Usher.
The views commenced with portraits of passive resisters, commencing with Alderman Finch, who was introduced as the first Nonconformist Mayor.
Then came portraits of the Chief Constable, the Town Clerk, and Alderman Stone, the latter two being loudly boohed.
A series of views were next shown taken outside the rate collector’s office (a group of resisters refusing to pay rates), outside the Town Hall (after the hearing of the summonses), outside the residences of the several defendants (at the distraining of the goods), and lastly, a series of snapshots taken of the sale that afternoon, and of the meeting on the Common.
A portrait of Mr Hedges, with an injunction to vote for him at the next election concluded the series.
Clifford then spoke, saying among other things:
He asked them to regard this as one of the services a town could render an Empire.
They were assisting a national work.
Nothing was so characteristic of the movement as its spontaneity.
It was springing up not only in large towns, but in little hamlets.
He quoted cases of resisters upwards of 70 and 80 years of age, of resisters in poor as well as affluent circumstances.
A nation was judged by its ideals, and we were at a turning point in national history.…
The Evening News of Portsmouth reported in its issue:
[T]he Passive Resistance movement seems to be spreading like a prairie fire.
Over sixty persons will shortly be proceeded against in the Sheffield Police-court.
Ninety-nine resisters have now appeared before the Magistrates at Bath; a huge furniture van has been driven round Edgbaston, Birmingham, by the bailiffs and police, who carried off drawing-room suites, clocks, and other articles of furniture in great quantity.
No part payment is accepted in the city of Mr. Chamberlain, but relentless thoroughness has been thus far the order of the day on the part of Overseers and Magistrates.
It is remarkable how the well-to-do people are joining the movement.
In Bath some of the best known public men are Passive Resisters.
Mr. Ansell, of Birmingham has been a leader among the “Unionists”; Mr. Percy Rawson, the Liberal candidate for the Stamford division, is among those whose goods have been seized; while Mr. W.B. Bembridge, a Magistrate of Ripley, Derbyshire, has resigned his position on the Commission of the Peace because he cannot conscientiously apply the penalties of the law to Passive Resisters.
Some of the Resisters are looking to Portsmouth J.P.’s to take sides with them and become Resisters too, but it is hoped they, like the Lord Mayor of Sheffield, will not resign unless called upon by the proper authority to do so.
But they should refuse to sign summonses of distraint upon others.
The article goes on to say that Clifford and others had met with “Liberal leaders” and had gotten their promise “that should they come into power at the next election the repeal or amendment of the Education Act should be their first business.”
The Liberals would come to power in and hold the reins of government .
Any guesses as to whether they’ll keep their promise?
This, and the resistance slide show that ended pointedly with “[a] portrait of Mr Hedges, with an injunction to vote for him at the next election” show that then, as now, politicians are quick to swoop in on a grassroots activist campaign and coopt it for the purposes of furthering their careers.
Following that article was this one:
Some Lively Scenes
At a Passive Resistance Sale.
Auctioneer Goes with a Revolver.
Lively scenes were witnessed on at a sale of goods of sixteen Wimbledon Passive Resisters in Plough-road, Battersea, and the auctioneer, fearing an attack from the crowd, armed himself with a revolver.
Over 2,000 persons besieged the closed saleroom, and the large staff of police could not prevent a rush being made for the auctioneer, Mr. Thomas Spearing, who is an elderly man of slight build.
Mr. Spearing was severely handled before he could reach the saleroom, and two Pressmen who found themselves mixed up in the crowd were arrested.
When the auctioneer reached the saleroom the attitude of the crowd became more threatening.
Mr. Spearing, therefore, before admitting the public, and, beginning the sale, took up a loaded revolver.
The police, however, anxious to prevent anything in the nature of a riot, persuaded him to put the revolver away, and after some difficulty they succeeded.
At first only about a dozen persons were admitted to the saleroom, but the crowd clamoured for admission, and protested that the auction was not public, and therefore illegal.
Four times the auctioneer postponed the sale, but at last, at the request of one of the overseers, he proceeded, amid laughter and hooting, a portion of the crowd gaining admission.
With the exception of a perambulator and a baby’s chair, for which the late owner had no further use, all the lots were bought in by Mr. Robert Hunter, on behalf of the Resisters.
Courteous Magistrates.
At Nailsworth (Gloucestershire) Police-court, on , two Baptist ministers, of Stroud and Minchinhampton, and five other Passive Resisters were summoned.
The court was crowded, and several Nonconformist ministers were present.
The Bench decided to allow all the defendants to pay part of the rate, and to allow a fortnight to pay the balance.
The defendants had made their protest, said the Chairman of the Bench, and now he hoped the remainder of the money would be paid.
If not, it must be recovered in the usual way.
Defendants thanked the Magistrates for their courtesy.
Distress Warrants Granted
There were several cases before the county Magistrates at Kidderminster on in which Nonconformists were summoned for refusing to pay their poor rates.
In each case they objected to pay because of the education rate forming part of the amount demanded.
The Magistrates declined to hear any objections except as to the validity of the rate.
The defendants admitted its validity.
In each case an order for distress was granted.
The Berwickshire News and General Advertiser quoted from the Edinburgh Evening Dispatch in its issue:
In an English newspaper devoted to this resistance movement accounts are given of the rowdyism of the mob and the vehement protests of the clerical resisters.
In one case “several townsfolk were ready with a sack to capture the auctioneer with,” and this functionary has invariably to be protected by strong bodies of police from being subjected to bodily violence.
Below this was an article about eight Passive Resisters being charged at Berwick Police Court, and applications for distress being granted.
In that case, the overseers were willing to accept partial payment.
The edition of the same paper gives an account of a trial that gives a feel for some of the jousting between resisters and officials, the former trying to turn their trials into opportunities to demonstrate against injustice, the latter trying to reduce this inconvenience:
Spittal Passive Resisters Summoned.
A Minister and Town Councillor Proceeded Against.
A Scene in Court.
At Berwick Police Court, on , Rev. Archibald Alexander, Minister of St. Paul’s English Presbyterian Church, Spittal, was summoned for non-payment of poor rate in full, the sum of 1s 7d being left due.
On being charged, defendant said— I am summoned here to show cause why I have refused to pay.
Am I at liberty to show cause?
The Clerk— Do you acknowledge the summons?
Defendant— I believe I am here to answer the Magistrates.
The Mayor— You must answer the Clerk’s question.
That is your first duty.
Defendant— I decline to answer that question.
Robert Lambert, rate collector, Tweedmouth, was accordingly called to prove the rate.
The amount required from Mr Alexander was £1 1s 10d of which £1 0s 3d had been paid, leaving 1s 7d for which defendant had been summoned.
The Clerk— The rate was one which was legally made and allowed by the Magistrates.
Do you wish to ask any question from witness?
Defendant— I have no desire to ask any question from witness.
The Mayor— Have you anything to say about the legal aspect of this?
Defendant— It is an outrage that I should be called upon to pay to support schools which are sectarian and which are to detach our young people from the religion of their fathers, and make them indifferent and even opposed to that religion.
I protest against this outrage before this Court.
The Bench decided that the usual order for payment should be made.
Three other cases were decided in a similar way.
Another article on the same page gives a little more detail about how the property seizures were carried out:
Berwick Passive Resisters’ Goods Seized.
On , the distress warrants issued is the case of Berwick Passive Resisters — 8 persons including 3 ministers — were carried into effect.
Mr George Moor, Assistant Overseer, accompanied by Police-Sergt. Wm. Moor, drove round to the houses of the 8 defendants, and seized goods to the amount required, the proceedings passed off quietly.
In all cases payment of the rate, less the disputed portion, with expenses up to the issue of the warrants, was tendered and accepted, the balance being distrained for.
The articles taken were of small value.
They will sold by public auction next week.
The articles that have been seized include biscuit-boxes, and boxes of cigars, and one case a picture.
Three of the Resisters brought the articles down to the Police-station themselves.
As has been said the portion of the rate not in dispute was tendered along with expenses up to date, 1d in the £ being deducted as the amount at present levied for educational purposes, and this was accepted.
Some article in the household was then accepted to realise the amount disputed and the expenses to be yet incurred.
In the majority of cases the articles seized were small.
It is alleged that the Overseers are having difficulty in securing the services of an auctioneer to dispose of the goods.
The next example comes from the North Devon Journal:
Passive Resistance at Barnstaple.
Eight Persons Before the Magistrates.
Great Demonstrations.
Barnstaple is the first town in Devonshire to furnish passive resistance cases, eight summonses having been heard before the Borough Bench on .
The day was marked by two great demonstrations under the auspices of the Barnstaple Citizens’ League.
At a prayer meeting in the Congregation Schoolroom was conducted by the Rev. F.J. Kirby, (President of the League), and shortly before , the hour at which the Borough Bench sat, the passive resisters and friends marched to the Guildhall in procession singing “Onward, Christian soldiers.”
There was a crowded attendance at the Guildhall, sympathisers with the passive resisters appearing to predominate; and the proceedings were very lively from start to finish.
In these cases, the overseers were not willing to accept partial payment, which increased the amount of antagonism between the resisters and the authorities.
The individual cases proceeded on a now-familiar track, with the resisters trying to plead the injustice of the rates, the mayor trying to rubber stamp distraint orders as quickly as possible, and impatient crowds siding with the resisters giving cheers, boos, and other peanut gallery calls.
Here is one example
When Mrs. Martha Blackwell, of Alexandra-road, the first lady to be proceeded against in Barnstaple, entered the box, she received a tremendous ovation.
— When the cheering had subsided, Mr. Ffinch [the mayor] said to the Head Constable (Mr. B. Eddy): Take some of them into custody.
We shall know how to deal with them.
That didn’t seem to deter anyone, as “renewed cheering” greeted the following defendant.
Some of those summoned were only willing to pay the offensive portion of the rate when ordered by the court to do so; others were unwilling to do so even then, and would only relinquish the money involuntarily via distraint.
The defendants also raised a number of procedural points about their cases that had nothing to do with their conscientious objection, which suggests to me that they had adopted the strategy of trying to clog the courts and make each case take as long as possible to resolve.
After the proceedings, the resisters held a rally in the marketplace.
Rev. F.J. Kirby announced that the overseers had decided, after all of that courtroom fuss had annoyed the Mayor, that they would accept partial payments after all, so the resisters won that particular skirmish.
The speeches were rousing rally cries urging the crowd to resist what was painted as an Anglican/Papist conspiracy to wipe out nonconformity by indoctrinating children.
The rally ended with the singing of the national anthem.
There was a second demonstration in the evening at the Music Hall: “a crowded and enthusiastic attendance [with s]everal hundreds of persons [who] were unable to gain admission” and the Salvation Army Band playing “Onward, Christian Soldiers” as they marched in “followed by a large contingent of young people.”
The Rev. H.J. Crouch spoke first, and, among other things, explained that he had been one of the token nonconformists on the Walton-on-Thames School Board but realized that he had no influence and was disgusted that the board was grilling prospective teachers about what religious denomination they belonged to during the hiring process.
He said he resigned from the board in disgust and resolved to join the passive resistance movement.
The Rev. G.F. Owen exemplified the increasing rhetorical temperature when he concluded his speech this way:
He was not born to have a saddle upon his back, and he would not be sat upon by the despotism of kings or Parliaments either.
He was free, and every bone in his body should be broken, and every drop of blood shed, before he paid a penny to help the priest to degrade the children and lock them up in the darkness of heathenism and superstition for generations to come.
(Cheers.)
F.J. Kirby spoke next and gave some more detail about how the authorities were proceeding against the resisters:
Up to he was unaware that any proceedings were to be taken against any of those who had been made known as active members of Barnstaple and District Citizen’s League.
To his great surprise on , on opening the North Devon Journal — that paper cherished by North Devon people next to their Bible — he read that summonses had been issued against eight citizens who had decided not to pay the Education rate.
Not more than ten minutes afterwards a ring came to his door and a gentleman in blue presented himself.
“Well,” said Mr. Kirby, “I believe he was more afraid than I was.”
(Laughter and applause.)
He was most courteous, as had been all the authorities, with one or two exceptions.
All had been as kind as they could be under the circumstances.
When they knew that they had to appear before the magistrates that day they had at once in their minds the determination to make some means of voicing their convictions before the public of Barnstaple.
They soon got together speakers and sympathisers, and were able to put upon the bills the names of those who spoke and at that meeting.
But that meeting did not require eloquent speakers.
It was itself eloquence.
Kirby also issued a plea to the Wesleyans and Brethren to show solidarity with them by refusing to take Education Act funds for their own schools, something they had apparently thus far been unwilling to do.
A Councillor Hopper spoke next, advocating that resisters insist on stating the conscientious grounds for their stand in court, and replying to one of the magistrates’ suggestion (or threat) that the authorities strike nonconformists from the voter rolls if they refuse to pay their full rates.
Finally, an article in the Dover Express and East Kent News covered a meeting of a passive resistance group:
Passive Resistance at Dover
Nonconformists’ League Describes Its Policy and Aims.
On a public meeting under the auspices of the Dover Citizens’ League, an association for the promotion of “passive resistance” against the Education Rate, was held at Salem Chapel.
There was an enthusiastic gathering of Nonconformists, the chair being taken by Mr. John Scott (the President of the Dover Free Church Council), who was supported on the platform by Mr. W. Bradley, the Rev. W. Holyoak, the Rev. W.H. Parr, G. Clark, etc.
Scott put the struggle in the context of other civil disobedience struggles that nonconformists had to go through over the ages, just to be allowed to hold their own services for instance, and said that it was the duty of modern nonconformists to stand up like their predecessors had and to refuse to submit to an unjust law.
The other speakers addressed various arguments concerning the Act and the tactic of tax resistance.
Finally:
Mr. Lewis explained at the conclusion of the meeting that the Dover Citizens’ League consisted of members who agreed not to pay the Education Rate, and also Associates who approved of the policy of passive resistance not being ratepayers, or for other reason, would not offer passive resistance.
The subscription was not less than 6d. per quarter, paid in advance.
That takes us through the end of in what I’ve collected (certainly only a sample) of the newspaper coverage of the opening year of this tax resistance movement.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
As came on, coverage of the passive resistance movement against taxpayer-funded sectarian education dwindled, at least in my sample.
The Rev. A. Gray of Briercliffe penned a letter for the Burnley Express of that begins:
Notices have been posted in Burnley to the effect that the general rate must be paid on or before .
This rate includes the education rate.
Passive Resisters are therefore advised to deduct a sum equal to 1½d. in the £.
We are not sure whether any instructions have been issued by the overseers to the rate collectors with reference to receiving part payment.
Such part payment has been accepted at the office.
Collectors will, therefore, probably accept whatever sum is tendered by the ratepayer and take out a summons for the remainder.
It is intended to call together at as early a date as possible those interested both practically and sympathetically in the Passive Resistance movement in Burnley.
An auction in Pembury of goods seized from three resisters, with “a large gathering of villagers to witness” seemed to indicate some amiability between the local overseers and the resisters, as reported in the Kent & Sussex Courier of :
The office of “auctioneer” was assumed by Mr Penn (overseer of the parish), this step being taken to save expense, and the whole of the proceedings passed off without the least disturbance.…
Shortly after , Mr Penn mounted the barrow and explained that he was a little out of his ordinary place there (hear, hear).
His senior overseer had expressed a wish that this distress for rates should be carried out with as little friction as possible (hear, hear); and he did not see any reason why they should not sell the goods themselves to save the resisters the costs which would otherwise occur.
They wished the whole thing to be carried out in a kindly spirit; hence the reason he was there as auctioneer for the first time in his life (hear, hear).
The goods he had to sell that day were valuable.
They would begin with a real gold watch, which might be worth five or ten guineas, but he was not going to ask either of these prices — the price he was going to ask was 8s 1d (laughter).
The other items similarly went to the same sole bidder for similarly low prices (presumably the exact amounts being resisted).
Mr Penn concluded by saying that, unfortunately, there were many people who were threatening to have their goods sold next time.
It was not a pleasant business for him, and he was sure the overseers would be most willing to meet them pleasantly.
Upon the call of Dr. Usher, three cheers were accorded the “auctioneer.”
One of the speakers at a protest meeting that evening (W.H.C. Palmer) said:
We are glad to notice the Passive Resistance movement is rapidly spreading throughout the country, and that 110 resister’s goods are being sold by auction at Reading , so that we are in good company all over the country.
At the conclusion of the meeting nine hands were held up as pledges, declining to pay the education rate in the future.
