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 → James Everitt

October 1904. The “passive resistance” campaign against the Education Act is well into its second year. Here is some of the newspaper coverage from that month.

An article in The Bath Chronicle of 6 October 1904 described an auction of goods seized from resisters:

Passive Resistance Sale In Bath.

At the Cattle Market, Friday, the goods seized from the houses of various citizens who decline to pay the Education Rate were sold by public auction. This was the third time the process had been carried through, and the second auction, for, on the last occasion, the goods were put up to tender. However, this procedure did not prove exciting enough for the Passive Resisters, at whose request (we believe) the auction was reverted to. The arrangements were better, and the proceedings far quieter than at the first auction. This time the seized goods were placed in a shed upstairs, and from an opening in this the sale went on, the spectators standing in the market yard below. The auctioneer was accompanied by the officials from the Rates Office and the assistant overseers from parishes near Bath, Twerton, Weston, Bathford, Claverton, etc., who had brought their “seizures” to participate in the general sale. Mr. George J. Long, Mr. C.H. Hacker, Mr. Walter Pitt, and other prominent “resisters” were also under shelter, which was very acceptable owing to the heavy rain that descended. Mr. Long spoke a few words expressing the continued resistance of the objectors, and Mr. W.G. Burnfield, who took the part of auctioneer, explained that was giving his fees to local charity, and that he was acting with the agreement of the leaders of the Passive Resistance movement, and merely to facilitate business. The proceedings were of the usual farcical order, the articles all being bought back by arrangement for their owners. A large number of police, under Inspector Barter, attended, but they had nothing to do, the crowd being very orderly. Mr. Hacker, who acted as “bidder” for the Passive Resisters, occasionally made a remark as to whom the article being put up belonged, such as “This from one the very few Wesleyans with us.” He complained that in the case of Weston the costs were excessive, that while the rate demanded was only 2s. 6d., the amount required was 30s. Mr. Carpenter protested that this was not correct, and explained that if what was needed was exceeded, the money would be returned. Mr. Hacker announced that one of the rural assistant overseers, Mr. Ward, without any inquiry, sent goods to the salerooms of Messrs. Fortt, Hatt and Billings, but they had refused have anything to with them (cheers). — Mr. James Everitt, of the National Passive Resistance League, from London, was called upon by Mr. Long to speak. He stated that that morning he stood in the dock with the Rev. J. Clifford for non-payment the rates. Over 34,000 summonses had been issued since the movement began, and they were going on keeping on until the Act was ended or mended.…

In all about 140 lots were offered, seized from ratepayers in the city and district as follows: Bath, 117; Weston, 8: Twerton, 5; Bathford, 3; Batheaston, 1; total, 134.…

A letter to the editor from Rennie J. Brown in the 8 October 1904 Hastings and St. Leonards Observer claimed that “[t]he number of summonses is about 35,000 to date, and 42 imprisonments have taken place. There are 632 Citizens’ Leagues formed all over the land definitely to support the opposition to the Act.”

Another letter came from a citizen opposed to the passive resistance movement who noted that a Citizens’ League meeting was to be held at the a Congregational Chapel which was exempt from property tax “on the grounds that it is used for religious worship only.” The author suggested this exemption be revoked on the grounds that the property was being used for a political meeting.

Tens of thousands of British nonconformists have been refusing to pay at least a portion of their rates because of their opposition to the provisions of the Education Act of 1902 that allow for taxpayer funding of sectarian religious education, which, more often than not, means Anglican or Catholic religious education. In our survey of a sample of newspaper coverage of the movement, we’re now up to November 1904.

The 1 November 1904 Berwickshire News covered a rift among nonconformists. Dawson Burns, “the well-known Nonconformist and Temperance reformer” had put out a pamphlet discouraging nonconformists from joining the passive resistance movement, in spite of his own opposition to the Education Act. It included the standard reductio ad anarchia among other arguments against civil disobedience in general, and, apparently, also included the following woeful argument:

The Society of Friends, says Dr Burns, have not refused to pay taxes applied in payment of warlike armaments to which they conscientiously object.

The London Daily News of 1 November 1904 included a quote from a letter written by John Clifford in response to a request that the passive resistance movement formally align with the Liberal party:

In reply to your note, I wish to say that although the Passive Resistance movement is wholly independent of political parties in its origin and progress, yet it is obvious that the protest wee are making against injustice can only be made efficient through anti-clerical representatives, and, therefore, I think it the duty of Passive Resisters to support all Liberal organizations whose members are pledged to get rid of all support by taxes and rates of sectarian teaching in the elementary and secondary education carried on by the State.

The Cambridge Independent Press of 4 November 1904 covered a County Congress of Passive Resisters held earlier that week. at which a new Cambridge District Citizens’ League was rolled out to coordinate the area’s passive resisters. Excerpts:

Mr. [James] Everett [secretary of the National League], who was cordially received, said he was glad to know that they had decided to enlarge their coasts, and take in the men and women of the villages. That had been done in Derbyshire and Leicestershire, where the movement began, mainly with the object of strengthening each other’s hands. They must stand by the people of the villages. (Hear, hear.) It was much more difficult to be a Passive Resister in a little village than in a large town. There should never be a summons heard in any place without some representative of the district League attending to show sympathy and give any help possible. He was of the opinion that their rule for the admission of associates was too wide, and it seemed to him that if a man wanted to join the League he must be a Passive Resister. (Applause.) They might call a man a sympathiser, but those were not the kind of people they wanted. They wanted men who had the courage of their convictions, and who were not afraid to declare themselves. Other people were of no use, and his experience was that they were rather a drag upon the wheel. His Committee had always insisted that active members should be Passive Resisters, and associates should be those who would be Passive Resisters if they could. As to the general outlook, the movement was undoubtedly progressing. There was no cessation anywhere. (Applause.) It seemed to him, however, that it was getting too easy to be a Passive Resister, and too respectable. Where oppression was rampant, there Passive Resistance grew.… He hoped that the conference would result in real good. Up to the present there had been no need for organisation. Passive Resisters had sprung up here and there spontaneously, and there had been 637 Leagues formed without instigation — by spontaneous combustion as it were. (Applause.) But the time had now arrived when it would be a good thing if people in a district combined for common aggressive or defensive work, and he was glad to be present at the formation of their League. (Applause.)

Some resisters from surrounding villages stood up to give their reports. A League in Bishops Stortford had seven resisters. 16 resisters in Burwell had been summoned recently. The resister from Harston said he was the only one in his village, saying “the vast majority of Free Churchmen seemed to have no interest in this great matter [and i]n his own village his own deacons seemed to oppose him rather than help him.” In Isleham the rate-collector had claimed that no portion of the rates went to education, as there it was funded in another way, but the representative was skeptical and was resisting anyway.

Charles Joseph suggested that the resisters try harder to tie up the courts:

Mr. Upton had said that sixteen Resisters were treated with scant courtesy by the Newmarket Bench. He took it that the men on the Bench were simply their neighbours, men of like passions with themselves, and those sixteen persons were quite as respectable as the Magistrates. (Hear, hear.) They were quite as honourable, quite as good, quite as honest, and quite as law abiding, and he took it that the Magistrate would not be impertinent to them in the street, in their homes, or in the Corn Exchange, or elsewhere. Unless there was worshipful conduct in the man on the Bench, he was no longer “his worship.” Personally, he should say, “What is the matter, Mr. Smith?” He would not treat the Magistrate with the respect generally given to the Bench, unless he treated him with respect. The Magistrate forfeited all worship from the man before him when he ceased his worshipful conduct. As to not being allowed to address the Bench, every citizen had the right to employ an advocate to plead his cause, and he had noticed that when solicitors or barristers were engaged for Passive Resisters, they were generally listened to. Surely a citizen had all the rights for himself that could possibly be given to his pleader. When the Magistrate asked the defendant whether he admitted the rate, he generally said that he did, and that was foolish. He should say at once, “I admit nothing at all. You must prove everything.” Then they would have to prove the making of the rate, the service of the demand note, etc. If he were not allowed to speak he would admit nothing, and if sixteen persons did the same thing it would become rather monotonous. (Laughter, and hear, hear.) By the time these little Jacks-in-office had heard sixteen cases they might see the wisdom, if not the courtesy, of treating Resisters with some Consideration.

Joseph asked James Everett for his advice on the legal rights of defendants in such cases, and Everett pulled out the book Passive Resistance Law “and read out such portions as dealt with the questions put by Mr. Joseph.” This may have been The Crusader Manual of Passive Resistance Law by J. Scott Duckers. A brief review of this book in Law Notes (volume ⅩⅩⅣ, page 349) reads in part:

The object of Mr. Scott Duckers’ little manual appears to be to put the passive resister up to every legal trick and device to obstruct the collection of the rate; as, for instance, the giving of an absolute bill of sale in favour of a wife. We can honestly recommend this manual to all those whose consciences require them to be passive resisters. Within the covers of this little book they will find full information on the subject, and all possible assistance to help them in tripping up a collector or justice who fails to comply with the strict letter of the law.

On the other hand, T.R. Glover didn’t much like the idea of making trouble in the courtroom, seeing it as a distraction from the main thrust of the campaign:

Mr Glover [St. John’s College] said he could not help wishing Passive Resisters said less in the courts. A good many things had been said on the spur of the moment, which, when the campaign was over and the battle won, they would wish they had not said. Let Magistrates say whatever they liked, and do what they liked. (Hear, hear). He would not ask a single favour of them, and the worse they made things, the better.

Mark Wyatt of Chittering, Waterbeach said during his comments: “He had had the two last summonses framed and dedicated to his two eldest grandchildren, but as he had three families of grandchildren he was looking forward to the next. (Laughter and applause.)”

Mr. E.J. Culyer said some of the reports of the Passive Resistance cases from Burwell gave the ages of the defendants, and he found that the average of the 16 was 65. The aggregate was 1,040, and the oldest was 86. He regretted that more young men did not stand up for the honour of Nonconformity.

Rev. R.W. Ayres said the new League had a roll of 125, and 90 of them were Passive Resisters.

The Kent & Sussex Courier of 25 November 1904 covered the auction of goods seized from 48 passive resisters at Tunbridge Wells. “It was a bitterly cold afternoon, and everyone was agreed that no time should be wasted. The auctioneer… disposed of the 48 lots in quicker time than had ever been his experience before. The goods were bought in on behalf of the resisters for the sums necessary to satisfy the warrants…” Afterwards, speakers rallied the troops. One, Dr. Usher, said in part:

They were being taxed to pay for [the “advance of Popery in the realm”], and the result of their opposition now seemed to be that they were to be deprived of their votes. That was not quite so bad as they had anticipated, for at first they were “conspirators.” They were few in Tunbridge Wells, it was true, but they were a portion of 80,000 all over the country, who would refuse to lose their votes without an effort, and be satisfied with a judgment which was said to be in accordance with common sense (hear hear).

Skipping ahead to September 1905 in our chronological wander through the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” campaign against the Education Act, we come first to the 23 September 1905 Burnley Express in which we see that the authorities have decided to start raising the stakes for the resisters.

Colne Passive Resisters Disfranchised.

The Revising Barrister last evening, at Colne, gave another important decision relative to claims of five Passive Resisters who had been struck off the list through non-payment of the education portion of the poor rate.

The first applicant to be reinstated on the list was Mr. John Hartley, a manufacturer.

Mr. Little: You don’t propose to pay the rate?

Mr. Hartley: I don’t propose to pay the education voluntarily.

Mr. Little: I don’t quite understand why you ask me to put you on.

Mr. Hartley: Because they have struck me off on their own initiative, and notwithstanding the amount was recoverable. They have not tried to obtain the money in a legal manner.

Mr. Little: I suppose they ought to have taken steps to distrain upon you?

Mr. Hartley: Yes.

Mr. Little: Assuming there was not enough to pay the amount, would you like to go to prison?

Mr. Hartley: I might say there is quite sufficient.

The Assistant Overseer informed the Revising Barrister that Mr. Hartley had been struck off because he had not paid the whole of the rate.

Here Mr. Little was informed all the cases were similar.

Little was not sympathetic to their arguments and allowed their names to be stricken from the voter rolls. This was pretty serious business, because the passive resisters were really hoping to use their clout to bring the Liberals into power at the next elections, and it might weaken the passive resistance movement if it became seen as an obstacle to their political ambitions.

The following excerpts come from the 23 September 1905 Cheltenham Chronicle. The version I found is difficult to read in parts, so some of the figures I quote may be a bit off:

Cheltenham Passive Resisters.

A Day of Demonstration.

Visit of Dr. J. Clifford

Following close in the wake of the remarkable series of meetings in Cheltenham under the auspices of the National Union of Free Church Councils has come “Passive Resistance Day.” Fortunately it has happened that the day selected for the sale of the goods distrained from the [lady?] Cheltonians who refuse to pay rates in respect of sectarian education was that following the conclusion of the Free Church Council Convocation, and the opportunity for a demonstration upon a large scale was far too good to be lost. The services of the great champion of the passive resistance movement, Dr. John Clifford, M.A., were found to be available for the occasion, together with other prominent Free Church speakers, among the many officials and delegates remaining in the town for “demonstration day” being the Rev. Silas Hockins, and the Rev. Thomas Law (secretary of the National Federation of Free Church Councils). Dr. Clifford presided at the opening gathering, which was held in the Town-hall at 11 a.m., under the presidency of Dr. Clifford, when the attendance numbered about [300?].

Mr. James Everett, the secretary, said they had gathered to hear the testimony of men who had suffered for conscience sake, and no doubt they would be glad to hear a few figures regarding the progress of the movement. In spite of their detractors they were not a dwindling company — they continued to progress, and there were few [secessions?], and where one or two brothers and sisters had fallen away from their ranks they had had a large accession to their numbers. Last week the largest number of summons issued during the whole history of the movement were heard. Altogether 61,529 summonses had been issued, and there had been 2,097 sales. There were 647 passive resistance leagues in existence, and 202 individuals had suffered imprisonment as follows: Once 99, 70 twice, 9 thrice, and four four times. Of these [92?] ministers had been imprisoned 488 days, 109 laymen 759, and one lady 5 days, and Mr. Parker wrote to him last week and said he had just been committed for the fifth time (applause). Theirs was not a political movement, but a deeply religious conscientious one, and whatever happened, although they had the assurance of the leaders of the Liberal party that the Education Act would be altered when they got the opportunity, they intended to keep on passively resisting until the Act was actually altered (applause).

Clifford spoke next, placing passive resistance in the Christian tradition of “obeying God and not men.” Later some individual resisters were heard from:

Mr. Everett read a letter from the Rev. W.J. Potter, of Stourbridge, who had served fourteen days in Worcester Gaol, apologising for inability to attend. He expressed a fear that he would not be able to again go to gaol, as the overseers had joined his wife with him as occupier, so that they would distrain on her goods, which he had described as a cowardly and unchivalrous thing to do. However, added Mr. Potter, they needed not to fear that she would pay (loud applause). — Mr. Everett, however, pointed out that Mr. Potter need have no fear, for a learned counsel had given an opinion to the effect that it was illegal to make a wife joint occupier (applause).

Mr. W.H. Churchill, of Evesham, who had served 14 days in Worcester Gaol, was also unable to attend. Mr. Everett said he was in gaol during one Christmas, bus since then his growing crops had been sold, for he was a market gardener by trade, a Quaker in religion, and a staunch and true supporter of their cause (loud applause).

This is the first example I’ve seen of a Quaker joining up with this nonconformist tax resistance campaign.

The Rev. S.J. Ford, of Minchinhampton, said he did not stand before them as an ex-prisoner. His goods had been distrained on and sold, and twice he had been committed, but although he prepared to go to gaol his rate was paid on both occasions — once by a prominent Nonconformist — (shame) — not a member of his own church, for his people had pledged themselves not to interfere with his action in this matter, and the second time by an opponent who felt timid, or feared the reproach his imprisonment would bring upon them and their party. He never intended to pay any rate or any portion of any rate until this iniquitous Act was for ever ended or mended (applause).

Mr. A. Farmer, of Coventry, who served 7, 14, and 7 days in Warwick Gaol, spoke with considerable feeling, but throughout his address there ran a pleasant humour which delighted the audience. He said he did not feel like telling them of his experiences in gaol, because he thought they all ought to go and find out for themselves. However, he told them something of the hardships to be suffered in “durance vile.”

Mr. J. Hodgkiss (Ledbury) has the misfortune to occupy in three parishes, and consequently to have three summonses every half-year. He had had ten seizures of his goods and ten sales, which had cost him a little over £10 extra. Altogether he had been fined for conscience sake to the extent of about £25, to say nothing of trouble and vexation, which had been more than money lost. He had also lost his vote.

The last speaker was the Rev. A.R. Exard (of Dewsbury), who served seven days in Wakefield Gaol, and he produced a telegram received by him since he had been in Cheltenham, informing him that his name had been crossed off the voters’ list of his town. It was a dastardly act, an abominable shame, but he was prepared to face it and to go to prison again, as he should have to. He also quoted as another abominable “anachronism,” that, previous to the hearing of his case, one of the Bench of magistrates was heard to say “Give that little devil from Trinity a fortnight; it will do him good” (shame). Concluding, the speaker said that he had made over all his furniture to his wife, who owned him also, but was willing periodically to part with him rather than the furniture (laughter).

An auction sale was held that afternoon:

Sale of Goods Under Distress.

Scene at the Victorial Rooms.

The sale of the “lares and penates” of the passivists captured in his recent raid by the gentlemen who executed the warrants issued at the local police-court had been advertised to take place at 3 p.m. At that time a company of about a hundred well-dressed and respectable-looking folk had gathered in the room… The fact that the auctioneer (Mr. Packer, of the firm of George Packer and Co.) was not able to be present before 3.30 o’clock left half an hour at the disposal of the company, and upon this the organisers had seized to continue the operation of “driving in the nail” which had been commenced in the morning, having persuaded Dr. Clifford and other gentlemen to come and speak. From the applause which punctuated the speeches it was clear that the audience was an entirely sympathetic one, it consisting largely of the owners of the articles on the table and their friends, while a number of the delegates to the Free Church Council Convention who had remained in the town to hear the great D.D., and to see a sight which is now losing its novelty locally, were also present.…

In opening the speeches Mr. [Thomas] Whittard regretted that they had not a few hundred more passivists in every town; in which case those who had to do with the passing of the Act would have become ashamed of themselves, or if not ashamed at least obliged to use their strenuous efforts that it might be repealed.

Dr. Clifford read a telegram which stated that fifty Coventry resisters’ goods were sold by auction that morning, and added “Still keep fighting” (applause).… He had seen a gardener, receiving in wages 35s. a week, who deducted 9d. from his rate, but had to suffer quarter by quarter to the extent of 11s. The educational institution had got 9d. out of him, but in order that that 9d. might be stolen from him by the authority of the State, the man himself had to suffer to the extent of 11s. Yet people described their action as a cheap and easy martyrdom.…

The auctioneer (Mr. George Packer) having now arrived, was welcomed with a cheer, and commenced by apologising for having come so early, and thus intruding between them and so much pleasure. He did not know what they considered the business of the afternoon, but he judged from the numbers before him as compared with last time he was there that it was not the selling of the goods (laughter).… An English concertina… was after a very brief bidding knocked down to Mr. Samuel Bubb, of Prestbury, and to the end the name of Mr. Bubb was heard at the conclusion of each series of biddings, the humour of the oft-repeated “Mr. Bubb” eventually resulting in a ripple of laughter after each mention of that persevering buyer’s name. No time was wasted; instantly the article submitted reached the amount required, down went the hammer, and Mr. Bubb was declared the buyer. In one case it was a valuable bicycle, which went for 7s. 10d., and the auctioneer could not in this instance refrain from complimenting Mr. Bubb on his bargain with the remark: “A cheap bicycle that, Mr. Bubb,” which little professional sally was followed with another little ripple of merriment. Ultimately, the list having been exhausted, Mr. Packer congratulated his brother, who had executed the warrants, upon the caution with which he had made his levy, the prices realised showing that he had not taken a shillingsworth too much (more merriment).

A demonstration was also held that evening, attended by “some eighteen hundred people.”

The Chairman [Mr. C. Boardman, Justice of the Peace of London, formerly of Cheltenham]… supposed another reason for his selection was the fact that his name had come a little prominently before the passive resisters of the country in consequence of the action of the overseers of West Ham in taking a case into the Law Court, whereby the question of whether the stipendiary magistrate had a right to receive part payment of the rates from those who had refused to pay the “priest-rate” had been decided in favour of the stipendiary (applause). The overseers still refused to take part payment; but the stipendiary as regularly ruled against them, and they had now to accept the part payment and get the balance in the way provided by the law (cheers).

F.B. Meyer spoke next:

“Don’t weaken,” continued the speaker, at the commencement of a very effective peroration. “Don’t pay your rates simply under protest. Protest is not good enough. The eyes of England are upon us. To fail now is to spoil the results of the sacrifices, tears, sorrows, and sufferings of the last two years. We must now fight this fight to a finish (loud cheers). The long red line of our troops has stood hour after hour in the thick of the cannonade. You may depend upon it that the time is coming when our general will say: ‘Up guards, and at ’em.’ Until that moment not one must flinch.…”

James Everett then spoke, giving somewhat different figures than in his earlier remarks: “155 men and one glorious woman had been imprisoned for periods varying from one to 31 days…” John Clifford spoke shortly after. His remarks were largely a revel in the traditions of nonconformity, a defense of their point of view on the Education Act, a Biblical defense of civil disobedience, and a denunciation of Romanist intrigue. No real details on the passive resistance campaign and its tactics, however.

Here is some newspaper coverage from the later years of the “passive resistance” movement against the Education Act.

From the 4 July 1907 Yorkshire Evening Post:

The Monotony of It.

Mr. Percy Webb, a passive resister, of Crouch End, has been committed to prison for one day at Highgate.

“It is no pleasure for me to go to prison,” he told the magistrates. “I’m heartily sick of it. This will make the fifth time.”

From the 17 December 1908 Derby Daily Telegraph:

Passive Resistance to Go On.

Letter From Dr. Clifford.

Dr. Clifford, in a written statement, repeats what he said before the Paddington magistrates recently as to the new position created by the recognition by Church leaders in the recent compromise negotiations of the principle for which passive resisters fought, that denominational teaching should be taken off the rates. He concludes:–

Passive resistance will go forward; but I am asked, Ought we not to begin to organise the movement on a larger scale? Should not the leagues federate? Hitherto the movement has been spontaneous. Ought we to be content with that? Least of all, are we ready to listen to those who say, “You endure the wrong of supporting sectarian teaching through the taxes; what folly to suffer the distraint of your goods and the imprisonment of your persons when the wrong is perpetrated through the rates?” According to that reasoning our fathers ought not to have attempted to deliver the country from the “old Church rate” whilst they allowed the Establishment, a much greater wrong in their judgment, to continue. Nor should they have battled to get rid of “ecclesiastical tests” for municipal offices while similar barriers kept the doors of the Universities locked. And so on with our vicious land system and our tettering feudal aristocracy and many other evils. Everything cannot be done at once. The immediate task of the passive resister is clearly that of fighting on with increased determination and, if possible, with increased numbers, so that we may achieve the removal of Romanism and Anglicanism and eccleciasticisms of every kind off the rates.

From the 17 September 1909 Cambridge Independent Press (excerpts):

Passive Resistance.

The following manifesto of the National Passive Resistance League has been issued:–

It is fully manifest that there is not the slightest chance of any relief to passive resisters in the present Parliament.

The oppression of the conscience by the Education Act of 1902 not only continues, but increases year by year. The injustice grows.…

One thing is patent. It is the House of Peers and Bishops which prevents the amendment of the education laws, the repair of injustice, and the restoration of peace to the aggrieved conscience. The House of Commons would have carried out the mandate of the people had it not been for the veto of that Assembly.

Therefore we must concentrate all our energy on the destruction of that veto. We are not free men while it lasts. Our electoral impotence is degrading to us so long as we permit that usurpation. To get rid of it is the foremost duty we owe to the children, and to the citizens of Great Britain, to education, to temperance, to justice, to freedom, to social reform, and to religious equality, and God helping us we will pay that debt to the uttermost farthing.

And since a general election may occur very speedily it is necessary that we should prepare our forces for action forthwith.

John Clifford, President.
James Everett, Hon. Secretary.
Memorial Hall, E.C., Sept. 13^th.

From the 2 October 1909 London Daily News (excerpts):

Prison Preferred.

Dr. Clifford and Passive Resistance.

Twenty-eight Paddington Passive Resisters, headed by Dr. J. Clifford, appeared yesterday at the Town Hall… for non-payment of the local rate, to the sectarian portion of which they objected.

Dr. Clifford referred to the four methods recommended by the National Passive Resistance League, and said commitment to prison would be adopted if the bench would only send him to gaol instead of distraining on Mrs. Clifford’s goods.

Alderman W. Urquhart: We should be sorry to see you in prison, Dr. Clifford

Some of the defaulters protested and paid, and others elected to have their goods seized.

From the Portsmouth, Ohio Daily Times (among others), 6 July 1911:

Refuses to Pay Tax to England

(By Associated Press.) London, Eng. July 6. — John Clifford, the non-conformist minister, who was a delegate to the recent Lake Mohonk Conference, has again refused to pay the sectarian state education tax. Dr. Clifford, who is at present in Canada, has written to the authorities saying that they can either distrain his goods or arrange to imprison him on his return to England. He concludes his letter, which was written at Lake Mohonk, by saying:

I write this letter in a country where the sectarian legislation against which we are protesting is regarded with amazement and indignation. They have none of it. The United States owes their origin to men driven out of England by religious persecution. We are bound to do all we can to drive religious persecution out of England.

From the 16 March 1912 Bath Chronicle (excerpts):

Passive Resistance

Bath Protesters in Court

Mr. G.J. Long Raises a Point of Procedure.

Some added interest was given to the proceedings against the Bath Passive Resisters who, to the number of 42, were summoned at the Bath City Police Court on Saturday for non-payment of the portion of the half-year’s rate which they regarded as devoted to educational purposes, by the fact that Mr. Councillor G.J. Long, who again acted as the spokesman, raised a question bearing on the procedure usually adopted by the Court, as soon as the magistrates had proceeded to the hearing of the summonses.

The number of defendants summoned was rather smaller than that recorded on some previous occasions.…

Mr. Long craved leave to make a statement before the business of the Court was allowed to proceed. He understood that in the north of England people who were summoned in this way had been allowed the opportunity of having a few minutes to state their case. At Newcastle, where this had been refused, they had engaged a solicitor, who had proved each case separately, and had occupied the Court for 2½ hours. He claimed that the defendants in that Court were entitled to one or the other alternative. If the Bench would allow them severally and individually a minute or two in which to state their case, it would be much quicker, and much more orderly.

The Mayor observed that to hear the cases separately would considerably increase the costs. It would mean an additional 3s. on each summons.

Mr. Long rejoined that if the Bench refused to allow the defendants to speak, they would have to re-consider their position, and engage a solicitor. It was not a question of money — that was no object to the people engaged in this movement.

The Mayor: Do I understand, Mr. Long, that you want to address the Court on behalf of every one who is summoned, or merely on behalf of yourself?

Mr. Long: The three defendants who are here want to speak. I do not want to put the Court to the indignity of being kept here two hours and a half.

The Mayor: I don’t think you will keep us detained that time.

I want, continued Mr. Long, to spare my friends the indignity of having to speak subject to ejaculatory remarks.

After a consultation with the Clerk (Mr. E. Newton Fuller), the Mayor said the magistrates would be very glad to hear the defendants on any points connected with the validity of the summonses or the question of the identity of the persons summoned. They could not hear them on matters which referred to the law in general. “We sit here,” continued his Worship, “not only as representing ourselves, but representing the Bench of the future, who may be guided by any precedent which we may set. It is quite possible we may have to consider at this Court similar cases which have no reference to these before us. It is very undesirable at this juncture to let it go forth that this Court is a vehicle for the expression of opinions with which the Bench have no concern whatever.[”]

Mr. Long: I quite see your point, all I ask is for a little patience.

The Clerk: Do you suggest to us that we should take all the cases separately?

Mr. Long: I think we had better go forward in the usual way.

The Clerk: Then we can take the lot.

The mayor gave little ground, shutting down the three resisters when they tried to make their case. Long was the most determined:

At this stage the Mayor interposed, and told Mr. Long that he could not listen to him further, but must proceed with the business of the Court.

Accordingly the business proceeded amid some disorder, as Mr. Long continued his protest till he had said all that he intended.

Mr. Long applied for the issue, as in former years, of two distress warrants to cover all the summonses, and this was agreed to.

At the conclusion of this business the Mayor asked the Press to make it clear that the business of the Court proceeded during Mr Long’s address, though he persisted in speaking the Bench had requested him to desist.

From the 14 September 1912 Cheltenham Chronicle and Gloucestershire Graphic (excerpts):

Cheltenham Passive Resisters.

Nineteenth Appearance Before the Bench.

Cheltenham Passive Resisters to the Education Act of 1902 made their 19^th appearance at the Police-court on Monday…

A list of 25 resisters and the amounts they owed followed. Fifteen had asterisks by their names indicating that they had been “ ‘Resisters’ since the passing of the Act.” The resisters each briefly gave their reasons and the usual distress warrants were issued.

The next article comes from the 17 October 1916 Scotland Daily Record and Mail and seems to suggest that the struggle was now over:

Dr. Clifford, Passive Resister.

The occurrence of Dr. Clifford’s eightieth birthday recalls the prominent part which the great Nonconformist divine took in the passive resistance movement some years ago. It was a national protest, it may be remembered, by Nonconformists against payment of the tax under the Education Act, it being contended that the tax was for the support of schools to whose teaching the nonconformist idea was entirely opposed.

Many people went to prison “on principle,” and Dr. Clifford himself was prepared to suffer similarly, but his friends always circumvented him by paying the tax which he himself declined to recognise.

A major Education Act, one that is still partially in force today I believe, was enacted in 1918. I have one reference in my files to a resister (A.E. Dent) still resisting the education rate as late as July 1924, however, so apparently this did not settle the controversy.