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
Today’s tax resistance history lesson comes from the New York Times.
British Nonconformists (that is, those who did not belong to the Anglican Church) objected to being taxed to pay for sectarian education.
In , many began a campaign of tax resistance.
At least 170, from various non-Anglican churches, would eventually be imprisoned in the course of the campaign:
King Edward does not like reporters, and objects to their being in evidence.
They may spoil the effectiveness of a great state pageant, but they fulfill a harmless and most necessary function.
Just now they are keeping statesmen informed as to the attitude of public opinion toward the “passive resistance” movement against the Education act.
This movement, far from showing any signs of subsiding, is every day gathering new strength throughout the country.
Magistrates in many places openly express their sympathy with those who from conscientious motives refuse to pay the education rate.
Auctioneers frequently decline to sell goods upon which distraints have been levied.
Crowds, numbering in some cases thousands of people, assemble to give their support and sympathy to these lawbreakers for conscience’ sake.
With a fine affectation of indignation the church party publishes letters and articles innumerable denouncing the tactics of the resisters as subversive of law and order and as leading direct to anarchy.
Nothing makes any impression on the resolution of these irreconcilable Nonconformists, who maintain that they are prepared to go to prison rather than pay taxes for what they regard as Romanizing education calculated to imperil the Protestantism for which their forefathers fought and suffered.
One fiery spirit declared the other day that he would be delighted to suffer martyrdom at the stake rather than obey this law.
Passive resistance, in short, is rapidly producing a state of things which no government can afford to ignore.
Its result will ultimately be the removal of the grievances which weigh so heavily on the “Nonconformist conscience.”
A century back, British nonconformists (that is, non-Anglicans), engaged in a large-scale tax resistance campaign against government subsidies to religious schools.
This campaign made tax resistance a topic of public and scholarly debate, and brought other activist groups to consider the tactic, in particular the British women’s suffrage movement, which soon developed its own Women’s Tax Resistance League.
One example of this debate is a paper on “The Ethics of Passive Resistance” by Rev. J. G. James from the International Journal of Ethics in , which I reproduce below.
James is opposed to the tactic, mostly because he is a believer in the sovereignty of liberal majoritarian representative government (of which he feels the English government is an exemplar), and he thinks that a good citizen submits to such a government and only attempts to improve it by its own constitutionally-approved methods and not through civil disobedience.
In other words, he’s a pretty good spokesperson for modern political orthodoxy.
Any conclusion that you can draw from the arguments in favor of civil disobedience that undermines faith in liberal majoritarian representative government, he takes as a reductio ad absurdum — on the argument, not on the government.
This makes his arguments somewhat circular: if the system that makes the laws is legitimate and makes legitimate laws and if the mechanisms by which its errors may be corrected are themselves legal and good and available, then circumventing those methods to violate the law must therefore be wrong — wasn’t that easy?
He goes even further, to suggest that even objections to civil law based on religious revelation must be suspect, for “[t]he command of God is heard in the legalized demand itself and by means of human law and institutions.”
Indeed, in political matters, the voice of the majority is the voice of God:
[I]t is the duty of a conscientious citizen to pay [even] an unjust charge if he has tried in vain to prevent the measure passing into law, on the ground that he is no longer responsible for the expenditure of public funds, after he has done his utmost to control that expenditure by legalized means, through legislation, and by doing his part in the appointment at the polls of candidates who may be trusted to carry out those principles which he as an elector holds.
…
There is, in short, no personal or individual right in a matter of political obligation, on the ground of morality, to stand against or to resist the collective will or conscience of the majority, when once the proposals have passed from the legislative to the administrative stage.
(By the way, the Rev. James himself, though I’ve been able to find out little else about him, was a Congregationalist, that is, a member of one of the nonconformist sects, and therefore didn’t have any sectarian reasons for supporting the Act or denigrating its opponents.)
In spite of its faults, the paper makes for interesting reading because many of the same basic issues and arguments that people were considering a century ago are still with us today.
The Ethics of Passive Resistance.
We are face to face in England to-day with a curious contretemps in educational matters, which is assuming considerable proportions.
We have grown accustomed to such characteristic phenomena as “conscientious objectors” in respect to vaccination, and the objectors to medical attendance on the part of the “Peculiar People,” and later in the case of “Faith-healers[”] and “Christian Scientists.” These cases have been so exceptional and isolated in this country that they have attracted comparatively little attention, and possibly may be more easily justified on the ground that they are not likely to become a “universal law,” according to Kant, than the present movement.
The revolution of feeling in England, however, threatens to become somewhat serious; and as it seems probable that it will increase rather than decrease in the course of time, it calls for consideration and comment.
Already nearly ten thousand summonses have been issued, and it is said that there are not less than sixty thousand “Passive Resisters” in England.
The movement has its political and its distinctively religious aspect, whilst being an educational problem.
Its moral bearings and issues are those with which we are now immediately concerned, and possibly these are the most important in the long run.
These issues are rendered still more important for the reason that although it might be shown that “Resisters” are fanatics, wrong-headed, seekers for a “cheap martyrdom,” and “faddists,” yet the facts that for the most part they are law-abiding citizens, who have never appeared before the magistrates as defaulters or criminals, and that they exert a wide-spread influence over the population, entitle them to respectful consideration and at least serious attention.
The actual ground of complaint or grievance need not here call for extended notice.
The objection to the Education Acts of and is chiefly two-fold.1 In the first place it is said that they do not province adequate public control, and practically there is no direct representation on the educational authorities and boards of management.
This is more entirely a question of politics, and we need not discuss it in this place.
The other objection is that which is included in the Kenyon-Slaney clause, and that which immediately follows2 which give the power of directing religious instruction in public elementary schools which are not provided by the educational authority to managers, who carry out the terms of the trust-deed subject to the decision of the bishop or other ecclesiastical authority as referee.
Four out of six of these managers are appointed in accordance with the spirit and terms of the trust-deed.
It thus eventuates that religious teaching, with the whole body of dogma and ritual that the schools in question were established to teach, is thrown upon the rates for maintenance, the buildings alone being contributed by the denomination whose doctrines are taught therein.
The religious bodies of all persuasions are treated absolutely alike by this Act, and no charge of injustice can be brought against the Act, so far as its form is concerned, whatever its origin or intention.
The “nonconformist conscience” is scandalized, however, at having to pay for teaching religious doctrine of any kind, or the tenets of any particular church, although there is no necessary objection to the teaching of morals, or of the Bible as literature.
That the teaching of one Church should be devoted to the “unchurching” of all others, and that such teaching should be supported out of the rates, is a special form of the grievance.
If it be objected that the application of public money to purposes of which a section of the taxpayers do not approve is inevitable, the reply would be that in this case it is directly and specifically stated for what purpose the money will be used, and that such is not the case with Imperial taxation.
We have thus tried to state as simply and as briefly as possible the grievance which it is proposed to remedy by the “Passive Resisters,” and it is considered by them serious enough to justify their action in breaking the law at the dictates of conscience.
Let us grant that the grievance is a real and genuine one, and that there is something to be resisted, and that the motives and desires of these persons are morally justifiable, all of which would have to be considered from other points of view in order to make a complete case, are these persons morally justified under the circumstances in resisting the legalized demands for payment of rates?
This is the question to which we have to address ourselves.
In this endeavor we have to consider whether law-breaking is in this case a violation of any moral law.
Some have sought to vindicate the conduct of “Passive Resisters” on the ground that the law provides an optional mode of payment.
This has actually been stated in the courts.
There is the voluntary mode of payment, by which the money is paid over on demand; and on the other hand, there is the mode of recovery by distraint, which the law provides, which relieves the conscience of the payer, inasmuch as he can say, “I do not willingly pay, but if the law compels me, you must come and take it.”
In either case the law is satisfied, and such is the meaning of “Passive Resistance.”
The objections to this attitude are many.
It may well be questioned if the payment of rates or taxes is voluntary at all, since the account is presented in the form of a demand, and not a polite request.
Inasmuch as payment is compulsory in any case, is not Passive Resistance merely an awkward, expensive, and an inconvenient mode of payment for all concerned?
Further, there can be no point or significance in the protest unless it is an act of law breaking.
If it is nothing more than the choice of alternatives to which the law stands in an indifferent attitude, it seems to be absurd to throw needless obstacles in the way of the course of the law, since the result must be the same in either case.
If “Resistance” means anything at all, it must mean resistance to an objectionable law that infringes upon the rights of conscience.
Besides these considerations, the wording of the warrant for distraint precludes any such supposition that distraint is a legalized form of payment.
It is a summary measure (under the extension of the Act for Summary Jurisdiction) for the recovery of a lawful debt, payment of which has been refused.3 Expert opinion supports the view that such resistance is illegal.
We may conclude therefore that Passive Resistance being a refusal to pay a legal charge is necessarily an illegal act.
The justification offered is invariably that the law of conscience, i.e., the moral law, is superior to civil law, and that “we must obey God rather than man.” For further support it is also adduced that whilst all other means of “killing the Act” should be tried, this will alone provide the remedy, and that civil and religious liberty has been won for us by acts which, whilst morally justifiable, were, according to the law of the times, illegal.
It will be convenient to take these reasons in reverse order.
The examples that are generally adduced of lawlessness with a view to the overthrow of a harsh or unjust law are those of the resistance of the Parliament men to the Stuart kings, the action of the Puritan clergy in opposition to the Conventicle and Five Mile Acts, the case of John Hampden, the patriot, and the persistence in preaching on the part of John Bunyan and others.
In recent years the violation of the Slave laws and the refusal to pay Church Rates are often given in support of a defiance of the recognized law, with good moral intentions and results.
In reply to these instances and the argument they are brought forward to support, it must be pointed out that if such acts were justifiable in an age when the rights and liberties of the individual subject were not respected, and when they might have done something towards securing the privileges we now enjoy, it does not by any means follow that they are justifiable at the present time.
Since we are in possession of the full privileges of citizenship, the franchise, the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the facilities for influencing public opinion, and every opportunity of bringing others by the force of persuasion to our own point of view, the justification afforded by the actions of our ancestors does not hold.
In fact, it is a somewhat unfortunate ground to take, for it only serves to show that we are unworthy of the efforts made by our fathers on our behalf, inasmuch as we have employed our privileges and opportunities to so little purpose.
What may have been excusable and right under a tyranny, may be entirely wrong in a country that is endowed with so large a measure of freedom and enjoys so fully the advantages of democratic institutions.
We have in our hands, as all will allow, an exceptional and unprecedented degree of political liberty, and every thoughtful person will surely agree that whatever resistance is offered to an obnoxious measure, every constitutional resource should first be exhausted.
It would lead us too far into the purely political aspect of the question to inquire if every resource has been tried and failed.
The writer is of opinion that the merits of any truly righteous case will not fail to appeal to the enlightened common-sense of Englishmen sooner or later, and that the justice of any cause will most certainly, in time, working through constitutional methods, move public opinion, against which nothing can continue to stand or effectually resist.
In the meantime, is it the duty of non-conformsts to resist the course of the law?
“Passive Resistance” is not a criminal act unless it is organized and inducements are brought to bear upon others by those who “resist,” with a view to secure their refusal to pay, in which case it amounts to conspiracy.
Inasmuch as it is, however, in the eyes of the law a refusal, and therefore a violation of a legalized claim, it will be followed of necessity by some of the bad results of law-breaking.
There will be a certain weakening of the authority of the law, especially as these acts are deliberate on the part of persons who are well competent to judge and calculate the results of their conduct.
Whatever influence may be brought to bear prior to the passing of the measure into law, it is in the interests of good order and effective government that all citizens should maintain, uphold and respect the authority of the law.
That the supremacy of the law as a whole should be honored is more important for the due development of persons as citizens and in political and social relations, than that an evil affecting a section, even an important section, should be remedied by the violation of the law.4 If this movement continues to grow, one serious result will follow, viz.: that our police-courts will come to be regarded as somewhat more respectable for criminals, and for those with whom the officials of the law are having continual trouble.
The presence of “Resisters” in the courts to answer to the charges of non-payment, whilst it may have something of the element of martyrdom, is likely to make the disgrace of appearing before the magistrates somewhat less in the eyes of criminals.
If this objection is more fanciful than real, then must we adduce another argument.
If “Passive Resistance” under the circumstances is right for those who believe in it, nevertheless some bad effects must be experienced, and we can hardly calculate what the end will be, or estimate the lengths to which these results may reach.
Rightly or wrongly, there are sincere persons who conscientiously object to “secular instruction” as it is called, and they object not less emphatically to moral teaching without religion, and religion without dogma.
This position may be unreasonable, but it may be a truly conscientious one.
In the event of the “Passive Resisters” succeeding in turning the tables on their opponents, they will have given them direct encouragement, on their part, to “resist.”
If then each party, as it comes to be a minority, is to “resist” the measure passed by the majority, in relation to religious questions, something approaching to political chaos is before us.
It may be argued that the right has to be done regardless of consequences, and that if we were to stop to consider the direct or indirect bad results or attendant circumstances of our actions, all moral effort, and especially, moral reform, would be paralyzed.
An act is to be judged according to its own inherent rightness, and the consequences are beyond the limits of our responsibility.
Nevertheless, the results of our conduct, in so far as they may be reasonably forecast, must be a determinant to us amongst others as to the rightness of that conduct.
They fall within the scope of our “intentions,” using the term in the legal sense.
The rightness of our conduct cannot wholly be judged without regard to results.
There are some acts, more particularly those of cardinal rank, which may be undertaken without pausing to consider their results, the reason being that we are already convinced that their results must ultimately influence for good the morals of the community, and not because their results are ignored.
“Passive Resistance,” however, involves conduct on the part of citizens that is of a public character, and cannot but have far-reaching results upon others, in consequence of which these results must be taken into account.
We can deal with the argument better as we study the reason that forms the final justification, beyond which there can be no appeal.
“We must obey God rather than man.”
It is not, perhaps, necessary to inquire why we must obey God rather than man; the whole question of the categorical imperative is herein raised.
The plain man who believes in the Christian religion would doubtless reply that we are commanded in the Scriptures to do so.
In the abstract, or rather as a principle, the will of the Divine Being would be regarded as paramount, and as superior to any human ordinance.
There is not, however, in this case a clear issue.
It means the facing of two evils from the nonconformist standpoint.
The nonconformist is in a dilemma.
There is, at least, a certain degree of right on the side, both of Resisters and Non-resisters, to entitle each to respect from the other side.
Let us then assume that it is our duty to obey God rather than man.
Why we should do so we may state to be based upon an intuition.
The will of God for us, let us say, is that we should realize the best of which we are capable, the ideal contemplated in this case from the point of view of citizenship, and also as to our responsibility to the rising generation and the future of our country.
If we have to “obey God,” it is clearly in no private capacity in this case, nor is it in the assertion of a private right.
It is the will of the Divine with respect to the handling of an objectionable law.
What that will is cannot be determined by means of an intuition.
The proper view of our duty has to be arrived at as the result of the balancing of considerations; and the estimation of probable consequences must enter into the calculation.
The question is not to be settled in the same manner as a temptation to commit a breach of fundamental morality, with an instant and final negative, regardless of consequences.
The command of God is heard in the legalized demand itself and by means of human law and institutions.
Whatever the mystic may say with regard to his conscience and its demands, morality can recognize no call to a duty which disregards the obligations of the law and the claims it lays upon the individual citizen.
These might be laid aside at the call of a higher duty, it is true; but in determining the higher duty in a case of this sort, legal obligations must enter in.
To throw the matter into a more concrete form, it may be fairly reasoned that it is the duty of a conscientious citizen to pay an unjust charge if he has tried in vain to prevent the measure passing into law, on the ground that he is no longer responsible for the expenditure of public funds, after he has done his utmost to control that expenditure by legalized means, through legislation, and by doing his part in the appointment at the polls of candidates who may be trusted to carry out those principles which he as an elector holds.
The case assumes a somewhat different complexion when we bear in mind in what consists the sovereign power of modern England.
“Passive Resistance” sets on one side the teaching of St. Paul, that “the powers that be are ordained of God.”
These powers are resisted on the ground that they no longer represent the authority of God in civil affairs.
Their authority is superseded by the authority of conscience.
This reasoning, however, disregards the fact that the ultimate authority and the sovereign power of England at the present time, is the goodwill of the citizens as a body.
Unless we can charge the main body of citizens with having no conscience in the matter, such a course of action as “Passive Resistance” is to set up the conscience of the individual against the collective conscience, or, at least, to make the conscience of the minority superior to that of the majority.
If the sovereign power is that authority which the citizens, as a whole, habitually obey, and if the government of our country can only be upheld as the whole body of citizens are willing that it should continue and are agreed loyally to support the laws when once they have been duly passed, then ought the collective conscience, or the conscience of the majority, to be recognized within certain limits, as indicating the duty of citizens and the will of the Supreme Ruler, in civil affairs.
We would go so far as to say that, in this respect, vox populi is vox Dei.
There is, in short, no personal or individual right in a matter of political obligation, on the ground of morality, to stand against or to resist the collective will or conscience of the majority, when once the proposals have passed from the legislative to the administrative stage.
It has been asserted throughout the course of this controversy that the Education Act of does not fairly represent the will of the people, inasmuch as the electorate was never consulted on the subject, and the Government forced the Bill through the House of Commons on the strength of a majority returned to bring the war in South Africa to a termination.
There having been no “mandate” from the constituencies to deal with this question, the people are, so the argument runs, released from their obligation to submit, and, under the circumstances, “Passive Resistance” is the least objectionable form of resistance.
We can imagine the reply to be that there never is, in a General Election in England, an unequivocal and distinct pronouncement on any definite question before the country, nor is there at any time a single, clear, or unmistakable issue upon which the country gives its voice.
It might also be said that, whilst there may be one outstanding question which mainly determines the majority, yet an election is never fought on that issue alone.
There is always the general line of policy which belongs to each of the respective parties, and in an election regard must always be had to it.
It might fairly have been conjectured beforehand that the Conservative Party would bring in, sooner or later, a bill dealing with education, in conformity with its relation to the State Church.
Let us grant, however, for the sake of argument (and not that we necessarily commit ourselves to that view), that the Government of Great Britain, having been returned to power on a war vote, has presumed upon its huge majority to force a measure through the legislature in an unconstitutional manner, and has thus abused its immense strength by taking advantage of the weakness of its opponents.
On that view of the matter we have an instance of the tyranny of the majority, which, of course, is quite possible in a democratic state.
Two questions would then arise.
Making all allowance for the subtle influence of vested interests, where they exist, for re-actions in public opinion and for accidental circumstances, is not an Opposition, to some extent, responsible in a modern community for its own weakness, especially if it is lacking in unity and enthusiasm?
When an Opposition has a good cause and can present a united front, it is seldom, if ever, possible that a tyrannical government can fly in the face of strong public opinion, even though its exponents are in a minority, without the risk of swift and sure retribution.
Whether this be accepted or not, the question remains whether it is right and in the interests of law and order, and conducive to the well-being of the citizens as a whole, and good government, that tyranny should be met by lawlessness?
Would not this tend to make “confusion worse confounded,” if generally adopted.
This position of affairs might afford a substantial argument in favor of the “Referendum,” but in the present condition of party government, it would generally be considered by the most thoughtful persons of either party preferable in the interests of the community that those that compose the minority should always bide their time until they can, by regular and constitutional methods, remove their grievances, on the peril of making the “remedy worse than the disease.”
This argument has thus been briefly dealt with, because it is almost always used to strengthen the position of the “Passive Resisters.”
It has many other implications of a political character which we have no reason in this paper to discuss.
Nevertheless, we are not, I think, entitled to regard this as the main argument of the Resisters, for the reason that the grievance would exist, even though there had been an appeal to the country on the issue of Education.
There would still remain a case for Resistance on the ground that these persons are called upon definitely to pay for the instruction of the children in public schools in religious dogma in which a portion of the community do not believe, and they would probably “resist” all the same.
This political aspect of the question is adduced as an additional argument to strengthen the attitude taken in “Resistance”: but, as the writer has indicated, he does not see that such ground of justification can be maintained, nor, as before stated, does he consider that it has any justification on moral grounds.
We may take, however, yet another view of the matter.
There may be ecclesiastical or religious grounds for refusing to pay the rate, but these lie beyond the scope of this discussion.
A man may be convinced in his own mind that the voice of conscience bids him to “resist,” as the most effectual protest against what he regards as false doctrine or ecclesiastical aggression.
He may be absolutely incapable of justifying himself on moral grounds, or he may even be prepared to admit that some bad moral results may accrue from his action, and yet feel that it is his duty to “resist.”
It may be impossible to convince him that he is in error, because he maintains it is a matter of religious conviction, and to be settled between himself and his God.
We cannot, of course, make any headway against reasoning of this kind, even though we may be thoroughly convinced that, from an ethical point of view, the position is wrong.
Let it be understood, therefore, that we pass no opinion as to the religious or ecclesiastical aspect of the case.
If, however, the “Resisters” have made up their minds on this point that they must “resist” in spite of argument and consequences, then a new question for ethics is raised.
We have the spectacle of a number of earnest persons, women no less than men, who are prepared to suffer in their pockets and to be committed to prison for their principles, and with no material or private end to serve.
Right or wrong those principles may be, yet in an age of moral indifference, and when the moral sense is seldom really stimulated or roused, these “Passive Resisters” set the example of a certain form of heroism that refuses not to suffer for conscience’s sake.
The same may be claimed, of course, for law-breaking Ritualists, who are at the opposite extreme in Christian doctrine.
Thus “Passive Resistance” will have the further effect of keeping the whole subject, the religious and moral instruction of the young, prominently and vividly before the public, until a satisfactory solution to the problem is found.
The very interest that attaches to such subjects will have a moral value of its own.
We may conclude by saying that “Passive Resistance” has no support on ethical lines alone.
The writer is of opinion that it cannot be justified on ethico-political grounds.
Nevertheless, on the assumption that it has any support in the religious convictions of the individual (upon which assumption no opinion is here offered), it may possess some moral value, such as will always attach to the movements that are carried out with moral seriousness and sense of moral responsibility.
In any case, certain evil results are inevitable, and it is an open question whether, on the whole, more evil than good may not be the net result.
J.G. James. Yeovil, England.
For the sake of brevity we omit the objection to the imposition of religious tests upon teachers.
Education Act, ; Section 7, Paragraphs 6 and 7.
The warrant for distraint contains these words: “…The said several sums have been duly demanded of them respectively, but they have not … paid the same sums … but they have refused and still do refuse to pay the same … and have not … shown to us sufficient cause for not paying the same.”
A century ago, British Nonconformists (that is, people who were not members of the official church) responded to government funding of establishment church schools with a campaign of tax resistance.
Today I’ll share some contemporary newspaper excerpts that covered the campaign.
The following comes from the edition of The San Francisco Call:
PASSIVE RESISTANCE.
When the new education bill was under consideration in Parliament a number of the more earnest opponents of the feature of the bill providing for the support of church schools declared that if the Government undertook to collect taxes for the support of such schools they would refuse payment.
The programme thus defined, became known as the policy of “passive resistance” and was the chief object of political discussion in the kingdom until Chamberlain’s imperial tariff issue distracted popular attention from the subject.
The opponents of the measure, however, are standing by their guns, and we learn from our London exchanges that the passive resistance movement has already become formidable and is steadily extending throughout the country.
The Westminster Gazette deems the issue of sufficient importance to devote almost an entire page of a recent edition to publishing a record of the summonses that have been issued to compel the payment of taxes by the resisters.
It appears that the first act of resistance occurred on , when four residents of the parish of Wirksworth were summoned before the local magistrates for refusing to pay the school taxes.
Warrants were issued against their property and the sales took place without disturbance.
, the day of the publication of the Gazette, upward of 3000 summonses were issued and the number of distraint sales amounted to sixty.
In most cases the resistance was strictly passive and no attempt was made to interfere with the officers in the sale of property seized for taxes, but at times there were evidences of a feeling that may give rise to trouble later on should the number of resisters ever become large enough to encourage a resort to an active resistance in place of a passive one.
Reviewing the movement in another issue the Gazette says: “In large numbers of cases proceedings have not yet been taken and several months must elapse before the full extent of the resistance can be adequately measured.”
A careful study of the summonses shows that a majority of the resisters who have thus far been brought before the courts belong either to the Baptist, Congregational or Primitive Methodist churches, but other free churches are well represented, notably the Wesleyans.
Some surprise has been felt at the indifference to the issue of the Society of Friends, as the members of that church were strenuous leaders in the former battles against church rates.
Members of the “Passive Resistance Committee” are quoted as saying that upward of 400 local leagues have been formed to resist the tax and that the movement is still extending.
In describing the manner in which the distraint sales are received by the public the Gazette says:
“At Long Eaton the goods of twenty-three Passive Resisters were sold amid demonstrations of hostility to the auctioneer.
A boy was arrested for throwing a bag of flour.”
“There was some feeling displayed at a sale of the goods of Passive Resisters at Colchester yesterday, the Rev. T. Batty, a Baptist minister, and the Rev. Pierrepont Edwards, locally, known as ‘the fighting parson,’ entering into discussion in the auction room, but being stopped by the auctioneer, who said he did his work during the week and he hoped they did theirs on Sundays.
At Long Eaton the goods of twenty-three Passive Resisters were sold amid demonstrations of hostility to the auctioneer.
A boy was arrested for throwing a bag of flour.
Six distress warrants were issued at Loughborough, in Leicestershire, while at Brighton the magistrates made orders in nearly one hundred cases.
There was much demonstration in the court, the magistrates after one outburst leaving the bench and ordering the room to be cleared.
Some people were put out, but others clung to their seats and would not move.
The chief constable appealed to all to leave quietly, but realizing the ugly aspect of things, he consented to act as mediator and ask the magistrates to proceed on the understanding that there was no further disturbance.
Thus the situation was saved.”
It will be remembered that when the tariff question was precipitated by Mr. Chamberlain some of the opponents of the education bill declared that the new issue had been raised solely for the purpose of evading the educational issue.
The charge was unfair, but there can be no doubt that the Ministers were quite glad to get away from the denominational controversy which was threatened.
Even as it is, however, there is going to be trouble with the law, and in some localities the struggle between the magistrates and the resisters may become quite serious before all is over.
Here’s more, from the New York Times:
RELIGIOUS CONFLICT IN ENGLAND RENEWED
“Passive Resistance” Movement Against the Education Act.
The Rev. R. J. Campbell of the City Temple Says He Will Refuse to Pay Rates for Sectarian Purposes.
LONDON, .
— There was a remarkable scene at the City Temple in the City Temple at the mid-day service , when the pastor, the Rev. R.J. Campbell, the successor of the late Dr. Parker, announced his adhesion to the “Passive Resistance” movement against the education act.
Mr. Campbell, who may be regarded as the head of the Nonconformists in this country and as voicing their determination, said he would tender payment of the portion of the rates which was not devoted to sectarian purposes, but that the collector would have to seize his hall clock and other chattels for the balance.
The congregation, numbering about 3,000 persons, stood up and cheered lustily for several minutes.
The pastor added that he had heard that Colonial Secretary Chamberlain was likely to advocate the imprisonment of those who participated in the “Passive Resistance” movement, but he believed that if Mr. Chamberlain imprisoned him (Mr. Campbell) his days as a colonial secretary would be numbered, for Nonconformity represented half the religious life of the nation.
The English Nonconformists, after the introduction of the Education bill in the House of Commons, made many threats that they would refuse to pay the taxes to carry out the provisions of the bill, but since the passage of the act these threats became less frequent and up to it was supposed that the idea of fighting the measure in the way suggested had been abandoned.
It now seems that the Nonconformist leaders have decided to carry out their original plan, and another bitter religious conflict is consequently expected.
“Mr. Perks said he did not believe it was their duty to pay a rate for the propagation of a faith or tenets which they believed to be obnoxious in the sight of God.”
R.W. Perks, M.P., who was one of the most active opponents of the Education bill before its passage, speaking at Oxford on at a meeting convened by the Free Church Council of that city, said that, if they had been told two or three years ago that a Government would come into power and make it one of its cardinal measures to sweep out of existence the great school boards of England and to strengthen the priestly control over the elementary education of their children, they would have said that it was beyond belief.
There were certain cardinal features in the education act which they as Free Churchmen never could and never would admit.
First of all, in every voluntary school in the country the majority of the foundation managers were not elected by the people, and that must be reversed.
In the second place, they had 14,000 appointments of headmasters and headmistresses in the voluntary schools where the masters and mistresses were subjected to sectarian tests, and none of these appointments could be legally held by Nonconformists.
This was bad, because it limited the area of choice, and because it was a serious temptation to a boy or girl to change religious opinions simply for the purpose of securing a public appointment.
In conclusion Mr. Perks said he did not believe it was their duty to pay a rate for the propagation of a faith or tenets which they believed to be obnoxious in the sight of God.
These remarks were received with loud cheers.
Some Americans got into the act, according to the San Francisco Call:
LONDON, .
— The first foreigners to join the “passive resistance” movement against the educational act are two American taxpayers living at Wimbledon, the Rev. R.W. Farquhar, formerly pastor of Portland, Or., and E.H. Gaston, who at one time lived in Chicago.
They have both refused to pay the education rate and consequently their household goods will be seized and sold at auction to satisfy claims for a few shillings.
A follow-up article from the same paper reads:
Property of Americans Seized.
LONDON, . —
The police have seized several pieces of silverware belonging to the Rev. R.W. Farquhar, formerly of Portland, Or., and E.P. Gaston, who at one time lived in Chicago, two American taxpayers living in Wimbledon, who were the first foreigners to join the passive resistance movement against the education act.
The silver was sold by auction to satisfy the rates, amounting to a few shillings, which they refused to pay.
The pieces include wedding gifts and church presents made to them in the United States.
A New York Times article noted that the movement seemed to be growing:
…This movement, far from showing any signs of subsiding, is every day gathering new strength throughout the country.
“Auctioneers frequently decline to sell goods upon which distraints have been levied.”
Magistrates in many places openly express their sympathy with those who from conscientious motives refuse to pay the education rate.
Auctioneers frequently decline to sell goods upon which distraints have been levied.
Crowds, numbering in some cases thousands of people, assemble to give their support and sympathy to these lawbreakers for conscience’ sake.
With a fine affectation of indignation the church party publishes letters and articles innumerable denouncing the tactics of the resisters as subversive of law and order and as leading direct to anarchy.
Nothing makes any impression on the resolution of these irreconcilable Nonconformists, who maintain that they are prepared to go to prison rather than pay taxes for what they regard as Romanizing education calculated to imperil the Protestantism for which their forefathers fought and suffered.
One fiery spirit declared the other day that he would be delighted to suffer martyrdom at the stake rather than obey this law.
Passive resistance, in short, is rapidly producing a state of things which no government can afford to ignore.
Its result will ultimately be the removal of the grievances which weigh so heavily on the “Nonconformist conscience.”
By , things were looking up (The Washington Bee ):
TAKES RELIGION FROM SCHOOLS
British Court Decides People Need Not Pay for This Instruction
London.
— A decision given by the court of appeals leaves the question of religious education in Great Britain in a peculiar position.
The education act of was intended to compel local authorities to pay for religious instruction in the voluntary [publicly-funded, private] schools, and led to the notorious “passive resisters” movement under which numbers of nonconformists refused to pay the rates levied to cover this expenditure for church schools.
In the meantime the county council of the west riding of Yorkshire refused to pay teachers for the time devoted by them to religious instruction.
The board of education then sought the assistance of the courts in the matter, with the result that the court of appeals decided in favor of the Yorkshire council.
If this decision should be upheld by the house of lords, whither the case now will be carried, it will practically accomplish by a stroke what the bill now in parliament of Augustine Berrell, president of the board of education, aims at, and, furthermore, it may possibly enable a large number of “passive resisters” to bring action for false imprisonment.
The entire trouble appears to be due to careless drafting of the bill of .
An article from the Washington Herald looked at the state of the campaign:
Passive resistance continues to resist in the most active manner among the members of the Passive Resistance Leagues throughout Great Britain.
The education bill of the government having been destroyed by the bishops and the temporal peers, the passive resisters have issued new and very vigorous manifestos for sympathy and recruits.
Every man who has been to prison for refusing to pay the sectarian school rates declares he is willing to go again, though it costs him 30 shillings every time, and a working man declares he will withhold payment of the tax, even if it does cost him 6 shillings 3 pence to keep back the rate of 11 pence.
There is very little that is passive about the resisters, except the manner they meet imprisonments and fines for their refusal to pay taxes they think — and rightly think — unjustly imposed.
Their energy, force, and determination in their conscientious stand for freedom and self-government in educational matters are indisputable.
From the edition of the San Francisco Chronicle comes this short bit that demonstrates some of the creative tactics of nonconformist tax resisters in Great Britain a century and change ago:
The passive resistance of the nonconformists to the tax levied under the new education law is growing throughout England and Wales, where it applies.
Those refusing to pay the tax are allowing their property to be seized by the taxgatherers and sold at auction to the highest bidder.
In some districts the cases are reported to be multiplying by the hundreds.
In Lincolnshire, the sitting magistrate recently refused to try cases of resistance, and left the bench.
Difficulty is experienced everywhere in getting auctioneers to sell the property confiscated.
In Leominster, a ram and some ewe lambs, the property of a resistant named Charles Grundy, were seized and put up at auction, as follows: Ram, Joe Chamberlain; ewes, Lady Balfour, Mrs. Bishop, Lady Cecil, Mrs. Canterbury and so on through the list of those who made themselves conspicuous in forcing the bill through Parliament.
The auctioneer was entitled to a fee under the law of 10 shillings and 6 pence, which he promptly turned over to Mr. Grundy, having during the sale expressed the strongest sympathy for the tax-resisters.
Most of the auction sales are converted into political meetings in which the tax and those responsible for it are roundly denounced.
The upshot of the opposition to the obnoxious sectarian law will be an assault on Parliament at the next session to repeal it, which will probably be done.
This report comes from the Toronto World:
Woman — lovely woman — has devised a new method of harassing the British Liberal Cabinet, which at least on the question of her right to the suffrage is a house divided against itself, and therefore, on the best authority, in a parlous condition.
Many members belonging to the two militant societies and many more belonging to organizations that eschew violent methods, have bonded themselves together in a “Women’s Tax Resistance League,” imitating thereby the device employed by the Nonconformist opponents of Mr. Balfour’s famous — or infamous, as it may please — Education Bill.
In this new move the ladies are more logical than they have been in some of their schemes to draw public attention to their grievance and to achieve its redress.
Taxation without representation is abhorrent to the free man — why not to the free woman?
What men have been constrained to resist as unconstitutional and been therein justified by the verdict of history, cannot be blamed when they are offered the flattery of imitation.
Nor are women without appeal to the very recently expressed opinions of noble lords and other indignant resenters of the government’s policies.
One of them wrote down words to the effect that if the Unionist party was really in earnest in resisting the unconstitutional and revolutionary methods of the government, why should they not organize a refusal to pay taxes until a referendum be introduced?
Sir John Lansdale, M.P., also declared in a speech that “they disregard the authority of our Irish Parliament and would refuse to pay its taxes.”
However, whether mankind is inclined to resent or not this further assertion of the claim to complete equality and adoption of the role of tax resister, this new movement is certain to be generally supported.
Among the arguments offered in its favor is that women who are property owners and payers of taxes and therefore count as a force in the community, owe a special duty at the present time to women who do not count.
Tax resistance, it is contended, provides in the locality where it is employed, a valuable object lesson in support of the cause which women have at heart.
The claim is also made that tax resistance forms a common bond of action for suffragists of all shades of opinion; and it may be added will probably be much more generally effective and certainly far more dignified than struggles with constables and wanton destruction of property.
Many “Dissenters” Getting Into Jail for Refusing to Contribute to Support
of Church of England
Boycott of Offensive Tax is Widespread
By Charles P. Stewart.
London Correspondent United Press.
London, .
— So many “dissenters” are getting into jail for refusing to contribute to the support of the Church of England schools that the British government is becoming alarmed.
The dispute between the followers of the state church and of the various dissenting denominations — Methodists, Baptists, Congregationalists and others — dates back to , when the “compulsory church rate” was made part of the Educational Act.
It dragged along until quite recently, however, without attracting much attention.
This was merely because the dissenters or “free churchmen,” as they are also known, were not acting unitedly and the number who became involved in trouble with the authorities over their defiance of the law was not great enough to give the matter an appearance of grave importance.
But at last, what amounts to a widespread boycott of the offensive tax has developed.
Free church ministers and laymen alike are refusing to pay it.
Moreover, they are taking the precaution of putting their property out of their own names, so that the collectors will not have anything to levy on.
This means that the authorities have no recourse but to send them to prison and they already have forty ministers and about twice as many laymen of various dissenting establishments behind the bars at the present time.
Men high in English governmental affairs recognize that a politico-religious struggle of this sort has infinite possibilities of danger.
They are doing their best to effect a compromise, but so stubborn are both sides and so violently does the average Briton excite himself as soon as the “church question” is touched on that the would-be peace-makers have not only not succeeded in improving the situation, but are almost afraid to suggest anything likely to work an improvement.
As already pointed out it does not necessarily follow that a dissenter goes to jail because he refuses to pay his “church rate.”
If he has property the authorities can put their hands on, it is seized and sold for the amount due and this ends the matter until time for the next payment.
Thousands of families have had their property seized and sold in this manner.
It is going on constantly all over England and there is getting to be more and more of it as the dissenters become more stubborn.
John Clifford
“We free churchmen,” says Dr. Clifford of London, the famous leader of the “passive resistance” party, “will continue to go to prison until all denominations are treated alike by the state or until there are no dissenters out of jail.
“I myself have been trying to get into prison ever since the Education Act was passed, but I have failed.
My nearest approach to it is when, four times yearly, the officers come and seize my goods.
In my case the church tax comes to six shillings ($1.44) a quarter.
“In the hope of preventing the authorities from getting their money in this way I made over all my household effects to my wife, but the collectors seized them just the same.
They take articles of silver, watches and knicknacs which can easily be carried and converted into money.
Mrs. Clifford complains that we have not enough silver left to set a table decently.
“I might resist these seizures by setting up the claim that the goods are not mine but my wife’s, but inasmuch as the transfer was not made until after the Education Act was passed and it is obvious that it was made to evade the law, my solicitor advises me that a case of conspiracy might be made out against me for which I could be sentenced to eight years’ penal servitude.
I wish to get into prison, indeed, but to do so for eight years is rather serious.
I think my services to the free church movement are valuable enough, outside a cell, to make it undesirable for me to sacrifice myself for so long a term.
[“]Will we win this fight for religious liberty?
Yes, but not easily.
It will take thirty years.
The Anglican church is too rich and too closely allied to the House of Lords and the breweries, to be easily disestablished.
We free churchmen pay a price for our principles.”
Perhaps the most significant case thus far in connection with the “passive resistance” movement was that of the Rev. S.J. Ford, a well-known Baptist clergyman of Minchinhampton, who was sentenced to two months’ hard labor in “Glousecter Goal” [sic] for refusal to pay his church rate.
Mr. Ford has “done” fourteen days on eight previous occasions without complaining, but two months for 42 cents struck him as a trifle excessive, and he spoke to his chief, Dr. Clifford, about it.
The doctor appealed to Home Secretary Churchill who, as a Liberal, sympathizes with the “passive resisters.”
He at first gave it as his opinion, however, that he lacked the legal power to interfere with the sentence.
Later he changed his mind and ten days ago, after Mr. Ford had served seven days of his time, ordered him set free.
But the reason back of the severity of Mr. Ford’s sentence was even more interesting than the sentence itself.
Maj. Ricardo, the presiding magistrate of the court of petty sessions, which pronounced it, was deeply concerned during the last election in the success of the Tory candidate for Parliament, in Gloucester and, with many others, attributed his defeat by a Liberal mainly to the influence of Mr. Ford, who is immensely popular with the workingmen.
The clergyman’s appearance before him for refusal to pay the church rate was the first chance he had to square accounts.
“There is,” Dr. Clifford says, “a movement on foot now to have the bench of Gloucester magistrates removed, as political venom was plainly shown.
The Lord Chancellor, Lord Loreburn, the head of the English judiciary, can remove any magistrate for cause, so he will be appealed to.”
Mr. Ford came out of prison in an exceedingly cheerful frame of mind.
He was quite willing to go there for conscience’s sake, he remarked, but he had no disposition to stay longer than necessary.
“Having been in the same jail so many times before,” he added, “I knew the officials there and was received by them, on my entrance, in their usual hospitable manner.
They have always treated me with much consideration and humanity.
If the same spirit had been shown by the magistrates I would not have received so excessive a sentence.
While a prisoner I was employed in sewing the bottoms into mail bags.
“I presume I shall have many similar experiences in future but sooner or later victory will come for the ‘passive resisters’ and for the country’s schools.”
The Ford case is not the only recent one of the kind in which a strong flavor of party politics has been mixed with religion and taxes.
Thomas Watson, of Hull, for instance, a man of 78 years, recently spent two weeks in prison for the same offense charged against Mr. Ford.
But the odd part of it was that Watson has been resisting the church tax ever since without getting himself locked up.
His property was in his wife’s name, so that collection could not be forced and he might, under the law, have been sentenced any time in .
The whole secret is, however, that he never took the slightest interest in politics until the last election.
Then he suddenly took the stump for the local Liberal candidate for Parliament.
His interest was due to the fact that the Conservative aspirant for legislative honors was notoriously chosen by the Conservative political boss of Hull, who is a saloon keeper, while Watson is a prohibitionist.
He developed unexpected ability as a campaigner and the Conservatives were furious at him.
So the very next time the church tax fell due he declined to pay it, old Watson went to jail.
Josiah Godley of Overton is just out of Lancaster prison for a like offense.
Like Watson he had neither paid nor been annoyed since .
Like Watson he never mixed in politics until the last election.
Then he became an active Liberal worker.
Time came for the church tax, Godley was asked for it, he refused to pay, he was arrested, he admitted that he could but wouldn’t pay for supporting the schools of a denomination he didn’t believe in and he got 14 days at hard labor.
Enough cases of this kind could be quoted to fill columns.
They are causing so much bad blood that there are beginning to be indications of a sentiment among the “passive resisters” of a disinclination to go on making their “resistance” altogether “passive.”
That the oppression, as a matter of politics, should always be of Liberals by Conservatives is in the very nature of things.
A follower of the Church of England is not always a Conservative but he generally is if he is a very ardent churchman and Conservatives, practically without exception are Church of Englanders.
Liberals, on the other hand, are not always dissenters but dissenters are always Liberals and, speaking broadly, the Liberal party may be set down as a dissenting party.
That is, so far as religion and politics are mixed — which in England is a great deal.
Civil disobedience is currently in the air for the euphemistically-named Community Charge (or “Poll Tax”) seems to favour the rich at the expense of the poor.
Some have announced they will not pay an unjust tax and many Christians affirm that they feel bound in conscience to refuse payment.
Opponents are aghast, seeing such behaviour as subversive of the rule of law.
Yet there is a Christian precedent.
In the Evangelical Nonconformists of England declared en masse that they would not pay the portion of their rates that went towards elementary education.
They had long nursed an educational grievance.
they had been compelled to send their children to school, but in many areas — especially in the countryside — the only school was run by the Church of England.
Children of Nonconformist parents were taught from the Book of Common Prayer in an Anglican atmosphere.
The only alternative was to withdraw the children under a conscience clause from religious instruction and to expose them to ostracism.
Religious “indoctrination”
Nonconformists were eager to see a Liberal government impose public school control over all elementary schools so that religious discrimination should cease.
Instead, a Conservative government entrenched the Anglican schools within the national education system.
Previously the schools had been aided from taxation, but now they were to be financed by local rates, which were customarily designed for specific purposes.
Nonconformists concluded that one purpose of this was to indoctrinate the young in the teachings of a Church from which their parents conscientiously dissented.
The Church of England possessed a growing Anglo-Catholic party whose view of the way of salvation hardly differed from that of the Roman Catholic Church.
Chapel children, it seemed, were to have their souls imperilled at their parents’ expense.
The cry “Rome on the rates!” was raised and a passive [sic] movement sprang up.
Some Nonconformists, especially among the Wesleyians and Presbyterians, thought rate refusal scandalous.
Their fellow Free Churchmen were declining to obey the law at the same time as benefitting from the rule of law.
In a democracy there was the possibility of reversing government policy by returning the Liberals at the next election.
So why then the need to resort to extra-constitutional methods?
The bulk of Nonconformists, however, took up the cause with enthusiasm.
There were sermons on Bible Passive Resistance drawing encouragement from the example of Shadrach, Meshach and Adednego in the book of Daniel.
Leeds Free Church Council went to prayer and then, by 89 votes to one, resolved in favor of rate refusal.
John Bunyan was quoted to show there were two ways of obeying the law: I may do as the law directs or else, if the law infringes conscience, “I am willing to lie down and suffer what they shall do to me.”
Nonconformity was roused to resistance.
Pantomimic martyrdom
The first rate refusal occurred in Spring .
The procedure was that after an automatic summons and a court hearing, sufficient goods were distrained to pay the amount owed to the local authority.
Items confiscated in Coventry included bicycles, a microscope, a gold watch, a half-plate camera and (from a minister) an Alphabetical Arrangement of the Words in the Hebrew Talmud, translated into German.
The goods had to be put up for sale at auction.
Normally a friend of the owner would buy the property back on his behalf.
But the process could become a ritual.
John Clifford, the Baptist minister who led the whole protest and subsequently appeared in court 41 times up to the First World War, set aside a few silver trowels give [sic] him at chapel stone-layings for regular distraint.
The procedure often approximated “pantomimic martyrdom,” as it was known at the time.
Yet the experience could be far worse.
Some protesters insisted that nobody should buy their property at the auction.
Then there was no alternative to imprisonment, usually for seven days but sometimes for up to three months.
For men of Christian character and unimpeachable respectability it could be a trying time.
Sleep was fitful, food awful and a sense of isolation acute.
In the three years of the movement up to there were 70,880 summonses, 2568 auctions and 176 imprisonments.
The grievance was given ample publicity.
Significant legacy
With the election of a Liberal government in , the momentum of protest slackened.
It was expected the Liberals would sweep the offending legislation away.
However, resistance by the House of Lords frustrated all efforts at reform.
Rates continued to contribute to Anglican and Roman Catholic schools for as long as rates were levied.
Passive resistance faded away without achieving its aim.
Nevertheless it bequeathed a significant legacy.
Mahatma Gandhi, then a young Indian lawyer in South Africa, read reports of Nonconformist efforts and recognized the potential of civil disobedience as an instrument for mobilizing a mass movement.
Gandhi’s thinking, in turn, was a powerful influence over Martin Luther King, who led the campaign for black civil rights in America.
Passive resistance exercised on conscientious grounds was to have a noble future.
Protestants who were not members of England’s official church rebelled against
taxes designed to fund sectarian education about a century ago. Here are a
couple of data points from that campaign.
From the issue of
The Friend:
More than one-third of 140 persons who have been incarcerated for non-payment
of the education tax in England have been ministers. That distinguished
preacher,
F.B.
Meyer, just before leaving New York for London, said: “With the
expectation that I may soon be imprisoned for non-payment of my education
rates, I am learning how to use a scrubbrush and how to brighten tins, and I
will remain in jail so long as it be necessary, rather than contribute toward
priestly teaching in our elementary schools.”
And this comes from the
Brisbane Courier:
Passive Resistance Movement
London .
Summonses to the number of 21,871 were issued against “passive resisters” in
connection with the collection of rates under the Education Act during the
past year. There were 971 sales of property to satisfy judgments in the
courts, and in twenty-two cases the defendants went to prison rather than pay
the tax demanded.
Ready for some more exiting archival digging about British nonconformists and their resistance to funding sectarian education?
Thought so.
From the San Francisco Call:
When the new education bill was under consideration in Parliament a number of the more earnest opponents of the feature of the bill providing for the support of church schools declared that if the Government undertook to collect taxes for the support of such schools they would refuse payment.
The programme thus defined, became known as the policy of “passive resistance” and was the chief object of political discussion in the kingdom until Chamberlain’s imperial tariff issue distracted popular attention from the subject.
The opponents of the measure, however, are standing by their guns, and we learn from our London exchanges that the passive resistance movement has already become formidable and is steadily extending throughout the country.
The Westminster Gazette deems the issue of sufficient importance to devote almost an entire page of a recent edition to publishing a record of the summonses that have been issued to compel the payment of taxes by the resisters.
It appears that the first act of resistance occurred on , when four residents of the parish of Wirksworth were summoned before the local magistrates for refusing to pay the school taxes.
Warrants were issued against their property and sixteen days later the sales took place without disturbance.
Since that time down to , the day of the publication of the Gazette, upward of 3000 summonses were issued and the number of distraint sales amounted to sixty.
In most cases the resistance was strictly passive and no attempt was made to interfere with the officers in the sale of property seized for taxes, but at times there were evidences of a feeling that may give rise to trouble later on should the number of resisters ever become large enough to encourage a resort to an active resistance in place of a passive one.
Reviewing the movement in another issue the Gazette says: “In large numbers of cases proceedings have not yet been taken and several months must elapse before the full extent of the resistance can be adequately measured.”
A careful study of the summonses shows that a majority of the resisters who have thus far been brought before the courts belong either to the Baptist, Congregational, or Primitive Methodist churches, but other free churches are well represented, notably the Wesleyans.
Some surprise has been felt at the indifference to the issue of the Society of Friends, as the members of that church were strenuous leaders in the former battles against church rates.
Members of the “Passive Resistance Committee” are quoted as saying that upward of 400 local leagues have been formed to resist the tax and that the movement is still extending.
In describing the manner in which the distraint sales are received by the public the Gazette says:
“There was some feeling displayed at a sale of the goods of Passive Resisters at Colchester yesterday, the Rev. T. Batty, a Baptist minister, and the Rev. Pierrepont Edwards, locally, known as ‘the fighting parson,’ entering into discussion in the auction room, but being stopped by the auctioneer, who said he did his work during the week and he hoped they did theirs on Sundays.
At Long Eaton the goods of twenty-three Passive Resisters were sold amid demonstrations of hostility to the auctioneer.
A boy was arrested for throwing a bag of flour.
Six distress warrants were issued at Loughborough, in Leicestershire, while at Brighton the magistrates made orders in nearly one hundred cases.
There was much demonstration in the court, the magistrates after one outburst leaving the bench and ordering the room to be cleared.
Some people were put out, but others clung to their seats and would not move.
The chief constable appealed to all to leave quietly, but realizing the ugly aspect of things, he consented to act as mediator and ask the magistrates to proceed on the understanding that there was no further disturbance.
Thus the situation was saved.”
It will be remembered that when the tariff question was precipitated by Mr. Chamberlain some of the opponents of the education bill declared that the new issue had been raised solely for the purpose of evading the educational issue.
The charge was unfair, but there can be no doubt that the Ministers were quite glad to get away from the denominational controversy which was threatened.
Even as it is, however, there is going to be trouble with the law, and in some localities the struggle between the magistrates and the resisters may become quite serious before all is over.
One way a tax resistance campaign can get a leg up is through the acts of
sympathizers within the tax collection bureaucracy itself. After all, they’re
taxpayers too, and may feel more loyalty to their fellow-subjects than to the
government they’re subjected to.
To this end, some tax resistance campaigns have made strides by encouraging
resignations, defections, and goldbricking among those responsible for
carrying out the tax laws.
In this, they’re following the lead of Thoreau, who wrote:
Today I’ll give some examples of tax resistance campaigns that tried to
persuade the tax collector to switch teams.
Free Keene
A group of activists in Keene, New Hampshire, ranging from Christian
anarchists to “Free State Project” ballot-box libertarians, has been
experimenting with a number of creative civil disobedience projects.
In , Russell Kanning went to the Keene
branch of the Internal Revenue Service and tried to hand out leaflets to the
employees there. The leaflets quoted from the tribunal that presided over
war crimes trials in Japan after World War Ⅱ to the effect that people are
obligated personally to disengage from the crimes of their governments, and
then provided a sample letter these employees could send to resign from their
jobs.
Kanning was arrested by agents from the Department of Homeland Security and
charged with distributing materials in a federal building and failure to obey
a lawful order. After he was booked and released, he immediately returned to
the IRS
office to try again (without the leaflets, which had been confiscated). He was
arrested again and charged with disorderly conduct.
A few months later, Dave Ridley followed-up on Kanning’s action, at the
Nashua
IRS
office. He silently held up a sign that read “Is it right to work for the
IRS?”
and passed a leaflet through the window that read in part:
I have the right to remain silent.
IRS
agents have the right to quit their jobs. If that is not possible, they have
a responsibility to work as inefficiently as possible when taking our money,
and as quickly as possible when returning it.
The police were summoned and hustled him out of the building. They later cited
him for “distribution of handbills.”
Kat Kanning and Lauren Canario were the next activists in line, going to the
Keene IRS
office with a “Taxes pay for torture” sign and a stack of leaflets. They were
charged with “disorderly conduct and loitering, failure to obey a lawful
order.”
At every stage in the process, they tried to directly but non-aggressively
confront not only the
IRS
employees, but also the Homeland Security officers, court bailiffs, judges,
and other government collaborators: asking them why they were interfering
with American citizens “petitioning their government for redress of
grievances,” and asking them to consider taking up a more honorable line of
work.
The first intifada
At the launching of the first “intifada” resisting Israeli rule over
Palestinians, Palestinians who worked for the tax department under the Israeli
occupation resigned their posts. As a result of this and of organized tax
resistance, only about 20% of Palestinians subject to Israeli taxes in the West
Bank paid their taxes in 1993, the last year before Israel relinquished taxing
authority there to the Palestinian Authority.
Greek tax and customs officials
Complicating the Greek government’s campaign to bring in more tax revenue
during the recent Euro-region financial brouhaha, bureaucrats in the Greek tax
and customs office periodically went on strike
to protest the
accompanying austerity measures that cut funding for state employees.
British nonconformists
British members of nonconforming Christian sects who did not want to see their
tax money going towards schools that taught children the official, government
supported faith, resisted their taxes. The newspapers reported:
In Lincolnshire, the sitting magistrate recently refused to try cases of
resistance, and left the bench. Difficulty is experienced everywhere in
getting auctioneers to sell the property confiscated.
Whiskey Rebellion
As I mentioned earlier this month,
part of the problem the fledgeling United States government had when trying to
enforce its excise tax against the Whiskey Rebels was that it had a devil of a
time convincing anyone to serve as a prosecutor or exciseman.
From the beginning, the Whiskey Rebels counted on being able to convince their
neighbors not to help the federal government enforce the tax. George
Washington’s Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton complained to him:
The opposition first manifested itself in the milder shape of the circulation
of opinions unfavorable to the law, and calculated by the influence of public
disesteem to discourage the accepting or holding of offices under it…
Annuity Tax resisters
During the resistance against the Annuity Tax in Edinburgh, Scotland, a number
of members of the town council who were members of churches other than the
tax-supported establishment church resigned rather than be party to
administering the act that enacted the tax.
Auctioneers whom the government usually could call upon to preside at tax
auctions refused to take the contracts, and carters whom ordinarily could be
contracted to cart the goods refused, and so the town had to hire someone new
at a higher rate, and purchase new vehicles to haul seized property about.
Another way people can assist and show solidarity with tax resisters is by coming to their assistance if their property is seized.
Here are some examples:
Practical support
The War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund was established in .
It helps war tax resisters who have had penalties and interest added to their tax bills and seized by the IRS by reimbursing them for a large portion of these additional charges.
The more people we could recruit to shoulder the penalties and interest of resisters, the lighter the burden for everyone.
With the modest help we could provide, conscientious resisters were able to keep on keeping on.
The penalty fund had the added benefit of making us all tax resisters, not just those who withheld all or a portion of their income taxes.
The base list of supporters has been as high as 800 people sharing the weight.
In nearly every appeal, at least 200 people respond, usually more.
In all we’ve paid out about $250,000 to help resisters stay in the struggle.
The story of the seizure of the Kehler/Corner home was the subject of the documentary An Act of Conscience.
When the home of war tax resisters Randy Kehler and Betsy Corner was seized for back taxes, supporters came from near and far to maintain a 24-hour occupation of the home:
[David] Dellinger and others have come from as far away as California to the Colrain [Massachusetts] house…
Mr. Kehler and Ms. Corner continued to live in the house until they were arrested by Federal marshals last December.
Since then, friends and supporters of the couple have arrived to occupy the almost empty house in week-long shifts marked by the Thursday “changing of the guard” ceremony.
Because the house was sold in a Government auction in , all who go inside risk arrest for trespassing.…
For Bonney Simons of St. Johnsbury, Vt., sleeping on a bedroll in the house is her first official act of civil disobedience.
At 72 years of age, she said, it is time to “put your body where your mouth is.”
Suffragist tax resister Dora Montefiore barricaded her home and kept the tax collector from seizing her property for several weeks in , in what came to be known as the “Siege of Montefiore.”
She noted:
The tradespeople of the neighbourhood were absolutely loyal to us besieged women, delivering their milk and bread, etc., over the rather high garden wall which divided the small front gardens of Upper Mall from the terraced roadway fronting the river.
The weekly wash arrived in the same way and the postman day by day delivered very encouraging budgets of correspondence, so that practically we suffered very little inconvenience…
A woman sympathiser in the neighbourhood brought during the course of the [first] morning, a pot of home-made marmalade, as the story had got abroad that we had no provisions and had difficulty in obtaining food.
This was never the case as I am a good housekeeper and have always kept a store cupboard, but we accepted with thanks the pot of marmalade because the intentions of the giver were so excellent.
Examples like this also proved to be vivid anecdotes that the press could use when describing the siege and the support from sympathizers.
When the U.S. government seized Amish tax resister Valentine Byler’s horses and their harnesses while he was in the field preparing for spring planting, sympathetic neighbors allowed him to borrow their horses so he could continue his work.
Other sympathizers throughout the country who heard about the case sent Byler money — more than enough to buy a new team.
An auctioneer who was dragooned into helping the government sell some of the livestock of a man who had been resisting taxes meant to pay for sectarian education in , donated the fee he had earned for conducting the auction to the resister.
During the water charge strike in Dublin, “local campaign groups successfully resisted attempts to disconnect water and in the couple of instances where water was cut off, campaigners re-connected it within hours.
The first round was won hands down by the campaign and it was back to the drawing board for the councils.”
Similar monkeywrenching is being practiced today in Greece, where activists promptly reconnect utilities of people who have been disconnected for failure to pay the increased taxes attached to their utility bills.
During the Annuity Tax resistance in Edinburgh, people sympathetic to the resisters would bid on and return furniture and other items that had been seized and sold by the tax collectors.
The Rebecca Rioters, on the other hand, were characteristically more direct in their resistance:
Warrants of distress were issued… and the constables proceeded to execute them…
The constables then went towards Talog; but when on their way there they heard the sound of a horn, and immediately between two and three hundred persons assembled together, with their faces blackened, some dressed in women’s caps, and others with their coats turned so as to be completely disguised — armed with scythes, crowbars and all manner of destructive weapons which they could lay their hands on.
After cheering the constables, they defied them to do their duty.
The latter had no alternative but to return to town without executing their warrants.
The women were seen running in all directions to alarm their neighbours; and some hundreds were concealed behind the hedges, intending to appear if their services were required.
The entire district seemed to be aroused, and awaiting the arrival of the constables, who were going to levy on the goods of John Harris of Talog Mill for the amount of the fine and costs imposed upon him by the magistrates.
There could not have been less than two hundred persons assembled to resist the execution of process, and vast numbers were flocking from all quarters, in response to the blowing of a horn, the signal of the Rebeccaites to repair thither.
Various mounted messengers were scouring the country and sounding the trumpet of alarm.…
At Maesgwenllian near Kidwelly, several bailiffs were put in possession for arrears of rent to the amount of £150, but about , Rebecca and a great number of her followers made their appearance on the premises, and after driving the bailiffs off, took away the whole of the goods distrained on.
As soon as daylight appeared, the bailiffs returned, but found no traces of Rebecca, nor of the goods which had been taken away.
A group in Olive Hill, Kentucky in followed the Rebecca model, to an extent, “in a raid… by a band of between 800 and 900 men, who forced Levi White, Collector of Taxes, to give up a stock of goods which had been seized.
The goods were then taken back to the store of Levi Oppenheimer, where the official had seized them.”
Last year in Oaxaca, the PRI said that the would “defend up to the point of injunctions those citizens who suffer from liens imposed as well as judgments in order to prevent the impounding of vehicles, considering it unconstitutional that the police will impound them to stop the driver and remove the unit if the striker does not pay the corresponding [vehicle] tax.”
The IRS auctioned off a portion of Ralph Shinaberry’s property in after he refused to pay a fine for growing more wheat on his farm than his government-assigned quota.
“I don’t believe the Government can tell me how much I can grow,” he said, explaining his resistance.
The winning bidder, Herbert Jessup, told a reporter:
“I have no intention of taking possession of the property.”
When war tax resister Cosmas Raimondi’s car was seized by the IRS in , a handful of families in his parish offered to permanently loan him their car so he could still get around, and many others loaned him their cars temporarily.
“I’ve not had to ask one person,” he said.
In Beit Sahour, when the Israeli occupation authorities seized furniture and appliances from resisters, relatives and others would loan them spares, or camping furniture to use as replacements.
“In Bedfordshire in community pressure persuaded a minister to return goods seized from a Quaker for non-payment of tithes.”
Moral support
When Dora Montefiore was first formulating her “siege” strategy with fellow-activists Theresa Billington and Annie Kenney, they agreed to organize daily demonstrations outside of her home while she was defending it.
Montefiore remembered:
The feeling in the neighbourhood towards my act of passive resistance was so excellent and the publicity being given by the Press in the evening papers was so valuable that we decided to make the Hammersmith “Fort” for the time being the centre of the W.S.P.U. activities, and daily demonstrations were arranged for and eventually carried out. …
The roadway was… ideal for the holding of a meeting, as no blocking of traffic could take place, and day in, day out the principles for which suffragists were standing we expounded to many who before had never even heard of the words Woman Suffrage.
At the evening demonstrations rows of lamps were hung along the top of the wall and against the house, the members of the W.S.P.U. speaking from the steps of the house, while I spoke from one of the upstairs windows.
…shoals of letters came to me, a few sadly vulgar and revolting, but the majority helpful and encouraging.
Some Lancashire lads who had heard me speaking in the Midlands wrote and said that if I wanted help they would come with their clogs but that was never the sort of support I needed, and though I thanked them, I declined the help as nicely as I could. …
The working women from the East End came, time and again, to demonstrate in front of my barricaded house…
When the IRS seized and auctioned off the home and farm of Art Harvey and Elizabeth Gravalos in , other war tax resisters and supporters were by their sides:
“I might have cried if I were alone,” Gravalos admitted.
But she was far from alone.
About 75 supporters gathered outside the building and spoke of their solidarity with Elizabeth and Arthur.
About 35 supporters turned up for the second auction, this time held at the IRS office in Lewiston, Maine.
Demonstrators read excerpts from letters to IRS officials and to President Clinton urging them to call off the auction.
In , the IRS levied 78-year-old war tax resister Ruth McKay’s social security checks to recoup the taxes she had been refusing to pay over the previous 20 years.
To show their support of her stand, 40 activists from New Hampshire Peace Action joined her for a vigil at the federal courthouse in Concord, New Hampshire.
When war tax resister Maria Smith’s wages were garnisheed by the IRS in , fifty supporters held a special church service in her honor.
“One of the Valod Vanias,” whose land was seized by the government during the Bardoli satyagraha, “who thus lost all his valuable property, celebrated the event by inviting friends and soldiers of Satyagraha to a party.”
On the other hand, some campaigns have taken the position that sacrifices for the cause are their own reward — that martyrdom is a blessing and that it would be foolish for such resisters to seek or accept recompense.
Nathaniel Morgan was speaking with someone curious about the Quaker stand on war and war taxes, and had this to say:
I told him then that I and my father had refused to pay the income tax on account of war, and had refused it on its first coming out, and withstood it 16 years, except when peace was declared, and that our goods were sold by auction to pay it.
This seemed to excite his curiosity, and made a stand to hear further, on the steps above the engine, going down to the river; asking me if we got anything by that, meaning, was anything refunded by the Society for such suffering.
I immediately replied: “Yes, peace of mind, which was worth all.”
If you can convince an organization to endorse tax resistance, or to recommend it to its members, this can strengthen your campaign and bring in new resisters.
Tax resistance in the women’s suffrage movement started with individual women who saw the logic (and the rhetorical power) of the “no taxation without representation” stand.
But it was an uphill climb to get suffrage organizations to endorse the tactic.
Here are some examples from the U.S.:
Both Susan B. Anthony and E. Oakes Smith offered resolutions advocating tax resistance at the Syracuse Women’s Rights Convention in , but the records of the convention do not indicate whether these resolutions were taken up or voted on.
In the newly-formed Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage announced that while it did not plan to organize a tax resistance campaign, it “would have every sympathy with such action.”
This came in the wake of a call to tax resistance by Anna Howard Shaw, president of National American Woman Suffrage Association.
and from the United Kingdom:
In , the Women’s Freedom League, which had advocated tax resistance since , was joined by the older Women’s Social and Political Union.
“It is to be hoped,” wrote a League member in their newsletter, “that the Women’s Tax Resistance League will succeed in persuading all the other Suffrage Societies to unite on this logical policy of refusing supplies until our grievance is redressed.”
In , the Federated Council of Suffrage Societies “unanimously and enthusiastically” endorsed tax resistance and “recommended its adoption as a means of supporting their demands for a Government measure of Woman Suffrage.”
The classic example of a group adopting tax resistance is that of the Society of Friends, or Quakers.
Since the founding of the Society, it had a policy of instructing members to refuse to pay tithes to rival churches, and this soon expanded to teaching Quakers not to pay taxes for “drums, colors, or for other warlike uses” or fines assessed for refusal to participate in the military.
These policies would be codified in a book of “discipline,” and Quakers who deviated from them would be subject to a process of correction, or, if they continued to defy the policy, “disowning.”
The extent of the policy could change over time, and from meeting to meeting, and there could be heated argument about how strict a standard of tax resistance Quakers should be held to.
Miners’ lodges in western Australia met and voted to instruct the Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation to launch a tax strike in it and other employees’ unions and to back it up with a general strike if the government took action against resisters, in .
In , three American “peace” churches — representing Quakers, Brethren, and Mennonites — issued a joint statement that called for war tax resistance among the 350,000 church members there.
The United Ireland Party — known as the “Blue Shirts” — passed a tax resistance resolution at its annual conference in .
In , the Landlords Association, a group of Jewish property owners in Palestine, adopted a policy of refusing to pay taxes to the British occupation government in protest against its “White Paper” policy.
After the passage of the Education Act which gave taxpayer money to sectarian schools, the Leeds Free Church Council voted 89 to one in favor of promoting tax resistance.
The New York Automobile Club met in and decided to advise its members not to pay a new license fee that it considered to be illegal.
The Moslem League instructed its members to refuse to pay a punitive tax to the United Provinces of British India in .
As early attempts to get methodical about nonviolent resistance theory and practice, these are interesting works.
I’ll note some of what he had to say about tax resistance as a nonviolent resistance tactic here today:
Tax resistance against the Education Act of
This was the organized opposition to the English Education Act of , which extended the private school system of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches at the expense of the general taxpayer.
The interest of the matter for the purposes of the present discussion lies in the fact that it was explicitly an example of passive resistance, inasmuch as the agitators called themselves “passive resisters” and published, for a decade or more, a periodical called “Passive Resistance,” from whose pages this account is drawn.
Their method was to refuse to pay the school tax, which they held to be grossly unjust to dissenters, but to submit obediently to the penalty prescribed by the law for delinquency.
This punishment came with great regularity in the form of fines, which the passive resisters steadfastly and consistently refused to pay; whereupon their goods were distrained, or, in default of goods, the recalcitrant was cast into prison.
The magnitude of the movement is shown by the fact that within two and one half years of its inauguration the league had on file reports of seventy thousand summonses and 254 commitments to prison.
The character and social standing of the members of the movement are facts of significant interest.
According to the secretary of the organization,1 “The men and women whose goods have been sold belong to all classes and ranks.
They are clergymen and ministers, journalists and teachers, manufacturers and magistrates, members of Parliament and candidates for Parliament, farmers and gardeners, aged women and young men.”2
The movement was losing momentum in , in response, as was supposed, to a feeling on the part of some that the Liberal victory of , for which the Passive Resisters seem to have been more or less responsible, insured the repeal of the obnoxious law.
But the decline was doubtless due also to the proverbially early exhaustion which overtakes all sudden expressions of popular indignation.
The secretary admitted in that the Passive Resisters were “fewer in number compared with the hosts which at first resisted the fraudulent legislation of .”3
“Passive Resistance,” ; p. 7.
Ibid.
Ibid.; p. 4.
Tax resistance in the American Revolution
The merchants, true to the intuition of their class, were by no means revolutionary or even reckless as regards the foundations of law and order, although in this case they permitted their zeal for prosperity to encourage social forces which, in turn, eventually raised a tempest that they could not quell.
Their intention, both real and apparent, was the organization of a boycott against British trade, particularly in commodities subjected to taxation or other restrictions under the recently enacted revenue laws.
This boycott was planned with clear comprehension of the interplay of interests that obtains in human affairs, and particularly the dependence of political policies upon personal and business influences.
Consequently the colonial merchants did not aim a general broadside at the whole British Empire, but planned to reach particular interests with a well-directed blow.
More specifically, they hoped, by means of their boycott measures, to give the British mercantile and manufacturing people a motive, in the person of their own imperiled interests, for seeking the ear of Parliament with a demand for the repeal of the objectionable legislation.
The straight, or primary, boycott was the method used to impress the minds of the British trading class, which was, of course, the British government for practical purposes.
The secondary boycott, as now known, was in turn brought to bear upon Americans who failed to observe the original agreement and resorted to dealing within the limits prescribed, either as to persons or goods.
For instance, in the earlier struggle, waged against the stamp tax, communities that paid the same were made to feel the disapproval of their neighbors, as in Charleston, South Carolina, where a radical fire company agreed that ”no provision should be shipped “to that infamous Colony Georgia in particular nor any other that make use of Stamp Paper.’ ”1
During the later boycott, directed against the Townshend taxes, Rhode Island yielded to that temptation which constitutes the greatest peril for any concerted movement of this kind, namely the impulse to reap a rich harvest by seizing the opportunities deliberately left to go begging through the self-denial of one’s competitors.
This incident also discloses another weakness inherent in such organized “voluntary” efforts, which is that they are really seldom, if ever, completely voluntary.
Enthusiasts for every cause, however worthy, almost invariably make use of coercion by means of the hundred and one devices known to social pressure, and thereby incorporate the seeds of their own disintegration.
Thus a contemporary Rhode Islander wrote that they “were dragged in the first place like an ox to the slaughter, into the non-importation agreement,” and that adherence to the same “would have been acting out of character and in contradiction to the opinion of the country.”2
The resistance of the colonists was destined, however, to run the entire gamut of forms known to social opposition and constraint.
Evasion of law had long been an established business in the form of smuggling; the peaceable boycott, both primary and secondary, was now well under way; but political action, litigation, social ostracism, mob violence, and armed revolution were either already coming into play or waiting to enter the stage as the historic drama proceeded.
And this list makes no mention of those subtle methods of persuasion and “influence” which operate between friends and relatives, business and scientific associates, boon companions, and numberless other channels of daily intercourse, not to mention the more overt persuasion of pulpit, press, and platform.
And one of the most significant aspects of it all is the tendency of any one of these situations to transform itself into one or more of the other members of the series, so that one method can hardly be used without sooner or later invoking the others.
This truth is clearly exemplified in the events now before us.
For example, in the secondary boycott directed by Charleston against Georgia, as quoted above, the resolution threatened death for future offenders, with destruction of their vessels.
In Boston, especially during the earlier contest over the Stamp Tax, the disturbances were most serious.
The rioters were led by one Mackintosh, a shoemaker, endowed by nature for “government by tumult.”
Under his leadership, the mob, which was currently reported to include “fifty gentlemen actors” partly disguised in workman’s attire, not only razed the stamp office but also attacked the house of the registrar of the admiralty, and even the residence of Governor Hutchinson himself.
In all these scenes the Sons of Liberty, composed largely of workingmen, did the strong-arm work.
Meanwhile the merchants, ostensibly committed exclusively to the boycott and orderly methods, lent in private an anxious but effective moral support.
One of them testifies in a private letter of the time that they were endeavoring “to keep up the Spirit” of resistance but were “not a little pleas’d to hear that McIntosh has the Credit of the Whole Affair.”3…
“The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, ,” by Arthur Meier Schlesinger; Vol. ⅬⅩⅩⅧ, Whole Number 182, of “Studies in History, Economics, and Public Law,” edited by the faculty of political science of Columbia University.
New York, ; p. 82.
Ibid.; p. 215.
Ibid.; p. 72.
Economic pressure through the boycott and physical force in the form of violence were constantly supported by the more subtle forms of social coercion.
Thus the Boston agreement of was to be enforced by a discountenancing “in the most effectual but decent and lawful manner” of all who should fail to aid the movement.
At Philadelphia, any person failing to support the boycott was to be branded “An Enemy of the Liberties of America,” and it was the plan to publish such names in the newspapers.
The commercial resisters of Savannah likewise agreed that “every violator should be deemed ‘no Friend to his Country’ ”; while in South Carolina non-supporters were “to be treated with the utmost contempt.”
In the Boston boycotters circulated thousands of handbills throughout their own and neighboring provinces calling on the inhabitants to have no trade relations with persons whom they named as lacking in regard for the public good.
While this is apparently merely a case of the secondary boycott already described, the publicity methods connected with it are of interest just here.
Public disapproval, aside from withdrawal of patronage, was a factor held in view.
It was an effort to revive the ancient pillory upon its mental though not its physical side that prompted some of these acts — perhaps that of the Harvard College seniors who resolved never again to deal with Editor John Mein, who championed the non-boycotters.1 The town meeting went a step further, and ordered the names of seven persistent offenders inscribed on the town records in order “that posterity may know who those persons were that preferred their little private advantages to the common interest of all the colonies.”2
Boston, the scene of so many stirring activities, staged a prototype of our present-day “peaceful picketing” on a mass scale, when, during the struggle to prevent disintegration of the boycott forces, in , a procession of more than a thousand persons proceeded, in what Professor Schlesinger describes as “impressive and orderly array,” to the homes and shops of the recalcitrant merchants, among them two sons of the governor, whom they sought under the roof of the executive mansion itself.
Having made their demonstration and protest, in every place the multitude quietly dispersed.3
Ibid.; pp. 112, 130, 148, 149, 158, 172.
Ibid.; p. 173.
Ibid.; p. 176.
Francis Deak’s campaign against Austrian domination in Hungary
Deak proceeded to organize a scheme for national education and industry, and a boycott against Austrian goods was set in motion.
As relations between the two governments became more tense, “Deak admonished the people not to be betrayed into acts of violence, nor to abandon the ground of legality.
‘This is the safe ground,’ he said, ‘on which, unarmed ourselves, we can hold our own against armed force.
If suffering be necessary, suffer with dignity.’
He had given the order to the country — Passive Resistance”; “and the order was obeyed.
When the Austrian Tax Collector came to gather the taxes the people did not beat him nor even hoot him — they just declined to pay.
The Tax Collector thereupon called in the Austrian police, and the police seized the man’s goods.
Then the Hungarian auctioneer declined to auction them, and an Austrian auctioneer had to be introduced.
When he arrived he discovered that he would have to bring bidders from Austria also if the goods were to be sold.
The government found before long that it was costing more to distrain the goods than the tax itself was worth.”
Gandhi’s campaigns against anti-Indian measures in South Africa
The long struggle, which the London “Times” declared, according to Mr. Polak’s report, “must live in memory as one of the most remarkable manifestations in history of the spirit of Passive Resistance,” was drawing to its close in .
Mr. Gandhi, in connection with the discussion in Parliament and elsewhere in England, just prior to the great “March” of , above described, had accepted full responsibility for his advising the Indian community to resist the law.
His plan, which he held to be “of educational value, and, in the end to be valuable both to the Indian community and the State,” consisted, as he worded it himself, in “actively, persistently, and continuously asking those who are liable to pay the £3 tax to decline to do so and to suffer the penalties for non-payment, and what is more important, in asking those who are now serving indenture and who will, therefore, be liable to pay the £3 tax upon the completion of their indenture, to strike work until the tax is withdrawn.”1
This, as has been shown, was his plan of procedure at , when he proposed the strike of protest for .
But the new year opened with a series of conferences with the authorities, a truce was declared, and the principal points in the long dispute were finally settled by the Indian Relief Act, passed in …
“Speeches and Writings,” p.
ⅩⅬⅦ.
Gandhi’s independence campaign in India
At the close of his year of silence we find Gandhi organizing the ryots of the Kaira district in his own province in a passive resistance movement, i.e., Satyagraha, against the payment of taxes which they asserted should have been suspended because of a partial failure of their crops.
The struggle continued to , when the passive resisters were released from jail and their contention accepted.
Meanwhile the non-coöperation movement, the strangest revolution in human history, had been launched at a special session of the Indian National Congress, which met in Calcutta in .
the program was amended and strengthened in what are known as the Regular Congress Resolution, or the Nagpur Resolutions, of .
The resolution is based upon the two fundamental propositions, (1) that the British Government in India had forfeited the confidence of the country, and (2) that it should be brought to an end by the non-violent method of simply refusing to cooperate with it longer.
The program of non-cooperation was planned to culminate in “civil disobedience,” specifically in refusal to pay taxes for governmental support.
It was realized, however, that this drastic measure would subject the social order to a terrific and perilous strain.
Therefore a more or less extended period of discipline was seen to be necessary by way of preparation for the final stroke.
It will be recalled that the Non-cooperation Resolutions promised Swaraj within one year.
But as the tumult tended to increase with the passing months of , it became necessary, time and again, to postpone the most drastic measure, namely civil disobedience or refusal to pay taxes or remain in the government service, in which it was planned to culminate.
In , the All-India Congress met at Delhi, where Gandhi, according to the despatches to London of , declared it necessary to accelerate the movement by using all the measures in the non-cooperation arsenal.
“This,” he declared, “embraces the policy of civil disobedience, which means civil revolution.
Whenever it is practised it will end Government authority.
It means open defiance of the Government and its laws.
I will launch this campaign in my own district, in Gujarat, within the next fortnight.
The nation must await the result of this example, which should open the eyes of the whole world.”
The congress committee pointed out in a resolution that only a little more than a month then remained of the year within which Swaraj had been promised.
In view of this and the “exemplary self-restraint” observed by the nation in its adherence to non-violence, the committee then authorized “every province on its own responsibility to undertake civil disobedience, including non-payment of taxes,” provided they would observe Hindu-Moslem unity and all the other features of the non-cooperation program.
So much for the individual provinces, but, as for the nation as a whole, the decision was that it must await Gandhi’s signal.
And so it came about that at a meeting of the working committee of the All-India Congress on , with Gandhi presiding, a resolution was adopted postponing civil disobedience until , or pending the final result of the negotiations at the round-table conference then in progress between leaders of all parties…
During an interview with an American correspondent, in ,1 Mr Gandhi admitted that mass civil disobedience had been abandoned on the very eve of its promised inauguration, because “the country was not ready.”
“The principles of non-violence,” he explained, “had not yet made themselves felt.”
But he declared it merely a postponement, adding, “We will continue individual disobedience and boycott.”
Mr. John Clayton, in the Chicago Tribune, .
Shortly thereafter, Gandhi was jailed, and he was still in jail when Case was writing his book.
Here are a couple of archival bits concerning the tax resistance campaign against taxpayer-funded sectarian education in Britain.
To those who, like ourselves, are full of sympathy and admiration for the Nonconformists, and who believe that the English people owe them a deep debt of gratitude for maintaining a high and noble standard of action not only in things spiritual but in things political, the attitude of paradoxical violence that they have adopted over recent educational developments is a cause of deep regret.
To speak plainly, it is pitiable to see good and self-respecting men so far carried away by rhetorical clap-trap as to imagine that they are compelled by conscience not to pay rates for the same objects for which they were quite willing to pay taxes.
We admire intensely men who will sacrifice everything for conscience’ sake.
It is to such men that England owes her greatness.
But the more we admire that steadfastness and independence in our past history the more we must dislike to see it parodied and made ridiculous by the followers of Dr. [John] Clifford.
If such enactments as the present Bill are to produce resistance to the law, and if the spirit which inspired [John] Hampden’s resistance to ship-money is to be invoked every time that the majority decides against a minority on a question of educational administration, what would be left for us to do if real oppression were to take place?
Consider for a moment what has happened.
Up till now the Nonconformists have been regularly paying taxes which in part have gone to schools in which religious doctrines disliked by Nonconformists have been taught.
They have never thought of going to prison in order to resist those taxes.
Now, however, they tell us that it is a matter of conscience to them to break the law and not pay rates part of which will go to schools in which religious doctrines which they dislike are being taught.
There is no attempt to prove that the new Act has in any way altered the situation for the worse as regards the Nonconformists.
On the contrary, it has to be admitted by all sincere persons that the new Act changes the situation for the better, not for the worse, as far as the Nonconformists are concerned.
Their conscientious scruples, that is, are less, not more, infringed upon by the new Education Act than by the old.
The only difference is between rates and taxes.
The Nonconformist who means to resist with Dr. Clifford cannot avoid being the sport of a paradox.
He must argue that it is perfectly right to pay taxes which help to teach a religion not his own, but so wrong to pay rates for that purpose that he will resist the law rather than do so.
Next, from the New York Press of , a much more flattering portrait (excerpts):
Parade of the Passive Resisters up the Thames Embankment in London
There are now 70,000 Passive Resisters, and so far 7,100 of them have been summoned to court to show cause why their goods should not be sold for taxes in support of a religious creed in which they do not believe, and some 350 of such sales have been held.
Each sale breeds new “Resisters,” and the movement has been growing steadily ever since it was begun, , under the leadership of the Rev. Dr. John Clifford, former president of the National Council of Free Evangelical Churches, pastor of the Westbourne Park Church in London, and probably the foremost Baptist in England.
The Rev. Dr. John Clifford, Leader of the “Passive Resisters”
Suppose a large population of the day schools of the United States were supported and managed by one religious denomination, with teachers of that denomination and with instruction of all the pupils in that one creed.
Then suppose the government enacted a measure taking over those schools and — without changing the sectarian religious instruction o[r] the requirement that the principal teachers should be of the one denomination — should call upon the general taxpayer to support those schools.
Wouldn’t there be a beautiful row before many hours had passed?
Wouldn’t the taxpayers of every other faith except the favored one rise to a man and tell the Government what they thought about it, in terms that couldn’t be mistaken?
Well, they move more slowly over here, and the favored church is, of course, the Established Church, to which, nominally, half the people in England belong.
Yet the American parallel will serve to give an idea of what a big, significant and deep-seated conflict is now going on in this country, despite the fact that outsiders hear little of it.
What in the United States is called the Episcopal Church is in England the Established Church, and all the others — Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, what you will — are bunched together in the Episcopal mind under the sweeping title of “Nonconformists” or “Dissenters.”
They are looked upon with some condescension socially and theologically.
Only the other day a clergyman, touching from his pulpit on the present controversy, said magnanimously that he hoped — yes, he hoped — that Nonconformists would not be excluded from heaven!
They form the great body of the solid, obstinate, hardworking, law-abiding “middle class,” as it is called on this side of the ocean.
What might be dubbed their cathedral is the famous City Temple, from whose pulpit Dr. Joseph Parker thundered for so many years, and which of late has been the scene of several excited gatherings addressed by such noted pulpit orators as the Rev. F.B. Meyer, the Rev. R.J. Campbell, who succeeded Dr. Parker; Dr. Clifford and other leading Nonconformists, all arrayed against the Government.
Some of them were doubtful about Dr. Clifford’s scheme of refusing to pay taxes to the enemy, but all were united in saying that the Government must either repeal the hated Education bill or be overthrown.
The great Liberal party of Gladstone, disunited over the Boer War, came together again in fighting the Government on this act, and now hopes to get back into power as much because of the Education bill as because of Chamberlain’s tariff scheme.
The size of the struggle becomes apparent when one realizes that half the churchgoers in England are arrayed against the other half.
A careful census conducted by a London daily newspaper shows that in actual worshipers the Anglican Church in London does not outnumber the Nonconformists, while in the country districts the Established Church falls short of the Dissenters.
Estimating the respective strengths according to the numbers of communicants, both in London and the provinces, the Nonconformists are outnumbered.
The latter, however, are not disturbed at this, for they declare that every man who is nothing claims the Anglican Church, and they say, as well, that the figures include the “twicers” — that is, those who attend two services each Sunday.
Most of the Nonconformists decided at first to pay the hated tax and take it out in voting against the Government when they got the chance, but the “martyrdom” of the 7,000 who have been warned that they are to be sold up, and the steadfastness of the 70,000 who intend to be sold up, bring on converts to such an extent that no one can tell where the affair will end.
“It is my opinion,” said Dr. Clifford to the writer [Curtis Brown], “that nothing but a general election, bringing a change of Government, will stop this fight.
As long as the Tory party remains in power we have little chance of getting anything permanent, but the Liberal leaders have pledged themselves to two things, which, if granted, will probably suspend the campaign for a time.
These are popular control over the support of the public schools and the abolition of sectarian tests for teachers.
Until these, at least, are granted, the Passive Resisters movement will continue to grow — how much I do not pretend to predict.”
Although almost nothing has been written in the United States about this big contest, letters from sympathizers across the ocean are beginning to pour in by every mail.
In New York and Boston committees have been formed, and funds are being solicited to send across the ocean.
The Rev. Dr. Hill of Valley Falls, N.Y., is the head of the American movement, and nearly all the contributions reach England through him.
Drs. Lorimer and Haw of New York are associated with Dr. Hill, while the Rev. Dr. McArthur of Boston is furthering the cause in that city.
For the benefit of American readers Dr. Clifford summed up the Passive Resistance creed in these words: “We contend that no taxpayer should be obliged to support schools in which dogmatic and ecclesiastical instruction contrary to his belief is taught, nor to help pay teachers who must undergo a denominational religious test before they are allowed to practice their profession.
It is precisely the same spirit which caused the Pilgrims to emigrate to America in , for just as the Government was trying to force a state religion upon the people then, so it is trying to strengthen that religion now by proselytizing the children of Nonconformist parents.”
One of the most unconventional of the auction sales was held recently in a suburb of Birmingham.
A Nonconformist minister who had refused to pay that portion of his taxes which was to be devoted to the support of schools of another faith surprised the officers who visited him to seize his goods by inviting them into his little front parlor, summoning his family and reading the Psalm in which appears the words: “Surely, He shall deliver them from the snare of the fowler and from the noisome pestilence,” and then, asking officers and all to kneel in prayer, in the course of which the pastor besought special grace for the dear friends who had called upon him that afternoon.
After this ceremony the “dear friends” carted off the pastor’s piano.
At Sutton some of the goods of a minister 90 years old were sold off, and in Berwick a Methodist minister was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment for “passive resistance.”
At Fulham the Mayor himself was among the number summoned to court for withholding the educational part of his tax.
He told the Magistrate that he felt his position keenly, but, come what might, his conscience would not let him pay any portion of a tax for sectarian teaching.
Near Bristol a woman who owned a little farm, and who had tendered all of her tax except the two dollars which was to be devoted to the local sectarian school, was told that part payment could not be accepted, and the horse and cart on which she was depending for a living were seized for the payment of the whole sum.
Friends finally bought in the property for her, but the Government had the last word by charging for a week’s board for the horse.
In another place some vases for which the “resisters” had paid $50 were knocked down to a stranger for the $2.50 of taxes which had been withheld.
In most cases, however, the goods have been bought in by friends of the “resisters” and returned to the original owner, who would thereafter find some way of recouping his rescuers without damage to his conscience.
At one sale in fashionable Brighton the auctioneer was so much in sympathy with his victims that he refused to accept any fee, and sold the goods to friends of the owners for the precise sum required to satisfy the warrant.
Strangers present on the lookout for bargains found it impossible to make themselves heard when they offered more than the friendly bidders.
That auctioneer became a local hero, and was the chief guest after the sale at a meeting in which the local parson proposed to the crowd to send him to Westminster to see what price he could get for a damaged Tory Cabinet.
Eighty would-be martyrs at Ipswich were highly disgusted on the morning of the intended sale of their goods to find that some anonymous benefactor had paid their taxes for them the night before.
A meeting was actually held afterward, at which some of the would-be “resisters” protested against the action of the “ill-disposed” unknown person.
At Northwood the refused tax for six persons made a total of $14, and the goods sold to meet this tax were bought in, as usual, by friends.
But a heavy police guard had been necessary to protect the auctioneer, and the fees of the police and the auctioneer and other expenses made a total of nearly $100. All of the persons concerted were so poor that they could not meet this additional sum, and in consequence a further sale was held, in which the six “resisters” were well-nigh cleaned out.
An officer who called to seize the goods of a “resister” at Stoke-on-Trent was confronted at the door by a hearse, in which the coffin of the “resister’s” son was being placed.
The house was barred to the officer, so he went around to the stable and seized the saddle which had belonged to the dead boy.
Although, as a rule, the local Nonconformist ministers have attended the sales and have exerted themselves to the utmost to keep the sympathizers from doing anything more than chaff the man whose unpleasant duty it was to sell the goods, yet some of the auctioneers have been pretty badly mauled, and one or two have had to run for their lives without effecting sales.
One of them was saved from unpleasant experiences by a Methodist preacher, who laid down on the floor above the room in which the sale was being held and quieted the crowd by an address through a trap door.
Some of the local magistrates before whom the “resisters” have to appear in response to summonses let themselves be fairly submerged by the floods of oratory that break loose on such occasions, but one of the, W.S. Gilbert — none other than the librettist of Gilbert and Sullivan fame — distinguished himself by cutting short the oration of the first “resister” who came before him.
“This court shall not be made an arena for declaiming against an act of Parliament,” quoth the author of “Pinafore.”
The “resisters” have a powerful voice in the House of Commons with the brilliant young Lloyd-George as the leader, and they have a big representative in the financial world in R.W. Perks, who is the English adviser and backer of C.T. Yerkes in the underground railroad schemes.
They have also established a weekly newspaper, The Crusader, and appear to be gaining steadily in confidence that sooner or later they will turn Arthur Balfour and his Cabinet out of office.
Open-Air Auction of Passive Resisters’ Goods.
Dr. Clifford Addressing the Crowd from the Auctioneer’s Stand
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
Before Gandhi, before the women’s suffrage movement, the iconic example of tax resistance was that of the resisters to the Education Act — an example that Gandhi, the suffragists, and others would take inspiration from.
This now-obscure campaign was a big deal a century ago.
Thousands of British nonconformists refused to pay taxes that they believed would go towards religious education not of their liking.
Today I’ll reproduce some news items from the earliest days of this movement.
The first, from the Gloucester Citizen, introduces John Clifford who was to be the most prominent leader of the “passive resistance” movement:
The Education Act.
Policy of Passive Resistance.
Counsel’s Opinion.
Dr. Clifford, who is chairman of the National Passive Resistance Committee, has issued a letter to the 800 local councils of the National Free Church Council.
In this he states that the committee now formed will to some extent work independently of the Federation.
“As the Education Bill has become law,” says the doctor, “it is felt that no time should be lost in resorting to what is now our last line of defence; and, judging by the pronouncement of a very large number of the local councils in favor of passive resistance, we have thought it due to you to approach you direct.
It is hoped that a large proportion of the local councils may see their way to undertake passive resistance, but in districts where this is undesirable, it is strongly urged that passive resistance committees should be formed at once.”
Dr. Clifford appends the “opinion” of Mr. Edmund Robertson, K.C., with respect to the “passive resistance” policy.
The latter says:– “Regarding the position Nonconformists should take up, he would advise no man to break the law, but there was no breaking the law if they told the rate collector, ‘The law has given to the county council the power to enforce payment of these demands.
I am not going to volunteer payment of it.
I will leave you to collect it by the means which the law places at your disposal.’
There was nothing criminal in leaving the tax-collector and the rating authority to depend upon the resources which had been placed at their disposal.”
The next example comes from the Portsmouth Evening News.
It sets out the grievances of the resistance campaign:
The Education Act.
A Plea for Passive Resistance.
[To the Editor of the “Evening News.”]
Sir,— The Borough and County Councils are now engaged in the work of preparing for the carrying out of the provisions of the Education Act recently passed by Parliament.
When the educational proposals of the Government were introduced, and during the discussion of them in the House of Commons, the great body of Nonconformists, and also a not inconsiderable number of Churchmen made strong and repeated protests, and denounced the Education Bill as being grossly unfair and unjust.
The feeling of hostility has not been removed or destroyed by the successful passing of the Bill.
It is quite true that Cardinal Vanghan has seen the triumph over Nonconformists which he so ardently desired; the clerical party have obtained more than even the late-Archbishop dared at one time to expect at the hands of the most friendly Government; and the Episcopacy has secured, by methods which even Churchmen have denounced as mean and unworthy, financial conditions of the most advantageous character.
But the end is not yet; and by large number of persons the Education Act will never be accepted as the outcome of a fair and just attempt to improve our system of national education.
The measure, recently passed into law, does not bear the sign and seal of popular approval.
As opportunities have arisen for testing the feelings of the electors, there has been condemnation, and in some cases of a most emphatic character.
The Act is not in the interests of the nation, but a sectarian education.
[Anglican] Churchmen and Roman Catholics have received ample consideration, while Nonconformists have been ignored and treated with contemptuous indifference.
In connection with the passing of the Education Bill, the country has received significant illustration of the sinister power and purpose of the priest.
The discussions which took place, especially in connection with the Kenyon-Slaney Clause, show that the priests utterly distrust the people, and claim to be free from control and supervision.
This distrust Lord Rosebery speaks of as being a most melancholy fact.
This Act has been not inaptly described as the “crowning of the priest.”
The sound principle that taxation and representation should go together is violated.
A gross injustice is perpetuated by the exclusion from the position of head masters of those who are honest and consistent enough to refuse to submit to religious tests.
There are some 16,410 places, in schools supported by rates and taxes, which are closed to Nonconformists.
No matter how intelligent or capable or religious they may be, they are barred from places which they could well fill, unless they can submit to tests which are called religious.
The financial provisions of the Act are in the interests, not of the children, but mainly of the Anglican party.
The Bishops have shown their skill in being able to make a good bargain, by means which shocked Churchmen like Mr. Middlemore, and which the man in the street would call sharp practice.
By the diversion of endowments belonging to the poor, by half fees, and income from rent, the Church has managed to do a profitable stroke of business for itself.
We have now what virtually a new endowment of the Anglican Church, and also payment for Roman Catholic teaching means of rates and taxes.
In many of the schools, managed by the clericals of the Church of England, we shall have an atmosphere and teaching well saturated with sacerdotalism.
I will give a sample of the mischievous and scandalous teaching to be met with in not a few quarters.
Quite recently clergyman when preaching, said: “They must accept Christ’s teaching only in the Holy Catholic Church.
To a good Christian they must be everything that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because that Church was the sole authority appointed by Christ to teach His doctrine and carry on His work.”
We must, of course, put ourselves into the hands of the priests.
And now comes a choice utterance from this priest:— “If a child came for advice, saying its parents had told it to go to chapel, it was their duty, dreadful as it may seem, tell the child to disobey its parents and go to church.”
In many a parish, where there is but one school, a man of this type will have a chief power in appointing the teacher, in creating the school atmosphere, and in various ways poisoning the minds of the Nonconformist children who must attend his school.
And the Free Church taxpayers will be asked to pay for their children to taught disobedience to parents, and the awful sin of worshipping God in a chapel.
There are many Nonconformists who cannot possibly accept the Education Act or quietly and meekly submit its provisions.
We are told that what we are to do is to help in returning the Liberal Party to power in order to obtain redress.
If there be no new “khaki” cry it is probable that the Liberals will win the next election.
But if they become much more earnest and enthusiastic than at present, it is most improbable that their majority will exceed the Conservative and Irish parties who are one on this question.
But even if this were to realised, there remains the House of Lords, which knows little, and cares less, about the principles of Nonconformity.
The Education Act, which is in many respects unjust, and which invades the domain of conscience, must be met by passive resistance.
Nonconformity is being put to the test.
It will be a sorry day for Free Churchmen in certain places to sit at ease, wrapt a spirit of indifference and saying to one another, “The Act does not touch us very closely in our town, it may even lighten the rates, let there be peace.”
We need to saved from mere parochialism, and to think of those who are in places and positions of difficulty, who suffer injustice and wrong, and who experience even petty persecution because of their fidelity to Nonconformity.
That which is unjust is vulnerable.
And if as Free Churchmen we are true to our principles, if we act as well as talk, if the spirit of our fathers is alive to-day, we shall win in the struggle against injustice, and shall bring to naught the attempts of the clerical and obscurantist party.
The Hull Daily Mail reprinted a manifesto issued by the Hull Passive Resistance League in its issue.
I won’t reproduce the parts of it that restate the basic grievances, which were well put by Jemima Luke’s letter.
Here is the part of the manifesto that explains their passive resistance stand:
Had the Act simply opposed our wishes and ignored our opinions, our duty to accept it would have been clear.
It is because it invades the sacred realm of conscience, and conflicts with our sense of duty to God that we resist it.
No arbitrary majority in the House of Commons, no Act placed upon the Statute Book, can make a moral wrong right, no duty to our King, however loyal we desire to be, can possibly over-ride our solemn obligations to God.
We cannot submit.
“Here we stand, we can do no other.”
We cheerfully and readily pay all other rates, including the rate for schools of a non-sectarian character under public management.
We only decline to pay such amount as after careful inquiry we believe to be required for sectarian schools.
We shall not resist the local authorities in any measure they legally take to collect the balance of the rate, but we shall not aid them.
The distraining of our goods is their act.
We are only responsible for what we voluntarily pay.
This course when taken by the Welsh farmers with respect to the payment of tithes was declared by Mr Justice Wills at the Beaumaris Assizes to be perfectly justifiable.
At any rate it is the only way open to us.
We are further convinced that it is our duty as far as possible to protect and preserve inviolable the conscience and liberty of our fellows. Hence we join together for mutual support and encouragement.
We have no word to say against others who dislike the Act, but prefer another method of resisting it.
“Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
But all who are prepared to unite in this method of protest against one of the most unjust and reactionary measures of modern times; all who desire thus to preserve the honour and religious convictions of true citizens, and to protect their fatherland from the encroachments of legalised and subsidised Romanism, are invited to forward their names to any of the undersigned: Mr G.W. Flint, president of Passive Resistance League; the Rev R. Harrison and Mr. G.W.C. Armstrong, vice-presidents; Mr. E.B. Stephenson, treasurer; the Rev W. Bowell, secretary, 73, Linnæus-street; Mr H.R. Wasling, assistant secretary.
N.B.– The League is open to persons of both sexes, and includes (1) Ratepayers who declare their determination not to pay the rate for sectarian schools; (2) Non-ratepayers who are in sympathy with its objects.
The Lincolnshire Chronicle and the Northampton Mercury of reported:
Probably the first public authority to offer “passive resistance” to the Education Act is the Isle of Wight Board of Guardians, which has declined to tax the machinery of the Poor Law to raise what is described as a “denominational rate.”
The Isle of Wight County Council is thus confronted with a refusal on the part of the Guardians to comply with the precept for expenses connected with the administration of the new Education Act.
The next report comes from the Gloucester Citizen:
Cinderford.
Passive Resistance.
On a meeting, which, however, was not very well attended, was held in the Cinderford Baptist Sunday schoolroom, with the view to the furtherance of the passive resistance movement which has been started in the Forest.
The Rev. W.W. Wilks (Pastor of the Cinderford Baptist Church) presided, and addresses were delivered by Revs. Samuel Harry (Primitive Methodist Circuit Minister, Pillowell), J.W. Jacobs, and D.J. Perrott (Pastors of the Primitive Methodist and Baptist Churches respectively, Lydbrook).
At the conclusion of the meeting persons were invited to subscribe their names to the roll, but only a few did so.
A collection was taken to defray expenses and for the funds of the Forest of Dean Passive Resistance Citizens’ League.
The speakers received thanks on the motion of the chairman.
The Portsmouth Evening News features a letter from passive resister G. Roberts Hern of the Barnstaple Baptist Church.
It takes the form of a rebuttal to one “Councillor Pink” who apparently had taken the position that the passive resisters ought to render unto Caesar.
It showed that the resisters were ready to meet this argument with the usual Christian counterarguments for civil disobedience:
…I don’t think we are meant to preach submission to Governments when they encroach upon the realm of conscience and invade the sphere of spiritual relationship to God.
If so, then the early martyrs were wrong when they refused to pay homage to Cæsar instead of Christ.
The young maiden whom we see pictured so often was wrong when she refused to obey the “regularly constituted authority” which demanded that she should take a pinch of incense and cast it into the censer for Diana and forswear Christ.…
The Bristol Western Daily Press reported on ’s session of the annual district conference of the Bristol District United Methodist Free Churches, which included this:
Mr W.G. Howell moved a resolution condemning the Education Act of 1902, believing it to be subversive to the great principles of religious equality which the Nonconformists of the country held so dear, and pledging the meeting to resist the operations of the Act by all legitimate means.
Mr Bird seconded the motion, and said they were all justified in using every power at their command to render the Act inoperative.
The Rev. F.P. Dale said he should like to know whether the term “legitimate means” would include “passive resistance.”
The Chairman thought it did, because they would not break the law; they would simply refuse to pay the money demanded, and if some of their goods were taken and sold the tax would be paid.
At any rate, he thought the passive resistance movement was legitimate.
The motion was carried unanimously.
The Rev. W. Vivian then moved that every support should be given by the circuits to ministers desirous of joining the “passive resistance movement.”
This was seconded by Mr Dale and carried.
A letter dated in the Coventry Herald from William Ernest Blomfield, president of the Coventry Passive Resistance League, defends the passive resisters from a variety of charges against both the legitimacy of their grievance and of their chosen resistance tactic.
It is remarkable for putting forward (among other things) a more secular defense of civil disobedience:
But granted [for the sake of argument] that we are law-breakers.
Well, Sir, there is no sin in disobedience to a bad law.
It may sometimes be a supreme duty.
Human progress is bound up with resistance to unjust laws.
This is the price with which our freedom and our privileges have been bought.
The fruits of passive resistance in Coventry have been good.
And English history furnishes us with honoured names of men who refused to obey human law that they might be loyal to a higher law.
The renowned Robert Hall puts the case in a nutshell: “When the commands of the civil authority interfere with that which we conscientiously believe to be the law of God, submission to the former is criminal.
We must obey God rather than man.
Rights and duties are correlatives.
A right to command necessarily implies the enforcing that which is right with respect to those to whom the duty of submission belongs.
Conscience has a higher authority than any ordinance made by man.”
If human law and conscience conflict, conscience must be put first.
Does the conflict arise here?
This is a question every man must answer for himself, and the answers of equally conscientious men will diverge.… This question belongs to the sacred realm where the soul has to make its decisions alone.
So far from dictating to any man I have never sought to bring my personal influence to bear upon a single individual.
I have made my decision and given my reasons for it.
If those reasons commend themselves to my friends they will follow me.
If not I do not blame them, if so be their decision is conscientious, for no man should take so serious a step save under a grave sense of responsibility.
Two more letters defending passive resistance appeared beside that one in the issue, along with this article:
The Guardians and Passive Resistance.
At the Coventry Guardians meeting on Mr. Best, in presenting the minutes of the Finance Committee, said that none of the members present at the meeting were prepared to sign a cheque for the payment of the county rate for the parishes of Holy Trinity and St. Michael’s Without.
(Rev. G. Bainton: “Hear, hear.”
Rev. A.T. Hallam: “Very good.”
Mr. W.J. Dalton: “Very bad.”)
The reasons of the objections were well known.
No doubt the county rate must be paid, but the members of the Finance Committee refused to sign it.
Rev. A.T. Hallam: Is this a case where we are to understand that the members of the Board are on the side of passive resistance?
The Rev. G. Bainston thought they ought to know for what the money was to be paid.
The Chairman said he took it the cheque would be signed in the ordinary way unless a resolution was passed to the contrary.
Mr. W.J. Dalton moved that the cheque be signed, and said the reason of the refusal to sign the cheque was owing to the absence of the more liberal members of the committee.
The members present were on the Passive Resistance League.
Mr. Graham seconded.
Mr. Halliwell said that Mr. Dalton as a rule found a mare’s nest.
The members of the Finance Committee present, as far as his knowledge went, were not representatives of the Passive Resistance League.
At the same time they had ideas of what was right and what was wrong, and they liked to exercise these ideas occasionally.
He held that the Board had no right to spend the money of the ratepayers of the city of Coventry unless they had some direct representatives in the management of these schools.
(Hear, hear.)
If they had to vote this sum of £35 odd twice a year they ought to have some control over the spending of the money.
He moved an amendment that the precept be paid with the exception of a 1¾d. in the £ for the Education Rate.
The Rev. G. Bainton having ascertained that the amendment meant that they would pay everything but the Education Rate, said he would second it.
No public money ought to go to private sectarian institutions.
This money was to be paid for strict private sectarian schools in this city, and it was public money which represented all classes.
Mr. Halliwell admitted there might be a legal liability to pay the cheque, but if they tendered the whole of it with the exception of the 1¾d. in the £, due to the Education Rate, it would be a way in which they could get out of their difficulty without considering that they were doing a wrong.
There was no question of sentimentality or fadism about it.
(Hear, hear.)
They were not the first body to do this, as it had been done in many parishes in Wales.
He contended that until the ratepayers had the control in the payment of this money they were not right in signing this cheque for the support of the schools.
The amendment was defeated by nine votes to seven.
Also in the same issue:
Passive Resistance.
Sir George Kekewich, speaking at Exeter on , said that the whole policy of the Government in reference to the Education Act had been antagonistic to Nonconformists.
What stood before them was a sectarian war such as had not prevailed in this country since the period of the Church rate.
They had many weapons with which they could fight the Act, and he thought, perhaps, the greatest and mightiest weapon was that of passive resistance.
A citizen’s league for passive resistance has been formed at Northampton.
The chairman and secretary of the local Church Council were respectively appointed president and secretary of the league, and a committee of twenty-four, including two ladies, was elected.
A manifesto addressed to the inhabitants of Cambridge, and signed by Professor Sims Woodhead, Mr. W[illiam].
Bond, J.P., Mr. T.R. Glover, M.A., Mr. A.I. Tillyard, M.A., the Rev. W.B. Selbie, &c., has been issued, in which the signatories state they will not pay the education rate.
A copy of what was probably the manifesto described above, with seven additional signatories to those named, is found in the Cambridge Independent Press.
It sets out the grievance in brief, addresses some objections, indicates that the aggrieved had patiently tried to obey and to use democratic modes of persuasion to get the government to treat them fairly, and says that they have decided on passive resistance as a last resort.
A writer of a letter printed in the Cambridge Independent Press was impatient with the insistence of Nonconformist leaders that people only resist individually as their own consciences dictated — thinking a more organized, coordinated, and disciplined movement was in order:
Passive Resistance in Cambridge
[To the Editor of the Independent Press.]
…I cannot think that Nonconformity in Cambridge will allow Passive Resistance to be an unorganised, invertebrate thing, such as is suggested by your statement of the present situation.
If the leaders will not move, it is time the rank and file moved the leaders.
What good result can be accomplished by an army in which every soldier is told to do as he thinks best?
Whilst the country is ringing with the clarion cry, whilst the voice of conscience is loudly heard elsewhere, when the old standards of faith and principle are being unfurled by Free Churchmen in every quarter of the land, Cambridge is strangely silent.
The revival of Church rates, the re-imposition of the Test Act, the betrayal of religious freedom and equality — do these rouse no righteous indignation in the hearts of Cambridge Nonconformists as a whole as well as in their consciences as individuals?
If the Education Act only affected individuals I could understand the desire to allow individuals to act as they deemed wisest.
But it strikes a blow at Free Churchmen as a body, and therefore I say let us resist as a body.
The Education Act has dug a grave for Nonconformity, but the coffin has not yet arrived, and we have yet to see the name upon the plate, nor is there yet a corpse to inter.
London on throbbed and thrilled with resistance, and I believe there will be such a shaking amongst the dry bones of Cambridge as will surprise those ready to officiate at the funeral of Dissent.
I hope that ere another week has passed a public meeting will be called to gather together those willing to enrol themselves in this movement to resist injustice and oppression.
The bogey of “conspiracy” has been raised.
If it is right for me to do a thing by myself, it is right for you to join me in doing it.
If it be held to be illegal, so much the better for us, and so much the worse for those who are trying to resurrect the priestcraft of byegone days.
Personally I would rather go to prison than have my furniture interfered with.
But those who open the prison doors will need to enlarge their prisons, for you cannot imprison half the population for conscience sake in the twentieth century.
―Yours faithfully,
F.J.H.
Cambridge, .
Another letter in the same issue, from Albert H. Waters, also pressed for more widespread resistance and concluded: “all resisters must mutually support each other.
A subscription should be opened for the purpose of paying a barrister to appear on behalf of the summoned, and there may be other expenses to provide for.”
This covers some of what I was able to find from the opening few months of a campaign that would continue for years and would lead to imprisonments and would greatly raise the profile of tax resistance as a nonviolent civil disobedience tactic.
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.
“Passive Resisters: A Distraint Sale by Auction in Surrey” by Frank Dadd (from a copy of The Graphic)
The tax resistance campaign targeting the aspects of the Education Act that allowed for taxpayer funding of sectarian education continued to heat up in nonconformist circles in Britain in .
A story in the Nottingham Evening Post told of three resisters who appeared at Shire Hall in Nottingham, summoned for non-payment.
Each explained that they were willing to pay the bulk of their rates, but would withhold the portion they believed would go to sectarian education.
The magistrates said nothing doing, and issued distraint warrants for the whole amount.
Below that article, a second one concerned an auction at which the goods of 23 resisters from Long Eaton were sold as the gains of previously-granted distraints.
“A good deal of interest was manifested in the proceedings,” says this report, from “a crowd of some 150 persons, chiefly women and youths, with a sprinkling of the leading Nonconformist representatives in the town.”
The people whose goods were sold are listed, along with the amounts they had refused to pay (ranging from one shilling, one pence to eight shillings, three pence):
As soon as the auctioneer put in an appearance the passive resisters cheered ironically and with frequent interruptions the various articles, including boots, sewing machines, bicycles, gold and silver watches, and two volumes of an historical work, were disposed of.
The whole of the goods were brought in by Mr. J. Winfield, jun., C.C., and the aggregate amount of the sale was £17 17s. 10d.
The proceedings were very formal, and there was practically no bidding, all the transactions being conducted inside the vestibule of the police-station.
The crowd kept up continual hooting, but with the exception of one demonstrative young lady, who threw a small bag of flour at the auctioneer, and missed him, there was practically no disorder.
A detachment of the county constabulary under Deputy Chief Constable Airey, had concentrated at Lower Eaton, but their services were not required.
An effort was made to organise a meeting in the Market-place, but the crowd declined to leave the neighbourhood of the police-station until Mr. Webster [the auctioneer] left, and during the period of waiting the Rev. F.J. Fry, of Nottingham, entered his strong protest against the iniquity of the Education Bill, and the Rev. J.T. Hesleton, and the Rev. — Cottam addressed brief observations, expressing indignation that they should be required to pay such a rate.
Below that, a third article concerned the cases of nine people, including resisters but perhaps not exclusively so, from Hathern, who were tried at the Loughbourough Petty Sessions.
“The court was pretty well filled with Nonconformists from Loughborough and surrounding districts, including several Baptist and other ministers.”
In this case, the court allowed the defendants to go on at greater length about their grievances, and the overseer was willing to accept partial payments, though the magistrates overruled this and issued distraint orders for the full amounts.
A new Citizens’ League was forming in Nelson to coordinate resistance to the Education Act, according to the Burnley Express and Advertiser.
The Rev. J. Hurst Hollowell spoke, saying, among other things:
[I]f they paid for such authorities, such finance, such management, such superstitious teaching — they were paying for such things under this Act — they would make themselves responsible for such things.
They could not say it was the County Council or the Borough Council that was responsible — it was the people if they paid for it.
Parliament had no moral right to lay that charge upon them.
Surely there was a limit to what a country would stand from Parliament.
They were now at the parting of the ways, they were in a temper of revolt, and may God speed the right.
They were trying by passive resistance to break the law of an unprincipled Government, and a contemptible tyranny — (hear, hear) — and he hoped they in Nelson would come forward in the spirit of those who had gone before.
Rev. A.S. Hollinshead took that ball and ran with it, saying that “[h]e should regard himself as one of the basest of cowards, and unworthy of the noble people who worshipped in that building [the Carr-road Baptist School], if with his own hand he paid the money that was to keep up that damnable injustice.”
A resolution was moved, seconded, and unanimously carried declaring the meeting’s “fullest sympathy with the Passive resistance movement for refusing that portion of the education rate which is to be applied to schools under sectarian management.”
A second resolution led to the forming of the League, formed in the now-usual way, with members both of tax resisters and of sympathizers with the resisters who for whatever reason could not resist the rates themselves.
As lengthy as these excerpts are turning out to be, I should point out that I aborted my search early when I realized what I was getting in to (there is an enormous amount of material about this campaign in the British newspaper archives), and I’m omitting a tonne of stuff from what I did collect.
Just the competing letters to the editor from duelling Christians tossing Romans 13 and Acts 5 back and forth at each other would probably fill a volume.
In The Derby Daily Telegraph of , John Wenn wrote in to say that he had learned that someone had anonymously paid the portion of his rates that he had refused to pay.
Seeing this as an attempt to extinguish his passive resistance, he fought back with this declaration:
I give this public notice that the amount paid for me will be sent to the Derby and District Passive Resistance Fund, and that any such gratuitous insult offered to me in the future, and for so long as the obnoxious Act remains unamended, will be treated in the same way.
Let the busybodies, therefore, know that by such conduct they are promoting, not stifling, passive resistance after all.
The Western Daily Press of Bristol, in its issue, printed a letter from Richard Glover which gave an update on the campaign there.
Excerpts:
between 60 and 70 persons of highest Christian character, kindliness, and usefulness were brought before the magistrates, and subjected to the ignominy of punishment as law breakers.
25 of similar character have been similarly treated.
Two or three hundred more of our very best citizens are to be similarly dealt with.
This sort of thing is to be repeated six months hence, on doubtless a much larger scale; for while many Nonconformists do not feel free to refuse lawfully imposed rates or taxes, many whose consciences do not bind them to refuse will be certain, from motives of admiration and sympathy, to take their stand by the side of those who suffer for conscience sake.
Then, in its issue, The Western Daily Press reported on “the third detachment of passive resisters” to go to court in Bristol.
“A knot of spectators who evidently sympathised with the defendants stood in the vicinity of the police court in Bridewell Street, and the seats in the court allotted to the public were filled.”
The paper listed 44 of the defendants, alongside the amounts they were being summoned for (ranging from £0.2.3 to £2.16.6½) and said there were 20 to 30 more that they did not manage to learn about.
The magistrates seemed to be sympathetic, though they were unwilling to deviate from the law, and they allowed each defendant to vent in turn.
Most simply repeated one or more of the usual grievances against the act.
One, a Mr. Belcher, added that “They could get no respectable auctioneer to take any part in it.
(Laughter.)
With regard to the magistrates, those who rose above mere officialism declined to lend a hand to carry it through.”
That aside, at the end of the hearing (which resulted in the usual distraint orders), the secretary of the local Citizens’ League thanked the magistrates for their atypical courtesy.
The following article covered a protest meeting held to prepare the resisters for the next phase in the local campaign: this round of summonses and hearings before the magistrates was complete, and next the property seizures and auctions would begin.
Hymns were sung on the way to the meeting (“Hold the fort” and “Onward Christian soldiers”) and the national anthem was sung to end it, and in-between some of the more prominent resisters gave speeches meant to inspire continued resistance from what the paper described as “a large congregation.”
Below this an article described an auction at Axbridge at which the property of four resisters was being sold for their rates.
This sale seems to have attracted less attention and less opposition.
In at least one case, one of the items auctioned was purchased not on behalf of the resister it was taken from, but by “an opponent of the passive resisters.”
The auction was followed by a protest rally at which speeches were given to a modestly-sized crowd.
A one-paragraph note below that mentioned six resisters summoned to the Trowbridge petty session, and then followed one last article in the sequence which concerned distraint summons issued at Cambridge.
An editorial in the Coventry Herald reported that “The Passive Resisters of Coventry have had the unpaid remnant of their rates — corresponding to the amount devoted to the support of denominational schools — paid for them; and, as is to be expected, they do not like it.”
The article tweaked the nonconformists for this, saying that while their hoped-for martyrdom had been spoiled, their consciences had been spared and so perhaps they should be pleased.
The editorial shrewdly analyzed this and was not content to dismiss it as hypocrisy.
Instead it concluded that this revealed that conscientious objection was not really at the root of the passive resistance campaign, but rather the campaign was an attempt to use civil disobedience to provoke a crisis that would pressure the government to rescind the offensive parts of the Education Act.
The editorial gave some estimates about the size of the movement:
The passive resisters who have had their rates paid for them [in Coventry] number about seventy; amongst them are most of the local Nonconformist minister.…
It appears from statistics giving the progress of passive resistance that the number of summonses issued throughout the country slightly exceeds 3,000… Three thousand is a considerable number, but the Nonconformists of England are still more considerable; they claim to be half of the professedly religious part of the nation.
The Cambridge Independent Press reported on the seizure of goods from 34 resisters .
[T]he Assistant Overseer… spent over five hours on Monday in a task, the unpleasantness of which was only lessened by the entire absence of any animosity or opposition on the part of the Passive Resisters.
When he commenced his round, Mr. Campbell was accompanied by the Warrant Officer, Acting-Sergt. Fuller, but so courteous was the behaviour of the persons visited that there was not the slightest need of the police officer’s services, and they were dispensed with before the work of collecting the goods had been completed.
The article goes on to describe the goods seized — “a miscellaneous collection” — including bicycles, violins, opera glasses, and a case of condensed milk.
One resister announced that he “intends to have his silver cake basket, which was taken, engraven with the date of this and all subsequent seizures.”
This was immediately followed by an article that reflected on the persecution meted out a generation or two before to nonconformists who refused to pay the “Church rates,” including a Baptist who had had goods seized and a Quaker who had been imprisoned.
Among the other articles on the same page touching on the passive resistance movement was one concerning a sale of goods seized from three resisters at St. Ives.
An auctioneer was brought in from out of town, “it being understood that local auctioneers declined to conduct the sale.”
Police were in attendance, but no disturbances were reported, “though the auctioneer was subjected to a good deal of banter and chaff.”
The sale to a great extent was a farce, as no one could hear the bids, but it was understood the goods were bought in by persons employed by the Passive Resisters…
After the sale there were loud cries for the auctioneer, but he remained in the Police-station, and after waiting about for some time the crowd went with the promoters to a meeting on the Market-hill.
The auctioneer was subsequently escorted by the police up a back road to the railway station, where there were ten members of the Police Force to see him off, and others to travel with him.
The Market-hill meeting featured the usual speeches, a motion of support for Passive Resisters, and also “a vote of thanks… to the magistrates and police for the courteous way in which the cases were heard, seizures made, and sale conducted.”
An article following this one concerned the “second batch of Passive Resisters at Wisbech,” ten of them, summoned to Police-court.
The magistrates in this case seemed also to be conciliatory, and agreed to make out a single distress warrant for all of the resisters in order to reduce the costs.
Following this was a brief article about summonses issued against eleven resisters in Huntingdon, including two sisters of a parliamentarian.
The Western Daily Press of covered the cases of a dozen or so resisters who were summoned to the petty sessions at Weston-super-Mare.
In these cases, the overseer had refused to accept partial payments and so was seeking distraint warrants for the whole of the tax.
The magistrates requested the police to turn out anyone who behaved disorderly, and the sergeant remarked, “This is not a theatre” to the large number of interested spectators.
Below this was a similar article about seven resisters summoned to the Stroud petty sessions (in this case, partial payments had been accepted, and distraint orders were issued for the remainder).
The article noted that the resisters who had been summonsed the week before “have had their rates paid, whether by friend or foe is not known.”
The edition of the same paper covered the Axbridge petty sessions, at which eight resisters were summoned.
A new legal tactic was tried here:
[Harry Cook] Marshall objected to three of the magistrates, viz., the Chairman, who was on the County Education Committee, and two others on the ground of prejudice.
Mr C.L.F. Edwards: To whom do you object?
Mr Marshall: I shall hear whether my objections hold good, and then I can mention the names
The Clerk said they must hear more of the objection before it could be considered.
Mr Marshall: They are prejudiced because I am a Nonconformist.
I have been sworn at and blackguarded by one of the magistrates on account of my Nonconformity, worse than I have ever been insulted in my life before.
(Cries of “Shame” were instantly suppressed by the police.)
The objection didn’t go anywhere with the magistrates.
Neither did this one:
Mr Marshall said the summons was an absolute lie, inasmuch as he had only refused a part of the rate.
They had come to a court of justice and they expected the truth.
As that (pointing to the summons) was to be handed down as a heirloom in his family, he would like the truth put on it.
(Applause.)
Following this was an article about eleven resisters summoned at the Westbury petty sessions.
“The court was crowded and several times there was some excitement.… Subsequently a meeting was held outside the Town Hall, and protest speeches were made.”
A third article covered “[s]ome 34 passive resisters of Cheltenham” who “were the centre of attraction, both in and outside the court, by large crowds.”
The usual complaints were aired, the usual distraints granted, and “[i]n the evening a meeting was held in protest…”
A fourth article concerned two resisters summoned to the Chard Guildhall; a fifth concerned several resisters who tried to state their cases at Branksome, including this one:
Mr. Norton, another well-known magistrate, emphatically declined to enter the dock and be treated as a criminal, but was told he would not be heard unless he did.
This aroused the indignation of the crowd, who hooted the magistrates, and they straightway adjourned the case.
Two additional brief articles concerned a property seizure and an auction:
Goods Seized at Birmingham.
At Birmingham the police levied further distraints upon passive resisters.
When they reached the house of the Rev. J.O. Dell, who is the leading spirit in the passive resistance movement, that gentleman called his family together and invited the officers to join with them in a short service.
The 91st Psalm was read, and all present knelt down whilst Mr O’Dell prayed.
The police seized a piano, and when this had been taken into the street they were asked to stand themselves around it, the group being then photographed.
Scene at an Auction.
During the second sale of passive resisters’ goods at Cambridge , a crowd of young men twice tried to rush the auctioneer, but were frustrated by the police.
About 36 lots were sold, the goods being bought in.
The Manchester Courier and Lancaster General Advertiser of included a set of articles on the campaign.
The first considered “[t]he last batch of passive resisters in Altrincham” to be summoned before the magistrates, who refused to combine their cases into a single distraint order (which would have reduced expenses) as another court had done.
F. Cowell Lloyd, “chairman of the Altrincham Passive Resistance League,” disrupted the court by standing up to complain that someone had been paying some of the resisters rates for them.
The usual protest meeting was held afterwards.
The second article told the same story of the cases tried at Branksome that the The Western Daily Press covered, above.
The third covered the J.O. Dell or J. O’Dell case (this article, to confuse the matter further, calls him “J. Odell”).
A forth concerns “the first batch” of resisters to be summoned in South Manchester, says that there’s at least one such resister in North Manchester (which had not yet attempted to collect rates), but that “[t]he overseers in the Manchester township have not as yet been troubled with the passive resisters.”
Some excerpts from article #5:
A Lady Resister’s Threat
Exciting scenes were witnessed at Willesden , when close upon 200 passive resisters appeared in answer to summonses.
The court was crowded, while outside 500 or 600 persons assembled, including a number of ministers.
During the hearing of objections the crowd frequently burst into applause, and it was only after a threat to clear the court that the interruptions ceased.
Amongst other objectors who came forward were two ladies, one of whom said she felt it incumbent upon her to always appear every six months and give as much trouble as she possibly could in the collection of the infamous rate.
The set of articles concludes with these two brief notes:
In Reading, “the passive resisters” have been allowed to pay the portion of the rate not objected to, and the authorities are delaying any steps to recover the balance, although it has been long overdue.
Some “resisters” at Tilehurst, a suburban village near Reading, were to be proceeded against, but the magistrates directed that the signed authority of the overseers must first be obtained.
The overseers, however, unanimously refused to give their consent in writing.
The Essex County Chronicle for carried several articles about the passive resistance struggle:
“The Grays and District Passive Resistance League is reported to be growing daily in numbers,” read one.
Another reported on the summonses of six resisters from Tiptree for amounts ranging from eight shillings and change to a little over ten pounds.
“There was a crowd in court, including several Nonconformist ministers.”
The paper prints a representative transcript of what took place in the courtroom, which is unusually jovial in its sparring, and more than usually eloquent in the way the Education Act was denounced, but for all that adds little to what I’ve already excerpted.
The cases of 34 resisters were heard at the North London Police-court, and distress warrants were issued in each case.
Heddington Petty Session heard the cases of three resisters.
Afterwards “a protest meeting was held in the road near the Bell Hotel [at which v]igorous addresses, condemning the Act, were given… [And it was] alleged that the magistrates that morning had not given fair play to the passive resisters.”
A resister was summoned to the Chelmsford Petty Session, who was particularly defiant, saying in part: “And pay, I never will.
You can have my body and my goods, and I will go to gaol first.
[Applause.]
I know what my forefathers paid for my liberties, and do you think I would come to England” [he being from Scotland, apparently] “and give those liberties away?
Never!
I want to hand down the liberties to my family as they have been handed down to me.”
An auction of seized goods was held at Romford.
“About 100 persons assembled, and the proceedings were very orderly.”
A family Bible, which fetched 15s., drew the remark: “Distrained for religious education.”
After the sale a meeting was held in the Market-place.
Mr Walter Young, LL.B., presided.
He said the police of the country were with the passive resisters, and did not like the dirty work which had been thrust upon them.
Dr. Clifford, their leader, regretted his absence, and had written that the movement was only in its beginning.
The meeting passed its usual motions of indignation, and was unusual for entertaining a dissenting voice: a vicar who defended the establishment Church, saying “that Church people contributed fully sufficient to pay the cost of teaching their children.”
Some “good natured argument” ensued.
Two resisters were summoned to the Braintree Petty Session.
One concluded by saying “at Braintree they had a great aversion to rowdyism.
The resisters hoped that none of the scenes which had taken place elsewhere would occur at Braintree.
[Hear, hear.]”
A subsequent Braintree Citizens’ League meeting enrolled five new members, bringing their total to 55.
“A large company assembled” at the sale 55 lots of distrained goods at Brentwood.
A new element I see for the first time in this article is this:
A yellow banner with “We will not submit” in red letters was unfurled, and was received with cheers.
At the conclusion of the auction “Cheers were given for the passive resisters and for the police, and ‘God save the King’ was sung.”
The usual indignation meeting was held after.
The Bucks Herald of covered “the inaugural meeting of the North Bucks [and Aylesbury] Citizens’ League, formed in connection with the ‘passive resistance’ movement”.
The acting secretary explained that 50 people had joined up before this first meeting had been held, and he hoped they’d eventually have ten times that number (the article itself notes that “[a] number of members were afterwards enrolled”).
Another speaker summed up the strength of the movement thus far this way:
Some good Nonconformists could not go so far as to passively resist, but at the present time 3,000 persons had been summoned, and there were 35,000 others waiting to be summoned.
The Chairman then noted “that fourteen ‘resisters’ would appear at Chesham on , and fifteen more were ready to step into the dock the following week.”
The meeting passed a resolution condemning the Education Act (but no mention is made of the usual resolution that was paired with this: commending the passive resisters).
The Dover Express reprinted a manifesto issued by the Dover Passive Resistance or Citizens’ League in its issue, and noted that some members of the League had appeared in court to respond to their summonses.
The manifesto is largely a recapitulation of by-now-familiar grievances about the Act and doesn’t give much more information about the tax resistance campaign itself.
An interesting letter appeared in the Derby Daily Telegraph of :
Passive Resistance: ’s
Sale
To the editor of the Derby Daily Telegraph–
Sir,– Allow me to express my indignation at the way the sale was conducted at the County Hall.
Until I have always been opposed to, and never was in sympathy with, those who were reported to have been at the various sales and caused disturbances, but on attending this morning’s sale I was astonished at the un-English way the whole thing was arranged and carried out.
When we take into consideration that we are only human we cannot wonder at the voices of protest being raised.
If this sale is a sample of those which have been carried out in the past it appears to me that unless they are conducted by those in authority in a more business-like manner we may look for trouble ahead.
I feel I am now more than justified in placing myself side by side with the passive resisters.
Fair Play. .
The Manchester Courier and Lancaster General Advertiser of covered the first set of passive resisters to be brought to court in Manchester.
“Long before the hour for the commencement of the proceedings,” the report read, “the court was filled with male and female sympathisers, admission being gained by ticket.”
The usual distraints were issued, and the usual protest meeting held thereafter.
The following article showed that someone was upping the ante:
Commitment Sought Against a Minister
William Swarbrick, assistant overseer of the Garstang Union, appeared before the Garstang justices on and applied for a commitment order against the Rev. J. Angell Jones, Congregational minister, Garstang.
A fortnight ago, Mr. Jones was summoned for non-payment of the education rate, and Mr. Swarbrick informed the Bench that when he visited Jones’s house on he was informed that he had no goods, all of which belonged to his wife.
After retiring the Bench adjourned the application until next court.
Additional brief articles told of “ladies who applauded [and] were removed from the court” at the trial of a Methodist minister, of nine resisters at Chester who were treated curtly by the court there, and of a pastor at Newton-le-Willows who was summoned for failure to pay the education rate.
The trial of another set of passive resisters from Manchester was covered in the Manchester Courier and Lancaster General Advertiser, though these were described as “the first which have come before the magistrates in the Manchester Division of the County” so I may be confused about the jurisdictional boundaries.
In any case, “the court was filled with spectators.”
One of the defendants slid in a suffragist point:
Mrs. Webster remarked that she desired simply to state two reasons for objecting to that rate.
In the first place she objected to pay for sectarian teaching, in which she did not believe, and secondly, as a woman, who had no Parliamentary vote allowed to her, she had no other means of publicly protesting against that act of injustice.
A public meeting was held thereafter, but being outdoors in the rain, was not well attended.
A second article covered the distraints from those resisters from Manchester discussed in the earlier edition of the paper.
The way in which the distraints went off gives us some clues about how the movement was preparing itself for this eventuality and trying to best react to it:
[T]he two officers drove in a cab first to the house of the Rev. C.W. Watkins… There was no demonstration; the officer quietly entered the house, and Mrs. Watkins offered them a gold watch and chain.
The inspector said he thought the watch would be sufficient to meet the claim, and departed with it.
The officers next drove to the house of the Rev. Dr. Leach… In the front garden there is a notice on a board to the following effect:– “The bailiff is going to take my goods because I will not pay rates for the teaching of Popery and Anglicanism.
— Chas. Leach.”
On their arrival at the house Dr. Leach asked the inspector for his authority, and the distress warrant was accordingly produced.
The rev. gentleman then asked the officer, “Do you, as a policeman, like this work?” but Mr. Clegg did not vouchsafe any reply.
Dr. Leach expressed his regret that any policeman should have to do such work, and then asked the officer to look round the room, remarking “You can tell those who sent you they can take every stick, but even then the rate won’t be paid.”
The officer, in reply to a further question, said that the claim was for about £1.
“Cannot you take me instead of the goods?” queried the rev. gentleman, and the inspector, with a smile, said that he could not.
The next question asked was, “Would you like something heavy or light?” and Mr. Clegg, naturally, replied that he would sooner have something that was light.
“Then,” said Dr. Leach, “you had better take my theology, for that is very light.”
The officers were eventually handed half a dozen solid silver serviette rings, and expressing themselves as quite satisfied, they departed for the next residence on the list.
There were only three or four persons assembled outside Dr. Leach’s house.
Subsequently Dr. Leach informed our representative that he was well pleased with the courtesy that had been shown by the officers, who had done their best to make the business as pleasant as possible.
Mr. Edwyn Holt’s residence, Appleby Lodge, Rusholme, was next visited, and the officers were cordially greeted and shown into the drawing-room.
After the usual questions, Mr. Holt said he intended to hand over his gold watch, and produced a case containing that article.
Mr. Holt then shook the officers by the hand, and remarked “I am as pleased to have seen you as if you had been the King, whose representatives you are.”
On arrival at Mr. R.D. Darbishire’s house in Victoria Park, the officers were shown into the dining-room.
Mr. Darbishire produced the silver casket containing the freedom of the city of Manchester presented to him by the Corporation in , and in handing it over to the officers he said that he was giving up the most precious possession he had.
(A note in the edition of the paper indicated that “a gentleman who does not wish his name to be disclosed redeemed the casket containing the freedom of the city which Mr. R.D. Darbishire handed to the police in satisfaction of the distress warrant…”)
A brief note further down the page notes that a sale of distrained goods at Warrington attracted “several thousand people… but the proceedings were quiet and orderly.… After the sale a meeting was held on the fair ground.”
Finally, from the Gloucester Citizen of :
Passive Resistance.
A Mayor Distrained On.
Twenty Wimbledon passive resisters had their goods sold at a Battersea auction-room on .
All the goods were “bought in” except those belonging to Mr. Peter Lawson, Mayor of Fulham, who insisted “on principle” that his goods should be sold outright.
Revolting Magistrates.
At Market Harborough on , 25 passive resisters appeared before the magistrates.
Mr. John Smeeton, who sat on the Bench, rose from his seat and stated that he declined to have anything to do with the administration of “the iniquitous Education Act.”
This action was loudly cheered by a large crowd in Court.
Distress warrants were ordered to issue.
Mr. Samuel Rathbone Edge, a justice of the peace for the county of Stafford, an income-tax commissioner, and a former member of Parliament for Newcastle-under-Lyme, was summoned at that town as a passive resister.
The usual order was made.
Offered His Wife.
The warrant officer of Penge went round on distraining on the goods of passive resisters.
A well-known Nonconformist, who owed 2s. 10d., offered his wife, but the warrant officer declined to “seize” the lady, remarking that he had one at home.
Bundled Out of Court.
Summoned at Maidenhead County Police-court on for non-payment of the education rate, Mr. Thorpe, Fifield, village missioner, protested against entering the prisoner’s dock, but finally submitted.
After the order for payment was made, Mr. Thorpe proceeded to address the magistrates on his conscientious objection.
He was told to desist, but continued his remarks until the Deputy Chief Constable ordered the police to eject him.
He was then seized by three or four officers, and forcibly turned out.
The East Berks Liberal agent was in Court, and called the police cowards, whereupon he was seized and bundled out as well.
A colporteur was threatened with similar summary punishment if he did not hold his tongue.
Police-Sergeant Charged with Assault.
At the Petty Sessions at Wiveliscombe on , Police-Sergeant Frederick Charles Woolley was charged with assaulting Edward John Thorne at Wiveliscombe Police-Court on .
On Mr. Thorne, who was for many years chairman of the local School Board, was summoned for non-payment of the poor rate as a passive resister, and he persisted in making a statement.
Thereupon, it was alleged, the police-sergeant put his hand upon Mr. Thorne’s arm and dragged him a step or two.
Complainant contended that defendant had no authority from the Bench to do this, but the presiding magistrate said he used the words, “Turn him out.”
The case was dismissed.
That takes us through .
A bust of John Wesley was seized from a Wesleyan passive resister who refused to pay his education rates
We’re now up to in my sampling of news coverage of the tax resistance campaign waged by members of a variety of British nonconformist Christian sects against the provisions of the Education Act of that allowed for public funding of sectarian religious education.
Although it’s early going still, both sides in the struggle are starting to show signs of impatience.
Officials are getting frustrated with having to process large numbers of long-winded civil disobedients, and the resisters are ramping up their rhetoric and their eagerness to take more confrontational and law-defying stands.
The usual routine, seen in multiple examples over the previous months, is something like this: Several indignant nonconformists in some jurisdiction refuse to pay the portion of their “poor rates” that they expect will be destined for the sectarian education they despise.
The rate collector either accepts the remainder of the rates or stubbornly refuses to, and then applies to the magistrates for distraint orders for either the refused portion or the whole amount.
The resisters are then summoned to appear before the magistrates, attempt to use the occasion to protest as vehemently as they can, and then the magistrates issue distraint orders.
Property is seized from the various resisters and sold at auction, these auctions being more or less well-attended and well-behaved.
After the hearings before the magistrates or the auctions, public indignation meetings are often held, featuring speeches, resolutions, and singing.
Occasionally this summon-seize-and-auction process is interrupted by mischievous foes of the nonconformists who pay their refused rates anonymously for them behind their backs.
So, that pattern established, I’m going to try to limit myself to sharing examples that reveal something new about how the movement operated or developed.
The Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald of covered an auction and subsequent indignation meeting in Canterbury.
The auction was attended by a few bargain hunters, several passive resistance sympathizers, and a number of people who had “come to see the fun.”
Each of the lots up for auction was purchased by a Councillor Godden, presumably to return to the resisters (the lots seemed to go suspiciously at exactly the amount that was due, suggesting coordination between the bidder, the resister, and possibly the government).
At the conclusion of the auction, Godden congratulated the authorities for having conducted the distraint and auction “in the best possible way without the least friction.”
The tactic of officials resigning their positions began to come into play.
This example comes from the Manchester Courier and Lancashire General Advertiser:
Passive Resistance.
A Bowdon Magistrate Resigns.
The name of Mr. Jesse Haworth, J.P., of Woodside, Bowdon, has, at his own request, been struck off the Commission of the Peace for Cheshire.
Mr. Haworth is one of the passive resisters who were summoned on at Sale for non-payment of the education portion of the poor-rate, and his goods were distrained upon and afterwards sold.
Mr. Haworth has occupied a seat on the magisterial bench for twenty years.
His letter of resignation, dated , and addressed to the Clerk of the Peace, was in these terms:–
As I cannot conscientiously administer the Education Act, I feel it my duty to withdraw from the Cheshire Bench, and shall be obliged if you will take the necessary steps for my being removed from the roll of county magistrates.
[Haworth] stated that he had no desire to pose as a martyr; his action had simply been taken because he could not conscientiously administer the Education Act.
He was not a member of the Passive Resistance League, nor even a subscriber to its funds, and his action was quite independent, and made according to the dictates of his conscience.
Attempts to frustrate distraint on the grounds of legal technicalities were scoring occasional victories, too, as this article from the same paper shows:
Distraint Orders Invalid.
The passive resisters of the village of Gilerux, who a few months since were summoned at Cockermouth Police-Court, will apparently escape the consequences of the magistrates’ decision.
The Rev. R.W. Watson, a Wesleyan minister, questioned the validity of the summons on the ground that one of the overseers was not a ratepayer in the parish.
Notwithstanding this objection, the magistrates decided against the resisters, and made distraint orders.
It has since been discovered that Mr. Watson’s objection was good in point of law, and that, therefore, the distraints could not be effected.
No further action has been taken.
Other news further down the page included the note that a bust of John Wesley had been seized from the home of a Wesleyan Methodist resister (a good piece of symbolism to complement the resisters’ belief that the Act and its consequences were attacks on nonconformists’ faith).
Also, “several thousand people” attended an auction of goods seized from passive resisters at Warrington, though “the proceedings were quiet and orderly.”
The Burnley Gazette of covered a conference of passive resisters at which the Rev. James Travis, in his remarks, noted the importance of preexisting nonconformist institutions for organizing the movement quickly:
Where, he asked, should we have been at this juncture in our history but for the Free Church Councils?
They would have been comparatively helpless in this great struggle for religious freedom.
A public meeting was then held that evening.
W.P. Hartley, a justice of the peace from Aintree, appealed for people to get off the fence and join the resistance:
Thousands of their best citizens, law-abiding, law-respecting, with a true love of their country, were submitting to have their goods distrained rather than be traitors to their conscience.
Nonconformists must suffer and be prepared to suffer for their principles until the law was altered.
Each distraint would be as a seed sown in the ground, which would yield a harvest.
If there was to be a speedy victory, they must be reinforced everywhere by the friends of liberty.
They had heard speakers demonstrate that in this Act conscience was invaded, and in the next breath the speakers had declared that they did not intend to be passive resisters.
The Evening News of Portsmouth announced the following developments in its edition:
Sales and Distraints.
The Wirksworth police have introduced a new method.
They seize Resisters’ goods, but instead of offering them by public auction they advertise them in the local Press for sale by private treaty.
(The Northampton Mercury expands on this, saying that this is a sort of sealed-bid auction, and that “[p]rior to this course being taken notice was given to the thirteen resisters that they might if they liked buy back their goods at a price to cover the costs incurred.
Not one of them, however, has done so.”)
A remarkable sale of Passive Resisters’ goods took place at Penge .
The sale-room was a stable yard open to the sky, and for a full hour before the arrival of the auctioneer, Mr. Ferdinando, of Camberwell (who was half an hour late), a large crowd waited in the pouring rain.
The auctioneer conducted the sale from behind a six-foot wall, and an incident which provided great amusement to the spectators was an accident to his assistant, who fell down the loft-stairs with a marble clock in his arms.
The Tunbridge Wells borough police distrained on nearly forty Passive Resisters .
Though it is now two months since distress warrants were issued at Tunbridge against certain Resisters, the warrants have not yet been executed.
The Superintendent of Police stated that he had reported the matter to the Chief Constable, but he had received no instructions.
Twenty Resisters were before the Newmarket Magistrates .
“We all protest against several taxes.
I know I do,” said the Clerk to one.
Another he assured that “the law has no conscience.”
After a warrant had been issued in each case an application was made for the Magistrates to exercise the power vested in them by the Poor Law Act of and issue one warrant to cover all the twenty cases.
This was refused, the Chairman remarking that they saw no reason to depart from the custom of the Court in issuing a fresh warrant for each case.
The local auctioneer who will sell the goods seized has intimated that he will not charge for either selling or storing them.
The Nottingham Evening Post noted a couple of auctions: One at Arnold a single resister’s violin was sold and “[b]etween two and three hundred friends and sympathisers assembled outside the police-station to witness the proceedings,” and one at Sileby where seven resisters were backed up by “but a small crowd.”
A letter-to-the-editor in the Kent & Sussex Courier took pains to identify honorable historical precedents for tax resistance and civil disobedience:
“Observer” [to whom the writer is responding] speaks of passive resistance as a recent movement “being indeed a subversion of all constitutional government.”
It has, however, the sanction of great as well as good men.
The Puritans adopted this form of resistance against the despotic laws of those days for which they endured untold sufferings.
John Bunyan (whom all Christendom delights to honour) was a sturdy passive resister.
He said: “The law has two ways of obeying, the one to do that which I on my conscience do believe I am bound actively, and when I cannot obey actively, then I am willing to lie down and suffer what they shall do unto me.”
Dr. John Brown, who fought a brave fight in his day against the Edinburgh Annuity Tax, which amounted to six per cent, on rental paid by the occupiers of houses, and appropriated to the ministers of the Established Church, very pungently said that “those who deny this principle would have considered it their duty to pay a rate for the expenses of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.”
The “Quarterly Review,” in its early days when it represented the strongest conservatism in the country, said: “It is a question that might admit of serious discussion, whether the majority of the members of any civil community have a right to compel all the members of it to pay towards the maintenance of a set of teachers appointed by the majority to preach a particular system of doctrine.”
The Northampton Mercury of covered the “about ninety summonses” of passive resisters in Leicester.
Excerpt:
The Borough Police Court has witnessed many strange spectacles in its time; but ’s was as unprecedented as it was deplorable.
One, accordingly, must wish that the painful and excited scene was destined to be the last, as well as the first of its kind [in Leicester].
Unfortunately, there is no such consolation.
It was, indeed, but the first of a long series likely to occur and recur until an unjustifiable and most objectionable tax is expunged from the Statute Book.
Under any circumstances the proceedings must have been unique, animated, and impressive.
But bad was made worse by the injudicious refusal of the presiding justice to allow even four of the scores of defendants to — as Mr. Barlow, their solicitor, explained it — “just express shortly their reasons for declining to pay their balance of the rate” — on condition that the remainder of the cases were allowed to go by default.
Mr. McCardie, a barrister, who appeared for the prosecution, thought the proposal fair and reasonable, and accordingly supported it.
But the magistrates, after considering the matter, most unwisely decided that not more than two of the ninety could be allowed to explain their reasons for their resistance.
The justices were very frankly reminded that two of the ninety was but a small proportion.
But they merely reiterated their stolid “impossible.”
They urged, indeed, that they were departing from the rule laid down in these courts by hearing even two.
Having, however, resolved to commit the irregularity as regards two, they might just as well have stretched a point by unmuzzling the other four.
The justices could not see it.
The defendants, accordingly, exercised their right by falling back on reprisals.
They withdrew their retainer to their solicitor, and each and all, thereupon, insisted on voicing their protests in their own words.
The consequence was that the proceedings were correspondingly protracted.
But the delay had one immense advantage.
It enabled the resisters, one after another, to formulate their objections in emphatic phrases.
Each was called upon to make his or her confession of faith on the subject, and did it in his and her own more or less expressive way.
All this combined to make the most painfully eloquent demonstration against the Church Rate Act ever witnessed in Leicseter.
The article/editorial goes on to mention two summonses and distraint orders at Stalybridge, twenty-one at Newmarket, and one at Bridgnorth.
A resister from Newbury had property seized.
Ten resisters from Penge had their goods sold in the rain (the same event described in another paper, above).
And here’s a new development:
By deciding not to levy a rate in support of denominational schools, Wales — excepting Radnor and Brecon — has not as yet been invaded by the passive resistance movement.
It would, however, appear, from the proceedings of the Conway Board of Guardians, that these tactics are going to be adopted by the supporters of last year’s Act in reply to the policy of the Welsh councils.
All the elementary schools in Conway are under the control of the Church party, and an effort is about to be made to organise the supporters of these schools with a view to a refusal to pay the rate unless assurances are given by the county councils that they shall benefit by the rate collected locally.
The Nottingham Evening Post included this example of the government signaling that it might be raising the stakes:
Lord Lindley, late Master of the Rolls, addressing the Grand Jury at Norfolk Quarter Sessions… [said a great many things about the Education Act being the law of the land, including:] A person duly rated could of course refuse to perform his duty which was to pay in full, but the statutory machinery for making him perform that duty was distress and imprisonment.
Although to refuse to pay might not be indictable, any organised opposition to the enforcement of the law was an indictable conspiracy, and passive resisters might easily find themselves caught in the meshes of the criminal law, for the whole object of their movement was to bring into disgrace and to obstruct distresses for rates for denominational schools.
Lindley was at the time, I think, one of the “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,” which was something like a Supreme Court justice.
Liberal politician David Lloyd George capitalized on the opposition to the Education Act to bolster his political standing and to attract new voters to the Liberal party
Our chronological trek through the “passive resistance” campaign against elements of the Education Act of continues.
We’re now up to in our coverage.
I start to see less coverage in the papers at this point, but this could be from a number of reasons.
It might just be a sampling bias of some sort in which newspapers I searched.
It might be that at this point the movement has become less newsworthy, as the campaign settled into a regular rhythm.
It might also be that the campaign was waning in enthusiasm and wasn’t making as much noise.
Or it could have something to do with the calendar and when the rates were assessed, collected, and opportunities to resist arose.
The Bath Chronicle of covered a passive resistance meeting held at the Widcombe Baptist Chapel.
Excerpts:
The chairman remarked that there was no need to be alarmed by the cry that Passive Resisters are likely to lose their vote.
If it came to the worst, however, most of them would be willing to lose their vote rather than lose the freedom and equality their forefathers had obtained.
He referred to a statement of Dr. Clifford’s that “Passive Resistance may not be a good policy, but principle is what we are struggling for, and possibly that may be after all the best policy.”
The Rev. Tolfree Parr, one of the missioners to the National Free Church Council, said he thought the Bath Citizens’ League was adopting a good policy in carrying the flaming torch from church to church, and training the people in their own churches in the Passive Resistance principles.
He was rejoiced to find in the churchy and aristocratic city of Bath such a thing as a Passive Resistance League.
This branch league was part of an ever-growing army which would fight this battle to the end.
There had been 6,000 summonses already.
He ventured the opinion there would be 60,000 soon, as the number of passive resisters would increase by thousands when the populous towns in the North of England would have to adopt the Act.
The Archbishop had expressed the opinion some time ago that six months after the passing of the Act there would be no passive resistance.
His letter this week did not look as if he held that opinion now.
The speaker believed passive resistance was not going out, but that it was just coming in, and the courts would be yet more crowded with passive resisters all over the land and the magistrates will grow tired of the business.
They could afford to ignore the sneer that they were cheap martyrs.
What a splendid thing it would be to send Dr. Clifford to prison, for he would then have a fortnight’s rest which he could not get now.
An establishment church bishop addressed the Truro Diocesan Conference, which was covered in The West Briton and Cornwall Advertiser of .
He denounced the passive resistance movement as being based on lies about the church and its schools, and with alarm said:
It broke the law, in more than half Wales is boasted that it would refuse to the schools of the Church that supply which the law required at its hands, and there were parts of England, like Cambridge, that seemed likely to follow the same lawlessness.
18 passive resisters had their goods seized and auctioned off in Market Harborough district on .
The Northampton Mercury reported that this auction was a little unusual.
Instead of just hauling the seized goods to a central location and auctioning them off there, the auctioneer went around to various resisters’ homes to hold many individual auctions:
The sale of the goods of 18 passive resisters distrained upon in Market Harborough district were sold by auction at the New Hall on , the auctioneer being Mr. Towson, of Long Eaton.
There were three or four hundred persons present, and beyond some good-humoured banter nothing of moment occurred.
The goods were all knocked down to Mr. Newcombe.
The auctioneer was then driven to Foxton, where a timepiece of Mr. George Kirby’s was sold.
The next call was at Laughton, at which place a four-wheeled carriage, of which Mr. C.J. Smith had been dispossessed, was disposed of, and purchased by an employé of Mr. Smith.
The next journey was to Fleckney, where a considerable crowd assembled near the house of Mr. Iliffe, the collector.
The auctioneer, who was posted inside Mr. Iliffe’s yard, was greeted with much jeering.
The din was so great that he was scarcely audible.
The lots were disposed of in dumb show, the purchaser being Mr. R. Gardiner, of Saddington.
The auctioneer, on being driven away, had several lumbs of turf aimed at him, but only one seemed to hit the mark.
Deputy Chief Constable Leach, Sergeant Burton, and five constables were present.
Up to 6,496 summonses had been issued against passive resisters, and 235 sales of effects had taken place.
In all or nearly all instances the goods were bought by friends or by supporters of the National Resistance Committee and restored in due course to their original owners.
Exception must be made in the case of a bassinette for which the owner declared there was no further use at home.
The dictum of Mr. Justice Lindley has had no effect whatever on the movement.
“Passive resistance” is not unknown in France.
At Besançon an ordinary barndoor chicken owned by a “passive resister” has fetched the remarkable price of £7. A sympathiser with the Clerical party, who had refused to pay his taxes as a protest against the operation of the Religious Congregations Act, was distrained on, and the fowl was put up to auction.
The man’s friends bid merrily for it until the sum required was raised, when the bird was returned to its owner.
Fifteen watches were among the goods listed to be sold at Chester on to pay portions of rates which had been refused by passive resisters.
The assistant overseer announced that the Excise authorities had at the last moment warned them that jewellery could not be sold without a special license, hence the sale could not take place.
Great uproar ensued, vigorous protest being made against an adjournment and further consequent expense.
The assistant overseer assured the excited crowd that further expense would not be entailed.
The resisters then held a conference, and eventually it was announced that the auctioneer would sell the articles with the exception of the jewellery.
The Rev. Cairns Mitchell advised the resisters not to treat privately for jewellery, and warned the auctioneer that a public sale would be insisted on.
Then, amid good-humored chaff, eight lots were disposed of, the jewellery being held over.
A public meeting was subsequently addressed by G. Leech, of March.
A letter from Dr. Clifford was read, and a copy of the Education Act was torn into small pieces.
On Mr. Margetts conducted a sale of goods belonging to a large number of passive resisters, including several ministers, at Willesden-green.
Several hundred people attended the sale, and the hall was crowded.
Before the sale commenced those present joined in singing “Onward, Christian Soldiers,” and much cheering greeted the auctioneer’s announcement that no commission on the sale and no fees for valuation would be charged.
The proceedings passed off quietly, and though there were 130 lots offered, the sale was quickly concluded, most of the goods being knocked down at the first bid.
Among the lots were four volumes of the “Life of Spurgeon,” and three Bibles.
The Portsmouth Evening News printed an enthusiastic report of the local passive resistance league in its issue:
The New President of the Local League.
An Appeal to Associate Members.
(By an Inside Contributor.)
The members of the Passive Resistance League in Portsmouth are greatly pleased with their new President, the Rev. W. Miles, Pastor of Buckland Congregational Church.
He is not only a strong Passive Resister, but a powerful and eloquent speaker, and he is the minister of one of the most influential churches the borough.
The officers of the League now represent the Baptists, Bible Christians, Congregationalists, Primitive Methodists, and Wesleyans, for the Treasurer is a Wesleyan layman and a T.C. and J.P.; and the energetic financial secretary is also a Wesleyan.
When Mr. Lloyd George, M.P., visits Portsmouth on , the members of the League will endeavour to secure him for a public luncheon and afternoon conference.
But it is doubtful at present whether Mr. George’s engagements will render this possible.
But whether it be or not, they will hail his advent to Portsmouth with delight, for no man in the House of Commons opposed the Education Bill more brilliantly or effectively than the Hon. member for Carnarvon.
And he is rendering splendid service for our cause in the country; last week he was at Aberdeen, and after a powerful address, Principal Salmond, in moving a vote of thanks, acknowledged that Mr. George had entirely won the sympathy of the Scotch people for their English brethren in the “magnificent stand they were making for their rights.”
The extraordinary growth of public opinion favour of the Passive Resistance movement is little short of marvellous.
Everywhere Nonconformists who at first were in doubt are gradually coming over.
Reflection is producing conviction, and the working the Education Act is inspiring thousands either with alarm or disgust.
Evangelicals in the Established Church are now beginning see that Protestantism in the Church England is doomed if the priests, who have captured the day schools, are able to retain them.
The hearty thanks of all Passive Resistors are due Mr. Alderman J.J. Norton, of Poole, for his victory over Sir Richard Glyn, who, as Chairman the Bench, ordered Mr. Norton into the dock.
Twice the sturdy Alderman refused to go into the dock, and twice the case was adjourned in consequence, and on the third occasion the Magistrate wisely gave up the fight, and Mr. Norton was the victor.
It is now pointed out that it is not only indecent to order a Passive Resister into the dock, but obviously illegal.
The dock is the place for persons accused in criminal proceedings of public offences.
The Passive Resister is in no sense of the law or fact to be classed among criminals.
He need not to the Court at all unless he likes, and if he does he can take his hat and walk out at any time he chooses, and for a Magistrate to treat him a criminal under arrest is unjustifiable.
Thanks to Mr. Alderman Norton this is now made clear.
The West Ham appeal case, of which have heard so much, is down for an early hearing.
This is a test case which is to determine the point whether the Overseers of that Borough have the legal power to insist on full payment of the rate, or whether they must accept part payment, and levy a distress for only the balance of the account.
Overseers all over the country are waiting the issue of this appeal, and this fact goes far to account for the falling off of summonses and distraints.
After Christmas the gorge of many a disgusted Overseer will rise, as he is perforce compelled to take up this hateful work of prosecution.
Let me close my notes this week with an appeal to the Associate Members of the Passive Resistance League.
They will, of course, like other people pay the District rate without demur, but they should by no means pay the Poor Rate without a strong pretest.
This protest can written and handed in with the money.
But, better still, the Associate Members can refuse to pay till they are summoned.
They can go into Court, and there pay under protest before the Magistrate.
But the “Full Members” look to them to make some protest, and to make it strong as they can.
Meanwhile, let the Full Members be of good courage.
The flowing tide is with them.
The opinion of the country is veering round in their favour.
To the Passive Resisters of Edinburgh in John Bright wrote: “I trust your great and growing combination will bring you a speedy success, but I am not sure that this can secured unless your inhabitants are resolved to resist the payment of the tax, whether levied by itself or as part of some other tax.
There is no power greater than that of Passive Resistance.”
The truth of John Bright’s words is being proved anew.
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.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
We’ve rolled over into in our survey of the newspaper coverage of the tax resistance campaign against aspects of the Education Act of .
Thousands of resisters have refused to pay, been summonsed by the authorities, and have had distraint orders made out against them.
Many property seizures and auctions have taken place, with accompanying protest rallies.
The following article seems to suggest that there was some foot-dragging by the authorities in some cases, to the benefit of the passive resisters.
From the Kent & Sussex Courier of :
It was on that three Tonbridge ratepayers refused to pay that part of the Poor Rate devoted to educational matters, their refusal being the outcome of their objection to the new Education Act.
The three gentlemen against whom distress warrants were promptly issued were Mr G.E. Lawson, upholsterer, of 165, High-street; Mr P. Lawson, his son; and Mr F.P. Verney, of Vale House, all prominent Nonconformists.
The issuing of the distress warrants raised the unique question between the police and the overseers as to who could carry out the order of magistrates.
Supt. Styles claimed that it was the duty of the overseers, and the latter claimed that they were not the proper persons.
The result was a deadlock.
Supt. Styles communicated with the Chief Constable (Col H.J.A. Warde), and on Mr H. Laurence appeared before the magistrates, but no further steps were taken as no reply had been received from the Chief Constable.
This arrived, however, by , when the action taken by Supt. Styles was upheld.
The magistrates, however, expressed their regret, through the Chairman (the Hon. J.G. Talbot, M.P.), that the warrants, which were addressed to the police and overseers jointly, had not been carried out.
They hoped that no further delay would take place.
On the matter again came before the magistrates, but it was not dealt with until , when the Hon. J.G. Talbot again voiced the regret of the Bench that nothing had been done, and expressed the hope that the warrants would be dealt with in the usual way.
Still, nothing was done until , when bills were issued by Supt. Styles as under:…
E.R.
Kent County Constabulary.
Notice.
Sale of Goods
seized under distress warrants issued for the non-payment of the Poor Rates will take place by Tender, at the
Police Station Yard, Tonbridge.
on
The goods can be seen on application to the undermentioned.
Tenders for the same will be accepted up to the time of sale.
Robert Styles, Superintendent of Police, Tonbridge.
On , therefore, there was a considerable crowd assembled in the Station yard, when Supt. Styles made the announcement that he had received instructions to carry out the distraint warrants for non-payment of the Poor Rate, and for which a sale had taken place as advertised.…
At the conclusion of the sale, Mr Percy Lawson proposed a vote of thanks to Supt. Styles and the police officers generally in Tonbridge for the kindly-spirited way in which they had levied the distress.
He thought they appreciated their kindness more on account of the very small animus.
They also appreciated the kindness received from the magistrates and overseers.
The magistrates had treated them to a sort of moral address on the duties of Christians.
He thought it had been rumoured in high quarters that the best method of dealing with Passive Resisters was to put the bailiffs in the house, but they were much indebted that the Superintendent did not think it necessary to take such steps.
He believed this was only the beginning of the Passive Resisters’ fight (applause).
William Ernest Blomfeld, Baptist minister and passive resister (painting by George Hall Neale)
.
The “passive resistance” movement, in which thousands of British nonconformists have been refusing to pay taxes they believe to support Anglican or Catholic sectarian teaching, has now been going on for about a year.
An “Inside Contributor” for the Portsmouth Evening News sums it up so far:
This persecution is now no longer like a rivulet, it has swollen to a torrent; 8,112 summonses have up to the present been issued against Passive Resisters, an increase of 566 for the week.
The Free Churchmen of Hornsey, whose goods were sold last week, have again been summoned for the new rate.
Here is a clear case of indecent haste on the part of the authorities, as it is six weeks before the time of issuing the ordinary summonses.
Last week at Leicester, when the second batch of 142 appeared before “their worships,” one of the Resisters, who insisted on his right to utter his protest, was forcibly ejected from the Court after a severe struggle.
The Coventry Herald covered the sermon of W.E. Blomfeld at the Ford Street Chapel in its edition.
Excerpt:
He did not see a vast distinction between himself teaching a child doctrines and practices he disbelieved in, and in putting his hand in his pocket to have it done.
Some people called the passive resisters “anarchists,” but hard names did not break bones.
Anarchists went about with bombs in their pockets; passive resisters carried the New Testament, and it was the New Testament which told them they must obey God rather than man.
They did not wish to pose as cheap martyrs, he had no wish even for applause; they were prepared to carry out what they thought right and suffer the consequences.
He ventured to say the Government would be tired of inflicting this injustice half-year after half-year long before Passive Resisters were tired of registering their protests.
He predicted for Passive Resisters a great victory.
Daniel Francis Baker and Ann Baker, husband and wife, brought a lawsuit against the overseers of their parish, a tax collector, and an auctioneer “to recover damages for trespass and illegal distress.”
The case was heard on and covered in the Sussex Express, Surrey Standard & Kent Mail.
According to the Bakers’ attorney, what had happened was something like this: Baker did not pay his rates when due, intending to register a protest when he was summoned and then to pay the rate minus fifteen shillings (the amount he attributed to the education portion of the rate).
However, he was late in answering the summons and so didn’t have a chance to register his protest and a distraint order was issued for the whole amount.
He at first decided to just pay the whole amount, but after getting the run-around about whom he should pay, decided instead to pay the tax collector all but the fifteen shillings.
Mr. Baker then, through an intermediary, made an agreement with one of the overseers that, in order to make things go off with the least amount of fuss, they should seize one of his cows and sell it discreetly in the market.
The overseer however violated this agreement and, on , three men came to the farm while Mr. Baker was away and “took all the furniture in the house except the bed.”
A brother of Mr. Baker, who had recently broken his leg, was sitting on a couch, and when he moved from the couch, the auctioneer said “Book it.”
The couch was entered in the inventory and subsequently it was taken away.
The things taken were valued at £100.
(The opposing council said that the value was more like £5.) Mr. Baker testified that “The family were obliged to live in the scullery for three weeks.
Some £9 worth of articles, belonging to his wife, were not returned, and others were damaged.”
One of the assistant overseers who carried out the distraint testified that Mr. Baker “called him dirty names, and struck him in the mouth, making his lip bleed.”
He also said that he had been called to this case because “[t]his was the first occasion on which the police had refused to execute rate warrants.”
Rather weakly, when asked why he had let his assistants strip the house clean of furniture for a fifteen shilling bill, he said: “It is not the value of the furniture.
You see at a sale it might not fetch so much.”
Walter Edward Wright, one of the overseers, was then called.
Examined by Mr. Lawless, he said he did not want the appointment, and it was a gross piece of treachery on the part of the Parish Council to appoint him.
He went away on and returned two months later.
He first heard of this matter on , when he was at Plymouth.
In cross-examination, Mr. Wright admitted telling Washer [the previously-examined assistant overseer] that the best way to deal with passive resisters was to pay their rates for them.
Mr. Avory– Is that how you view the office of overseer?
Witness replied, that as a matter of fact he had paid one man’s rates, and the amount of the costs.
He did not say much about it, however, because the whole parish might turn passive resisters.
The other overseer tried to wash his hands of the whole thing, saying that he had told Washer “to be careful not to overstep his duty” and had not authorized them to seize Mrs. Baker’s furniture or to seize an excessive amount of goods.
The auctioneer testified that he’d been told by Washer to go to the house and do an inventory in search of £70 worth of goods.
The judge didn’t decide either way, but only said he’d hear “the legal arguments” in London at another date.
A follow-up article I found in the Leeds Mercury reads:
Damages for Excessive Distraint.
The Lord Chief Justice on decided that there had been excessive distraint in a case in which, refusing payment of 15s., Mr. Baker, a farmer, residing near Brighton, had his house cleared of furniture, and judgment for £50 damages with costs was given against Mr. Webster, an auctioneer and bailiff, who, acting under the instructions of the assistant-overseer, seized the goods.
No order was made against the assistant-overseer, and it was held that the overseers, not being in the position of a Sheriff, were not responsible.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
We’re up to in our chronological hike through the newspaper coverage of the tax resistance campaign against taxpayer funding of sectarian education in Britain.
The Lancashire Daily Post noted that there was a sale of goods seized from passive resisters in Birmingham , as well as an auction of “[n]early one hundred lots of goods distrained from people who had refused to pay their education rates… in Sheffield,” and the goods of eight additional resisters were auctioned off at Sandbach.
Some people, perhaps from a mixture of motives, were paying the portion of the rates that the resisters were refusing to pay — on their behalf and anonymously.
This had the effect of foiling their protest.
One wrote to the Portsmouth Evening News ():
Dear Sir,– Possibly the kind friends (or more probably enemies) of the Passive Resisters who are paying the Education Rates for them, are unaware of the fact that they are literally subscribing to the funds of the Passive Resistance League.
The amount they pay plus the cost of the summons, will be handed over by those for whom they pay to the funds, which will be considerably benefited thereby (at least they are doing so in other towns, and I believe they intend to do so here).
Would it not be advisable for the Passive Resisters not to pay any part of the rate in the future just to try their friends (?) liberality, whether it is equal to 100 per cent. or stops at 5?
The same paper’s “inside contributor” gave the perspective of the resisters in a column .
Excerpts:
The Passive Resistance movement shows no sign of having “lapsed” or spent itself.
Up to the end of last week there had been over 11,500 prosecutions under the Education Acts, while there had been over 400 sales of Passive Resisters’ goods.
Of course there is [a bible] passage which says “Render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s” and this all Passive Resisters are ready to do; but in the same breath the Lord adds, “Render unto God the things that are God’s.” There are, then, things which are not Cæsar’s. Every Passive Resister is ready to say with Dr. Isaac Watts–
“Let Cæsar’s due be over paid To Cæsar and this throne; But consciences and souls were made To be the Lord’s alone.”
The Associate member of the League [that is, those not yet resisting but supporting resisters] should see to it that they are helping the full members all they can.
Why should they pay the rate until they have made a protest in Court?
If they cannot go the whole way with us, let them not pay until they are summoned, and then, when they do pay, they should write largely, in red ink, across the Demand Note — “Paid under Protest.”
There is a growing feeling among the “full members” of the League that the Associate members need just a little more buckram.
Verbum sap.
The Berwickshire News and General Advertiser, amidst much anti-Passive Resistance editorializing, reported on the auction of goods seized from eleven or so resisters.
Excerpts:
Once on the rostrum, the Auctioneer said he desired, before proceeding with the sale, to take the opportunity of explaining his position.
On the occasion of the last sale, he refused to act — because he was in sympathy with the Resisters.
(Applause.)
He was in sympathy with them still — (applause) — and it was entirely at the instance of the Passive Resisters that he was acting .
The Rev. A. Alexander was the last speaker.
He referred to the possible removing from the voters’ register of Passive Resisters.
Some unkind friend — (a laugh) — had paid his (the speaker’s) rates, and so he still kept his vote.
On his way to this very meeting he was met by a Spittal voter, who said the Spittal Resisters wouldn’t be taken to Court until , and, in the meantime, their names would be taken off the voters’ lists.
(“Oh, no,” and laughter.)
Following this, the paper printed this short article:
Rev. Mr Auty at
Newcastle.
Extraordinary Statement.
Following the annual gathering in Newcastle of the National Council of the Evangelical Free Churches, was given over to the Passive Resisters, who assembled in the Central Primitive Methodist Church, Northumberland Road, to tell of their martyrdom under the Education Acts.
The Rev. H. Auty, Kirkby Stephen, formerly of Berwick, said he would be glad if Dr Clifford would send a telegram of sympathy to those men living on the lonely hills of Westmorland who were unable to pay this education rate.
He himself was sentenced to seven days imprisonment in Berwick for having refused to pay five-pence; but the authorities funked.
When the town was just on the verge of a riot, and before the money was paid by an old woman, the police withdrew.
Now neither magistrates nor police would have anything to do with him.
He believed that magistrates were more afraid of passive resisters than passive resisters were of magistrates.
He was sorry that he had not suffered.
If he were sent to gaol, he would get a rest, which he had not now.
Finally, the following article comes from the Devon and Exeter Gazette:
The Education Act in Wales.
Severe Rebuke.
The Board of Education inquiry was concluded at Carmarthen .
Evidence being called on behalf of the Carmarthenshire County Council, Mr. Llewellyn Williams, for the Council, confined himself to an address giving the reasons which had actuated the Council to adopt its present attitude.
The Commissioner, in closing the inquiry, said it seemed to him that the religious instruction difficulty was unduly magnified in the minds of the Council, who accordingly said they would, rather than carry out a duty which involved any money going to the religious instruction, repudiate their duties as citizens.
He thought that neither consistent with duty nor, as it seemed to him, with honour, and he hoped they would adopt a very different course in the near future.
George White, member of Parliament and passive resister
We’re now in of our survey of the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” campaign against taxpayer-funded sectarian education in Britain.
To start off with, a brief article from the Gloucester Citizen:
Passive Resistance.
M.P.’s Presentation Watch Sold.
Among the goods disposed of on at a sale of effects seized from passive resisters at Tettenhall was a gold presentation watch belonging to Mr. C.E. Shaw, M.P. for Stafford.
The watch was purchased by Mr. Shaw’s coachman for £7.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells published a compromise proposal in the London Times — something similar to the “peace tax fund” proposal that often gets floated in war tax resistance circles:
Let a clearing house (of the nature of a railway clearing house) be established in connection with the Board of Education.
To this clearing house let every county and local authority notify with regularity the amount of rate it is intending to levy for primary schools; specifying how much of this is required for provided or Council schools, and how much for non-provided or voluntary schools.
Let each ratepayer who is conscientiously opposed to paying any rate towards the support of voluntary schools be allowed (on making a declaration to this effect) to earmark his rate “for the support of provided schools only.”
Let the amount thus earmarked be notified also to the clearing house.
An adjustment of the rates levied in different localities can be easily made at the clearing house; so that, however numerous might be the strained consciences in some districts, a transference of rate-payers’ money not so earmarked would prevent any difficulties being experienced.
The Manchester Courier, and Lancashire General Advertiser noted the summons of 24 resisters in Keighley, including “three ministers, two ex-mayors and magistrates, and a Parliamentary candidate.”
Finally, The Hastings and St. Leonards Observer, in its edition, covered a local passive resistance movement rally.
Excerpts:
Passive Resisters.
Assemble at the Royal Concert Hall.
Mr. New Declares the Cause Is Advancing by Leaps and Bounds
The Act Must Be “Mended or Ended.”
“Take Joseph Chamberlain’s Life!”
Fiery Political Oratory.
The local Passive Resisters held a public meeting at the Royal Concert Hall on .
There was a large attendance.
Three most eloquent speakers orated, but the gathering could hardly be compared with the Resistance Demonstration held , just after the first sale of goods seized in respect to non-payment of rates by Resisters.
…Ladies predominated alike on the platform and in the body of the hall.
The Chairman [Rev. C. New]… congratulated them once more on that large gathering, and he felt it was rather remarkable that whenever they had a meeting on the Education Act they could easily fill the largest building in the town, and this was one of the proofs of the very strong hold the movement had on the sympathies and interest of the general public.
(Hear, hear.)… [T]hey could congratulate themselves on the persistent, unbroken progress of the movement, though some persons, who only read the Times and the Daily Telegraph, and never saw those papers which recorded the actual facts, might say otherwise.
They would learn from the latter that there were bound up in the movement 20,000 men and women: then they had what was going on in Wales under Mr. Lloyd George — (cheers) — and as soon as ever the London Council issued the demand note in connection with the administration of the London Act the number of Resisters would be increased by 10,000.… Within one hour of that building, and they knew their local trains did not take them very far in an hour — (laughter) — while on one side they had the sea, they had no less than ten strong and determined Passive Resisters’ centres.
(Hear, hear.)
In their own town he was glad and proud to say that the number of Resisters had during increased by about 60 per cent., or rather more than that.
They had had serious losses through migrations from the town, but he was thankful to say he did not know of any backslider or of anyone who was less determined than ever he was to refuse to pay the rate.
(Cheers.)… One warning he would give with regard to possible danger: they were hopeful of the result, being confident that they were on the winning side, and they did so, not simply because of the signs they saw but because they were convinced they were on the right side.
(Hear, hear.)
But they must mark the fact that the victory was not yet won, it was by no means won: the end might be a great deal further off than they were apt to suppose, and it was imperative that they should steadfastly persist.
They might be sure that the victory could never be won by half-heartedness, or spasmodic effort, or by occasional impulsive energy, but only by strong, persistent, unconquerable conviction.
They could not afford to relax their vigilance in the slightest degree, or to leave undone anything that could be done.
If they persisted they would win; but if they failed to persist the prospect of victory would vanish.
(Cheers.)
The Rev. Dr. Wenyon [said, among other things]… He had spent much of his life in China, and there the question arose whether converts to Christianity should continue to pay taxes for the support of idol worship.
The Wesleyan, London, and Church Missionary Societies’s Committee at home said they must not, and the Chinese became Passive Resisters.
(Hear, hear.)
He came home and he found himself confronted with the same position, and what could he do but resist?
(Cheers.)…
Mr. George White, M.P. spoke next.… For some time he had had to complain that, although one of the first to move in the matter, he had been “left out in the cold.”
He had, however, just handed a telegram to his friend, Mr. Horne, which informed him that he would have the privilege of being distrained upon on .
(Loud applause.)… Last week, when he appeared before a Bench of Magistrates, and the case was about half through, a friend of his, a Magistrate, spoke to a brother Justice, a Conservative, who said: “It’s not a bit of good going on; the Act must be repealed.”
(Hear, hear.)…
For the record, the “Take Joseph Chamberlain’s Life!” promised in the headlines was in reference to a “take my wife… please!”-style joke.
A man walks into a bookstore and the clerk suggests a book: “Take The Life of Joseph Chamberlain” and he answers “I would, but I never had the opportunity.”
The speaker (George White) was saying he felt the same way about then-Prime Minister Balfour.
Continuing:
The Rev. Sylvester Horne… [said] The fact of the matter was, unless the Nonconformists fought the battle, and fought it out, it would not be fought.
That was why they were there.
Referring to the recent Church Census in London, he said, to use a vulgar phrase from the Tottenham Court-road, those were the people he had got his knife into, the people who were counted as going to Church, but who did not count when the real fighting came on.
Where were they?
Folding their arms and leaving it to Alderman O’Connor to go to jail — (applause) — and to Mr. White and others whose convictions were dearer to them than property.
(Applause.)
Those kind of people named their children Oliver Cromwell — (laughter) — or John Hampden.
(Renewed laughter.)
They lived in a house usually called Bunyan House or Wesley Villa.
(Laughter.)
He did not reserve all his admiration for the men of 300 years ago.
Those people were so heartily in favour of the Reformation, but when they wanted a reformation in their own day, where were they?
He did not think they ought to reserve all their enthusiasm for Oliver Cromwell; let them keep a pocket full for John Clifford.
(Loud applause.)… He was hoping to live long enough to add another chapter to the history of the Free Churches by writing a history of the movement.
(Applause.)
Places they had never heard of had sprung into everlasting distinction, Sudbury down in Suffolk, where they turned out every Guardian for not behaving well, and put Passive Resisters in — (applause) — and there had been a most glorious state of things in Sudbury ever since.
(Laughter.)
What about West Ham?
(Applause.)
No one could imagine it was a romantic or poetic neighbourhood.
But West Ham had been producing heroes, and if they could get heroes from West Ham they could get them out of anywhere.
(Laughter, and applause.)
Go down to the Isle of Wight.
Anyone would tell them that the saintliest person there was the dear old lady who wrote the hymn they all sang as children, and Mrs. [Jemima] Luke had made up her mind that at the age of 91 she would go through the police-court — (applause) — because she said her white hair should never go down in dishonour to the grave.
(Applause.)
Jemima Luke would be summoned to court for her resistance in .
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
I have a single article in my sample of articles from concerning the tax resistance campaign against elements of the Education Act.
This, from the Northampton Mercury, concerned an auction of goods seized from tax resisters in which, somewhat bizarrely, one of the resisters was also the auctioneer.
Excerpts:
Passive Resistance in Northampton.
The first sale of the distrained goods of Passive Resisters in the Borough of Northampton took place at the Auction Mart, Abington-square Cafe, Northampton, on .
About 90 Passive Resisters who conscientiously objected to contribute to the rates that proportion of the amount which would be devoted to the support of sectarian teaching, were summoned at the Northampton Borough Police Court on .
The distress warrants were issued in due course, and they were executed, generally by the assistant overseers of the several parishes, about ten days or a fortnight ago.
Mr. G.W. Beattie, one of the resisters, proffered his services as auctioneer free of charge, and needless to say the offer was gratefully accepted.
The sale took place in Mr. Beattie’s auction mart, where he had stored the goods free of charge from the date of their seizure.
There were in all 87 lots, including two from the village of Duston.
The auctioneer himself had his goods seized on three distress warrants — one for his residence, the second for his office in College-street, and the third for his auction mart.
One or two other resisters were summoned for two rates.
A complete list of the resisters, the goods seized, and the amounts required by each warrant, appeared in ’s Northampton Daily Reporter.
At , when the sale commenced, the room was full, quite 250 persons being present, the resisters being well in evidence.
Mr. Beattie was greeted with hearty applause when he took his stand at the table.
In opening the proceedings he said that if he had not been a passive resister and in full and hearty sympathy with the movement nothing possible could have induced him to take that position that evening (hear, hear, and applause), for it was at once an unpleasant and unpopular duty.
(Hear, hear.)
To the greater part of that audience he knew that he need make no apology.
(Hear, hear.)
He thanked the overseers for allowing him to act as auctioneer at that sale.
(Hear, hear, and applause.)
The conditions of the sale were: Cash upon delivery and before removal.
(Laughter.)
He had arranged with the Rev. J.F. Nodder, the secretary of the Citizens’ League, that Mr. Nodder should start bidding for those resisters who desired their goods to be bought in.
Mr. Nodder would in such cases name the sum required by the warrant, plus the expenses, and if there were no further bids the goods would be at once knocked down to Mr. Nodder.
The sale then commenced.
The proceedings were most orderly and good humoured.
In nearly every case the goods were bought in by Mr. Nodder or by the owner personally.
Once or twice some would-be humourist bid 2d. or 3d. for a ten-shilling article before Mr. Nodder could bid the amount required, and now and again there was a little competitive bidding, but in hardly any case was there any serious attempt to purchase the articles.
Of the 87 lots about 70 were knocked down to Mr. Nodder’s first bid without any attempt at competition.
In half a dozen cases where the bidding did not equal the amount required by the overseers the auctioneer announced that the articles were by arrangement bought in by the assistant overseers concerned.
The names of one or two prominent ministers and citizens who are well known in the movement were received with hearty applause as soon as their goods were offered…
…Mr. Frank Bates put into the sale a framed portrait of the Rev. Dr. Clifford, and, needless to say, the portrait of the apostle of passive resistance, who is such a favourite in Northampton, quite brought down the house…
Mr. Beattie [said]… he was only sorry that in Northampton, known throughout the world, and certainly throughout the length and breadth of this kingdom, as a town which stood for religious freedom, that there were only 90 resisters.
(Hear, hear.)
They had not reached the end of the struggle yet by a very long way.
There were some in connection with the League who, if he had judged them aright, intended to show their resistance in a very different form ere long if the occasion demanded it.
(Applause.)
The sale occupied barely an hour.
A protest meeting was held shortly after.
Hymns were sung, a letter from John Clifford was read, and the usual speeches were given.
One of these was by Rev. Arthur Morgan, who said in part:
He was beginning to think that instead of a Passive Resistance Brigade, they would have to have a Prison Brigade.
(Applause.)
They knew the inconvenience of having their goods sold, and some of them knew what it was to have to pay more than they could afford for the rights of conscience, but when they saw men sneering and laughing at their action they were beginning to wonder whether they should not rise to a higher level and say to their critics, “If you think this is a joke, if you think this is a mere trick on our part to overthrow the Government, you have sadly mistaken us, and sadly mistaken our action.
(Applause.)
We are prepared to go to prison for the Right (applause), and I for one,” added Mr. Morgan, “am prepared to step across the dividing line from being a Passive Resister into becoming a member of the Prison Brigade.”
(Cheers.)
The Education Act must be killed, and if the only way to destroy it was through the prison, then, God help them to put upon themselves the brand of the prison, the stain of the prison house, for they must kill it.
(Loud applause.)
I also found an early mention of suffragette Dora Montefiore’s tax resistance, in which it is suggested that she learned the tactic from the anti-Education Act campaign.
This comes from the Leamington Spa Courier and Warwickshire Standard:
Dora the Determined.
“Evil communications corrupt good manners.”
So wrote Tertullian, so quoted Paul, so it has happened in the case of Mrs Dora B. Montefiore, of Hammersmith.
The lady being undoubtedly of Hebrew origin, we cannot suppose that she has much sympathy with Dr. Clifford, the apostle of passive resistance.
But that she has been studying Dr. Clifford’s methods is evident.
She has not only studied them, but has resolved to put them into practice.
Not indeed so far as the education rate is concerned, but with respect to a rate of much more importance, the Income Tax to wit.
Upon what grounds?
Non-representation.
She holds strong views on the subject of female suffrage, and she has informed the Daily News that she has resisted the claim for Income Tax because she is refused a voice in the spending of the taxes, and “taxation without representation is tyranny.”
Her goods have been seized, and will be sold on .
There is, of course, no reason why “passive resistance” should not be adopted by the whole army of faddists; but what becomes of civilised and constitutional government in the meantime?
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
In our chronological stroll through the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” campaign against the Education Act, we’re now up to , and the movement has been growing for over a year now.
The Bedfordshire Advertiser of covered a meeting of the Luton Passive Resistance League.
The coverage is notable for how it describes one of the attendees carefully itemizing the school budgets and the sources of the funding devoted to the schools in order to come up with the appropriate amount of the rates to resist:
The executive recommended the members to deduct 2d. in the £ from the rateable value set out in the middle column in the demand note.
The Committee further recommended them to pay their rate at the office in Church-street if the collector did not call upon them before , so that they would be in the first police court batch.
The summonses would be issued, if magistrates could be found willing to sign them (laughter) on , and the sale would probably be held about .
More and more I’m noticing in the rhetoric of speakers associated with the movement a hope that a change in government (from Conservative to Liberal) will solve their problem.
Before this time, the Nonconformist vote had been split between the parties, but the Education Act controversy caused many Nonconformists to abandon the Conservatives.
However this was a time when Labour was just beginning to cut into the Liberal vote.
Also, Irish voters were not sympathetic to the anti-clericalism of the Nonconformists.
The Conservative government was also trying to change the subject by introducing tariff reform and trying to lure voters back that way (that government had been elected largely on the issue of the Second Boer War, which ended in ).
So despite the rallying of Nonconformist voters, and the championing of their cause by Liberal politicians on the rise like David Lloyd George, an electoral triumph was no sure thing.
In fact, though, the country would finally get a Liberal prime minister in , and the Liberals would hold that office until .
But they would find it difficult to repeal the offensive portions of the Act (if indeed they really cared to), and the passive resistance campaign would continue.
The impression I get is that the Liberals were trying to ride the wave of indignation without committing themselves to the goals of the passive resisters… much in the same way that Republicans address Tea party rallies with insincere promises to abolish the IRS, or MoveOn tries to convince progressives and liberal peaceniks that the Democrats are totally on their side.
Anyway, at the meeting, Rev. W.J. Harris tried to strike a balance between raising hopes and managing expectations:
Twenty thousand summonses had now been signed, and the opposition to the Act to-day was more dogged and resolute than ever (applause).
The Government had revived and it was a question whether at the next election their own party would secure a sufficient majority to wipe out the injustice.
He thought the Irish would vote against them, for they were not yet freed from the tyranny of the Romish priesthood.
They must not lose heart if they did not win at once, but must be willing to go before the magistrate fifty times if necessary.
The Reverend Freer Bell, on his release from Derby Gaol,
We’re up to , in the second year of the “passive resistance” campaign against provisions of the Education Act.
The Bedforshire Advertiser reported on what it described as a pretty lackluster example of summonses against passive resisters in Luton.
About 50 Passive Resistance League members were in court, one of them was allowed to give a speech in defense of the whole lot, which covered the usual set of grievances against the Act, and then a single distress warrant was issued to cover the set of cases (this meant fewer expenses would be added to the bill than if individual warrants were issued).
The Derby Daily Telegraph of covered a protest rally held there:
Passive Resistance in Derby.
Demonstration in the Market-Place.
Enthusiastic Proceedings
Another Resister To Be Imprisoned in Derby Gaol.
On a public demonstration to protest against the Education Act, and the sales conducted of local resisters’ goods , was held, at which fully 1,000 people were present.…
The Rev. P.A. Hudgell then moved the following resolution:– “That this meeting rejoices at the success of the passive resistance policy throughout the country, and heartily congratulates those citizens of Derby who have borne inconvenience and financial loss for conscience sake, and pledges itself to maintain an unyielding opposition to the injustice of the Education Act of .”
In the course of his remarks Mr. [Rev. J.K.] Kirby stated that he had been given to understand that another Primitive Methodist minister, the Rev. Freer Bell, of Alfreton, was to be imprisoned in Derby Gaol on as a passive resister.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
We’re up to in our chronological wander through the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” campaign against aspects of the Education Act.
The Kent & Sussex Courier reported:
Passive Resistance at Tonbridge.
Interesting Sale at the Corn Exchange.
Although the enthusiasm, excitement, and disorderly scenes associated with the sale of goods belonging to passive resisters has somewhat died away, considerable interest was taken in a sale held at the Corn Exchange, Tonbridge, on , when Mr Tompsett, a local auctioneer, sold the goods of five persons who had refused to pay their poor rates… The whole of the articles, however, were bought in for the wonders.
The sale was a perfectly orderly one, after the completion of which a public meeting was held… There was a large number of people in the hall, but no obstruction to the meeting was rendered.
The Rev. J. Mountain, who was well received, said… Some said they were suffering cheap martyrdom.
His rate was 4/8½ for the half year, but by submitting to restraint [sic] his expenses amounted to 32/-.
The next time, however, when he appeared before the Magistrates they would find that he had no personal belongings, not even his watch belonged to him.
He was simply a lodger at St. John’s Free Church, and everything he once possessed, even his books, were now the property of his excellent wife.
He could, therefore, tell the Magistrates that it was no use distraining and that he was quite ready to be sent to gaol (applause and laughter), and he would go to prison in the cause of his Master, and the cause of religious liberty in this priest-ridden country, which was now the curse of sacerdotalism.
They (the passive resisters) believed they were doing a great work in submitting their goods for sale, and he was afraid they would have to go even further.
He hoped to see the day when they had a thousand ministers going to gaol, and testifying to the whole country that they preferred the loss of their liberty to the loss of their conscience.
The resisters seem to be becoming impatient, and also sensitive to the charge that these rituals of having their goods seized, auctioned off, and returned to them by the buyers, were somewhat farcical and were losing their impact.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
We’re up to in our journey through the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” movement against aspects of the Education Act.
The Sheffield Daily Telegraph carried the news of a dozen resisters summoned in Derby.
“Some of them have not paid any portion of their poor rate, so as to prevent the balance being paid anonymously.”
A second article concerned 24 resisters summoned in Holbeach.
“The Bench… made an order for payment in each case, declining an application for one warrant for each parish.”
A third article:
An Overseer as Resister.
Henry Walker, market gardener and overseer, of Filey, made his fourth appearance before the magistrates as a “passive resister” at the Scarborough County Police Court.
He had been summoned in respect of property at Gristhrope, the amount withheld being 4s. 1½d. — The Chairman (Mr. Lea Priestley Edwards), addressing the defendant, said there could be no conscientious objection to obeying the law.
He (the Chairman) objected to the whole of the School Boards in this country, but he paid his rates and taxes.
Nobody could make his own laws.
— The Defendant: My conscience is above the law of the land; I must obey my conscience.
— The Chairman: You are talking nonsense, and wasting the time of the Court.
The usual order will be made.
Also on the Cambridge Independent Press published the following (excerpts):
Passive Resistance.
Over 80 Cases as Cambridge
Warrants Issued.
There was an animated scene in the neighbourhood of the Cambridge Borough Police Court on , the occasion being the third appearance of the Passive Resisters to the rate levied for the purposes of education in the Borough under the Education Act of .
Additional police officers were on duty within the court and its approaches, and the accommodation was taxed to the uttermost.
There were many interested spectators present, including a number of ladies.
The Resisters conducted themselves with the dignity befitting their cause, and were treated by the Magistrates in that kindly, courteous manner which has rendered their position easier than that of their fellows in many other parts of the country.
The gentlemen on the Bench… proceeded to hear the 82 rate summonses.
The Resisters had followed the course adopted on a previous occasion of appointing a spokesman to give expression to the reasons which prompted their resistance to the law, and for this consideration the Magistrates and officers of the Court were doubtless grateful.…
That spokesman said, in part: “To be asked to pay for doctrines in which one does not believe, is a violation of one’s conscience, and in obedience to a higher law, we have decided to refuse obedience to this law, which is only one of men, and which we do not recognise as binding.
That is our position, and until the law is altered, we cannot give our hearty and cordial co-operation and support to the law, which it is our privilege and pleasure to give on all other occasions.
We shall have, I fear, to appear here time after time until, in the wisdom of the legislature, the law is altered.”
The amounts the defendants were ordered to pay ranged from one shilling to two pounds.
The same paper also covered another set of summonses:
Seventeen Cases at Linton.
Two Magistrates and a Congregational Minister.
There was an unusual scene at the Linton Police Court on , when seventeen passive resisters, including two magistrates and a Congregational minister, were summoned.
The little Court room was crowded, and considerable interest was taken in the proceedings, these being the first cases of passive resistance heard at Linton.…
In that case, each of the resisters got up one by one to try to give their objections, though these were quickly shut down by the magistrates.
The paper reprinted a Manifesto released by the Linton resisters in which they stated their case more completely.
It included, among other things, this argument about why paying under distraint was preferable to paying voluntarily:
If it be urged against our procedure that we must pay after all, our answer is that there is all the difference in the world between a payment handed to an official, and being compelled by process of law to pay an official.
For a man to voluntarily bow to an idol would be sin; if he were by sheer force brought to his knees and held in an attitude of worship, no sin would attach to the act so far as he was concerned.
The same paper also covered the summons of three resisters from Shelford.
In those cases, “[e]ach decided, after making his protest, to pay the amount due into Court.”
Another article concerned “about thirty” resisters in Wisbech.
Then came this:
Dr. Clifford’s Trowels Taken
“For Balfour and the Bishops.”
Among a number of Passive Resisters summoned at Enfield on was the Pastor of the City Temple.
Mr. Campbell was unable to be present, but he wrote a letter stating that he “took the same stand” as before.
Dr. Clifford had an interesting and busy day.
In the morning he addressed a meeting of Resisters, and in the afternoon he was “at home” to the High Constable of Paddington and other officials who came to seize his goods.
He had ready on a table a number of valuable articles, including silver presentation trowels, and when asked what articles he would like them to take, answered, “You take what you wish, but take enough, for you are acting for Mr. Balfour and the Bishops.”
A number of other cases here and there were briefly described as well.
This section of the paper concluded with this article:
The Record of Summonses.
The number of summonses this week throughout the country promises to be the largest on record.
In there were 1,978 summonses.
the figures fell to 1,700, which included 379 in London alone; but a heavy list down for hearing at the end of the week is expected to carry the total well over 2,000.
Up to the full statistics of summonses, sales, and imprisonments since the movement began are as under:–
* Three of these twice each.
Summonses
30,893
(London 909)
Sales
1,113
(London 10)
*Imprisonments
33
Among the imprisoned Resisters is a young chemist’s assistant at Hitchin, Mr. Ebenezer Housden, who has been sent to gaol for a month for refusing to pay the sum of 4s. 6d.
There are now 632 Passive Resistance Leagues in existence, 38 in London, the rest scattered far and wide over the country.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
.
The “passive resistance” campaign against the Education Act is well into its second year.
Here is some of the newspaper coverage from .
An article in The Bath Chronicle of described an auction of goods seized from resisters:
Passive Resistance Sale In Bath.
At the Cattle Market, , 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 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 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 .
The 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 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 covered a County Congress of Passive Resisters held . 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 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).
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
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 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 .
The only article in my sample from this month comes from the Cambridge Independent Press.
Excerpts:
Passive Resistance at St. Ives.
Citizens’ League Formed.
A meeting was held in the Corn Exchange, St. Ives, on , to hear an address by Mr. J. Hirst Hollowell, of Rochdale.
The subject was “The new Church Rate and the fallacies of its defenders.”
There was a good attendance… A string band was in attendance, and opened the proceedings with a lively air.
There were a handful of speakers, including one who spoke for over an hour, largely rehearsing the usual arguments against the Act and denunciations of the arguments of its supporters.
The following resolution was proposed and passed at the end of the meeting:
That this public meeting, held in St. Ives, of the supporters of a national system of education expresses intense sympathy with the people and local authorities of Wales in their refusal to levy the new Church Rate for Schools under the control of Anglican, Roman, or other Churches, and hopes that the result of the next General Election, may deliver both England and Wales from the injustice of the present Act, and place all schools maintained out of public funds under the control of authorities directly chosen by the people, free from sectarian tests, teaching, and influence.
This meeting also heartily approves of the stand made for justice and liberty by Passive Resisters, and promises its moral support to their protest.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
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 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’ve now crossed over into .
The only article in my sample from this month comes from the Burnley Gazette:
Passive Resistance
Scenes at Todmorden.
A scene with passive resisters took place at Todmorden Police Court on .
There were 27 defendants from the Hebden Bridge district, including four ministers and three ladies summoned for non-payment of the educational part of their poor rate.
They came to the court encouraged by a letter from Dr. Clifford to “light on till we cleanse the fair fame of England.”
The Rev. William Jones, Baptist, acted as spokesman, and was stating the grounds of the resisters’ conscientious objections, when Mr. Gamaliel Sutcliffe, chairman of the Bench, told him to keep to legal objections.
Mr. Jones protested that that was an unfair magisterial interpretation put on the summons, and declared that it reduced the court proceedings to a farce.
Mr. Sutcliffe demanded a withdrawal of such language.
Mr. Jones refused to withdraw.
Thereupon the Chairman refused to hear him further.
Mr. Jones said such a judicial farce was fittest taken in camera.
Amidst a scene of excitement the passive resisters left the court in a body, and afterwards held a protest meeting.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
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 that allow for taxpayer funding of sectarian religious education.
In our survey of a sample of newspaper coverage of the movement, we’re now up to .
The Burnley Gazette covered the summonses of passive resisters to the County Magistrates at Keighley Green.
The headline called it “A New Point in Passive Resistance” but it was just the usual summonses, speeches, and distraint orders.
The same paper reported:
Todmorden Passive Resister.
The Rev. W.L. Stevenson, pastor of Mount Olive Baptist Chapel, Lydgate, Todmorden, was on , released from prison, where he had ben detained since , for not paying his educational portion of the poor rate.
Mr. Stevenson had withheld 1s. 9d. and the costs increased it to 4s. 3d. The Bench ordered him to undergo three days’ imprisonment in default.
However, the warrant was not executed until , and Mr. Stevnson was released at , so that he had only 14 to 15 hours in gaol.
On a welcome home meeting was held in Wellington-road School, and Mr. Stevenson recited his experiences.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
We’re up to in our sampling of newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” campaign against aspects of the Education Act in Britain.
The Gloucester Journal covered the summoning of 32 resisters to the Gloucester Police-court.
The Reverend W. Hogan gave a speech to the court on behalf of the group, stating the usual objections against the Act, and adding:
The recent largely attended and thoroughly representative conference held in London to discuss the working of the Education Act of has shown us how great is the need for this protest, for a bad Act is being exploited in every possible way that is harmful to the best interests of the people, by some unscrupulous clergy.
The Derby Daily Telegraph of covered the summonses of two passive resisters from Littleover.
One gave a passionate speech which was duly printed by the newspaper, and the magistrates ordered the usual distress warrants.
The London Daily News noted 38 resisters had been summoned to the Epping Petty Sessions, 37 in Lincoln City, eight in Newport, 28 in Hendon, four in Atherton, 17 in Chatham, five in Eltham, seven in Fareham, 61 in Grimsby, 80 in Kettering, ten in Royston, five in Shap, and four more in London.
In one of the latter cases, the paper editorialized that the resister “will be summoned at the Mansion House also for the education rate in the City of London — a fitting place, seeing that it was built by fines extorted from Dissenters.”
The paper also noted sales of goods of 53 resisters in Long Eaton and 25 in Leighton Buzzard.
In one of the Hendon cases:
An elderly lady, Miss Newberry, wrote that she would rather go to prison than pay, and she hoped the Bench would make the order as early as possible.
As there were no goods upon which to levy distress, defendant was committed for seven days, the order to be held over for a fortnight.
In a surprising turn of events, the same paper reported in another case that a member of the establishment church had joined up with the passive resisters:
Churchman’s Strong Protest.
Some sensation was caused at a hearing of Passive Resistance cases in the Framlingham Police Court.
After several of the Resisters had stated their objections “as Nonconformists” to the rate, Mr. J.A. Aldis, of Saxstead Hall, a member of the Established Church, came forward and stated his, and concluded with the remark as genuine as it was unexpected: “Finally, as a Churchman, I object to the rate because it is so scandalously unfair to Nonconformists.”
The Bench, who had listened with courtesy, looked a good deal surprised at such a statement from such a quarter, which was greeted with a murmur of applause from the body of the Court.
An additional article from the same paper concerned a Wesleyan (Methodist) minister who had been trying to win the opportunity to resist the education rate (his church, which was not participating in the passive resistance campaign, had been paying his rates on his behalf).
John Clifford wrote to the minister (W. Wakinshaw) to congratulate him on his stand and in the hopes it would bring the Wesleyans in line with other nonconformist churches in supporting the passive resistance movement.
The Nottingham Evening Post of covered the summons of dozens of passive resisters there.
This case was rowdier.
A spokesperson asked the court if they would hear the protests of two of the resisters, but the court interrupted them and shut them down when they tried to talk about their objections to the law.
Then it quickly tried to issue orders against the whole bunch without letting anyone else talk and the courtroom erupted into “indignant cries” and the like.
Finally, the Essex Newsman covered the auction of goods seized from 27 resisters of London and Buckhurst Hill.
“A meeting to protest against the Education Act was held afterwards, the Rev. G. Dent presiding.
An address was delivered by Alderman O’Connor, who was imprisoned in Chelmsford gaol for non-payment of the education-rate…”
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
Skipping ahead to in our chronological wander through the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” campaign against the Education Act, we come first to the 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 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.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
We’re now on and the tax resistance struggle against the Education Act continues.
The Bedsfordshire Advertiser and Luton Times of covered the meeting of the Luton Passive Resistance League.
Excerpts:
Mr. Murray Barford said that the new demand note for 1s. 6d. in the £ “poor rate” only contained items amounting to 3d. really for the poor.
One item said “5¾d., for borough education,” and of that 3¾d. in the £ would be administered by their local authorities, and 2d. by the respective Vicars and their nominees.
That 2d. meant that in the aggregate £2,600 would be handed over to the church people to teach what the Passive Resisters disagreed with, and the Committee recommended that 2d. in the £ be deducted by all Resisters when they paid the rate.
He understood the summonses would be much the same as last year, and would come in , and he hoped the magistrates would not be Nonconformists.
They would be ready.
(Applause).
The Rev.
J.W. Mayo, in remarking on the progress of the movement, said that enthusiasm in Leighton was fairly keen.
Bedford gaol could hold 130, and he thought the Passive Resisters in the county ought to crowd it out.…
Alderman O’Connor… Referring to his imprisonment for 14 days, he told his incidents humorously.
He spent a happy time in prison, though the plank bed was too hard to sleep on and the place was very insanitary, and the food so wretched that he ate very little during the fortnight.
He did not think these things were happening by chance, or that God was calling them to something useless.
In a curious turn of events, a reverend from the establishment Church of England threatened a passive resistance campaign on the Church’s part if religious education in the schools were watered down.
From the Nottingham Evening Post:
Church Schools.
Suggested Passive Resistance.
Among the resolutions to be submitted at the Manchester Conference of the Church Schools Emergency League, to be held on , is one which will be moved by the Rev. F.E. Allen, rector of Hardwicke, as follows:–
That in the event of a policy of destruction of voluntary schools by out-numbering foundation managers, or so-called abolition of tests for head teachers, being carried out, it will become the duty of Churchmen to meet it by “passive resistance.”
Another resolution asks the members of the league to oppose, denounce, and refuse submission to any legislation which has for its object the setting up by the authority of Parliament in the schools of any form of so-called “simple Christian religion” or “religious instruction” which omits the cardinal doctrines of Christianity as set forth in the Apostle’s Creed, and which the people may be called on to support compulsorily out of rates and taxes, or in any other way.
The Church Schools Emergency League was formed in to oppose attempts by Nonconformists and secularists to end Church of England control over its school staffing and religious curriculum choices.
It would represent Church hardliners in the fight against attempted reforms of the Education Act by the subsequent Liberal government.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
We’re up to in our traipse through the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” movement against the Education Act.
The first example comes from the Essex Newsman.
Excerpts:
Sale of Passive Resister Goods at Earls Colne.
Stong Language.
On the goods distrained upon for the non-payment of the Education-rate at Earls Colne were sold by auction by Mr. Thomas Howard.
The auctioneer said: We have met, I trust, for the last time to rock this cradle of iniquity, woven out of the bleached bones of the women and 15,000 innocents who were done to death in the murder camps of South Africa.…
To understand this requires some context.
The Conservative government, which had passed the Education Act, had come into office with a sort of Nixonian pledge to end the war in South Africa with honor.
The British had pioneered the infamous art of “concentration camps” during the Boer War.
One of the complaints of the Nonconformists was that the Conservatives really only had a mandate for their war policy, and things like the Education Act had been muscled in by opportunists without any democratic legitimacy.
Howard continues:
…This cradle was wrought by the most blatant set of scolopendra and scallywags that ever defiled our House of Parliament, made at the behest of the idolatrous priests and bishops of the great lying church, who hold a brief for the Man of Sin, the great Hierarch of the Papal See.
The second article comes from the Derby Daily Telegraph.
One of the resisters in this case sought to expand the grounds on which he was resisting.
Excerpts:
Passive Resistance In Derby.
Mr. H. Davison’s Objections to Paying.
There were no fewer than 212 summonses returnable at the Derby Borough Court for the non-payment of rates, and amongst the defendants was Henry Davidson, furniture dealer… He also had an objection on another ground, and that was a legal one.
Some time ago, he continued, he heard one of the borough elective auditors had objected to an item of £41 for “spirituous liquors, whiskies, and cigars” for the Asylum, these being supplied to the servants for services rendered.
Many years ago the Truck Act was passed, and he understood that that Act prohibited the supply of intoxicating liquor in lieu of wages.
The ratepayers of Derby ought not to be taxed for these things, and he objected to the ratepayers’ money being spent in this way.
If people wanted these things they ought to pay for them themselves, and if they had servants at the Asylum they ought to pay their proper wages, and not provide these things.
He objected to being called upon to have to pay towards these things.
The authorities were unmoved and made their usual distraint orders.
Augustine Birrell, Liberal education policy leader who tried to get Parliament to rescind the offensive portions of the Education Act
In the General Election of , the Liberals won a large majority and swept the Conservatives from power.
The Nonconformists had expected that such a triumph would lead to an abolishing of the hated Education Act of , or at least the most offensive provisions of it.
To this end, Augustine Birrell, the Liberal cabinet’s Board of Education President, introduced the Education Bill into Parliament in .
It would end the practice of taxpayer support for schools where the curriculum and hiring were not under control of institutions democratically elected by the rate-payers, would prohibit religious tests in hiring school staff, and would prohibit sectarian religious instruction in taxpayer-funded schools unless 80% of the voters in a Local Authority agreed to it.
Would the passive resistance movement stick to its guns and keep the pressure on until this bill became law, or would they become distracted by parliamentary theater and loosen their discipline?
Meanwhile, the establishment Churchgoers were starting to get restless and even threatening to start a passive resistance campaign of their own should this bill pass.
Here’s another example of that, from the Rev. A.W. Douglas, “Rector of Hatherop and Diocesan Examiner for the Diocese of Gloucester”, from the Dursley Gazette:
I have decided to worship no longer the golden image of Undenominationalism which Parliament has set up.
I became a “Passive Resister” on as regards my rate, and I expect to become one as regards my income tax next week.
If Mr. Birrell’s measure becomes law I shall refuse to hand over the trust deed, and so be treated for contempt of Court.
It appears likely, therefore, that I shall ere long be “languishing in a dungeon” while political Nonconformity “feasts” in its mansions!
Passive resistance, we must remember, is now under the distinguished patronage of his Majesty’s Government.
Nonconformist Passive Resisters, too, must in all consistency, support me in obeying my conscience!
I found little in my sample about the nonconformist passive resistance campaign in newspapers from .
Things start to pick up again in , when an article about 47 resisters summoned to the Derby Police Court appeared in the Derby Daily Telegraph.
Excerpt:
The Rev. G. Howard James said he did not dispute the rate or object to pay it, except that part devoted to sectarian education.
He wanted to say two things.
In the first place, they had never taken this position as passive resisters from political motives or for political reasons, and so the change of Government, which some people seemed to think would put an end to passive resistance, made no difference so long as the law remained unchanged.
What they complained of was that they should be taxed for the propagation of doctrines in which they did not believe.
Their objection was just the same now the Liberals were in power as when the Conservatives were in power.
He supposed that if the present bill became law, it would come into force in , but until then their movement as passive resisters must go on, and they must continue to make their protest.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
On , in a 2–1 ruling in the Court of Appeal, it was determined that the Education Act does not compel county councils to pay for the cost of religious education in taxpayer-subsidised religiously-backed schools (the question of whether county councils may pay for such religious education was not decided).
With the election of an overwhelming Liberal majority, the introduction of a new education bill in Parliament that would overturn the offensive parts of the Education Act, and this new ruling, the nonconformist passive resisters were justified in feeling like they had the momentum.
The following article comes from the Dundee Evening Telegraph:
Passive Resistance Vindicated.
Dr. Clifford and Mr Birrell.
In an interview Dr. Clifford said that ’s judgment of the Court of Appeal was a splendid vindication of passive resistance.
“The question, of course, presents itself,” said the Doctor, “whether or not we are entitled to claim damages.
I should myself say that we certainly were.
Whether or not we shall do so is another matter.
As to the Government’s attitude, I should imagine that Mr Birrell is quite satisfied with the judgment.
It runs on a line with his own Bill.
The theoretical object of Mr Birrell’s Bill is to get rid of paying for denominational teaching out of the rates and taxes.
What Mr Birrell has been aiming at is accomplished by this judgment.
We shall make a great protest against any further concessions under the Government Bill or against any reversal of ’s judgment.”
In fact, the judgment would be appealed to the House of Lords, a panel of which reversed it unanimously on .
Birrell’s bill would pass the House of Commons but would also be obstructed by the House of Lords.
These premature signs of victory would threaten to weaken the passive resistance movement.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
Skipping ahead to , the passive resistance movement against the Education Act of has lost some momentum, as, at first anyway, it appears that they’re making political progress toward their goals.
On the Hull Daily Mail published a letter to the editor about the possible disenfranchisement of passive resisters:
Passive Resisters’ Votes.
To the Editor of the “Daily Mail.”
Sir,— Allow me to make a few observations on the explanation your reporter has extracted from Mr Douglas Boyd with regard to his action in objecting to the votes of passive resisters.
It is admitted that these gentlemen’s names were found on the register of Parliamentary voters, and that anyone may, if he chose, object to them, but Mr Boyd knows quite well that the law on the question of whether they have the right to remain is, to say the least, very uncertain.
Many Revising Barristers have decided that the vote cannot legally be taken away if the ratepayer has undergone a period of imprisonment.
This being the case, why should this public official go out of his way to increase the punishment inflicted upon these men, whose only crime is that their consciences are more sensitive than those of the general run of ratepayers?
Your reporter, however, is not quite correct in saying that the reason why Mr David Wing, the assistant overseer in the other division of the city, has not made a similar objection is because he had no passive resisters on his list.
Here is one fact that will settle that question.
The Rev W.R. Wilkinson was taken to gaol from his house in Linnæus-street, one night in .
The arrest was effected in my presence, so that I speak as an eye-witness.
Mr Wilkinson was not objected to by Mr Wing, or anyone else, and remained on the register for the division over which Mr Wing presides, until his transfer to the division over which Mr Boyd has authority, when he gets a notice signed by the latter, objecting to his vote.
To make the matter worse, the Court of Appeal has, by its recent judgment, declared that those clauses of the Act of which prohibit the employment of the rates and taxes for providing religious teaching over which the Authority has no control are still in force, so that the rate itself is as clearly illegal as was the imposition of ship-money by Charles Ⅰ.
It is all very well officials telling us they must apply the law.
Let them apply the whole law, and not only some parts of it, and the interpretation of those parts very uncertain.
You report Mr Boyd as saying: “As a matter of fact, if we had only taken the money which some people were anxious to pay, there need not have been any imprisonment at all.”
I think that the public is entitled to an explanation of this cryptic utterance.
Who are those “some people” who were anxious to pay?
Certainly not the passive resisters.
Will Mr Boyd be kind enough to introduce these people to the public of Hull?
―I am, Sir, etc.
G.W.C. Armstrong. 11, Lambert-street, Hull, .
Another letter to the editor, this one from the Derby Daily Telegraph, warned passive resisters not to let their guard down too early:
The Position and Duty of Passive Resisters.
To the Editor of the Derby Daily Telegraph.
Sir,— It seems to me very important that we who have taken up the policy of passive resistance should not be thrown into confusion or uncertainty by the West Riding judgment.
We are anxious, of course, that the time should come when passive resistance may be no longer necessary, but it does not appear that the West Riding judgment has caused that time to arrive.
Passive resistance is offered to the whole scheme of the Balfour Act in regard to sectarian schools.
We did not resist merely the payment of a proportion of the teacher’s salary corresponding to the school time devoted by the teacher to denominational instruction.
We also resisted because our rates were asked for salaries which we were not allowed to earn, and which were paid to civil servants under denominational tests.
We resisted, moreover, because teachers whose salaries were drawn from public funds were still to be appointed practically by one denomination.
Now let us see how many of these reasons still exist.
The principle of the West Riding judgment is being acted upon in only two or three out of the 320 local authority areas.
The majority of the magistrates refuse to consider the West Riding judgment as in any way affecting the course they have to follow in issuing orders.
But even if every education authority acted in the same way as the West Riding our reasons for passive resistance would not be gone.
Take the West Riding itself.
Here the principle of the judgment of the Court of Appeal is in operation.
Deduction is made of that proportion of the salary which is supposed to correspond to the time given sectarian instruction.
We have therefore in the West Riding everything that the decision of the Court of Appeal could give us if it were carried out by every local authority.
But our grievance is not removed in the West Riding.
Teachers are still appointed and dismissed by one denomination.
Teachers are still appointed on condition that they belong to a particular Church.
The management of schools wholly supported from the rates and taxes is principally in the hands of one denomination.
The choice of two-thirds of the managers is in the hands of one denomination.
Sectarian teaching is still given by the official staff in the official school hours.
And all this in the very district where the principle of the recent judgment is in full force.
Consequently, it would appear that the West Riding judgment (while it is helpful and promising to our case) does not relieve us from the obligation we have taken upon ourselves to resist the Balfour Act.
So far for the present.
We do not yet know in what shape the bill of the present Government will pass.
But if it passes with Clause Ⅳ. in it, and especially with Clause Ⅳ. strengthened and extended to the non-urban areas, there will still be, in my opinion, an unanswerable case for continued passive resistance in Clause Ⅳ. areas.
A declaration to this effect has already been made by the National Passive Resistance Committee, and as far as I am concerned, without attempting for a moment to dictate to other people what their duty will be, no other course seems to be possible consistently with principles that have been publicly avowed.
―Faithfully yours,
J[ames].
Hirst Hollowell. Rochdale, .
A note in the Gloucestershire Echo said that distress warrants had been made out in Yarmouth against “the Mayor, some aldermen, councillors, magistrates, and one of the overseers.”
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
We’re now entering .
The passive resistance campaign against the Education Act of has been going on for several years, and the House of Lords has successfully stymied attempts in the judiciary and in the newly Liberal-controlled House of Commons to reform the Act.
The Manchester Courier of covered the summons to court of another set of resisters.
Excerpts:
More Passive Resistance.
Southport Magistrates at Variance.
, at Southport, a number of “passive resisters,” including twelve Nonconformist ministers, were summoned for non-payment of rate.
The Rev. J.T. Barkley said that they objected to payment on conscientious grounds, more especially as the will of the people had been thwarted by the House of Lords.
Dr. A. Wood, J.P., observed that that was more a matter for the political platform than for the court.
The Chairman, Mr. Jones, quite sympathised with Mr. Barkley and his friends, but the magistrates had no choice in the matter and must make an order for payment.
What he objected to was the wasting of the time of the court, all for no purpose.
Mr. Lawton, another magistrate, said that was the view of only one portion of the Bench, and he and his colleague, Mr. R. Cooper, were prepared to hear what Mr. Barkley had to say.
Mr. Davy, another Justice, dissented from Mr. Lawton, whereon the Chairman observed that if they were all going to be chairmen he would resign his position.
Mr. Lawton went into the body of the court from the Bench to answer his name.
He said he would like to ask the tax collector how much of the rate went to the High Church, the Broad Church, and the Low Church.
(Applause and laughter.)
The Chairman said that he would not have the court made a laughing place.
The usual order for payment was made.
Would Prefer Gaol
Four “passive resisters” were summoned for non-payment of rates at Bolton .
Mr. William W. Collinson, of 58, Moncrieffe-street, said they appeared not because they could not pay the amounts due, but because they declined.
Alderman Brown: If you prefer to pay something extra in order to state your objection, we don’t object.
Mr. Collinson: We prefer to do that till such times as we can go to gaol.
We should prefer the latter course.
Alderman Brown: We are not going to oblige you this morning.
Mr. Collinson: I wish you would, sir.
Orders were made in all the cases.
On there was a passive resistance demonstration at Hirst (Ashington), Northumberland.
The Morpeth Herald and Reporter was there.
Excerpts:
Passive Resistance Demonstration at Hirst.
Welcome to the Rev. G.R.
Bell.
Resolution of Protest Against the Lords.
Remarkable Speech by the
Rev. J.W. Ogden.
The return of the Rev. G.R. Bell to Ashington, after undergoing seven days’ imprisonment at Newcastle gaol, as a Passive Resister, was made the occasion of a passive resistance demonstration on in the Hirst P.M. Chapel.…
The Rev. Bastow Wilson moved the following resolution:– “This public meeting of citizens of Hirst and Ashington hereby warmly welcomes with appreciation and honour the Rev. G.R. Bell, Primitive Methodist minister, after suffering the indignity of seven days’ imprisonment in Newcastle gaol in vindication of his conscientious refusal to pay the sectarian portion of the education rate.
The meeting utters its indignant protest against the mutilation and ultimate destruction of the Education Bill by the Bishops and the House of Lords, and strongly urges His Majesty’s Government immediately to give effect to the promise of the Prime Minister (in whom and the Government it has unabated confidence) that a way must be found and will be found to make the will of the people prevail; copies of this resolution to be sent to the Premier, Mr. McKenna, the newly-appointed Secretary of the Board of Education, and Mr. Charles Fenwick, M.P. for the constituency.”
The reading of the resolution was greeted with applause.
Reginald McKenna succeeded Augustine Birrell as the Liberal cabinet’s President of the Board of Education after Birrell’s education bill was stymied by the House of Lords.
McKenna would propose a new bill that was so watered down that it satisfied nobody, and in any case was again squashed by the House of Lords.
Wilson continued:
The position of Non-conformists to-day was unchanged in the respect that they could not obey the law of .
They were looking anxiously to Mr. McKenna, of whom they had great expectations.
Whatever happened the Liberal party must not drop the education matter.
Such pressure must be used that they would not dare to do so.
(Applause.)
They were glad to have the assurance of the Prime Minister, in whom they had perfect confidence, that the resources of the Government had not been exhausted in regard to the education question, which they intended to deal with.
He (Mr. Wilson) hoped the Prime Minister would feel that he had the great body of public opinion to back him up.
The people of England were determined that this question should be kept to the front until it was settled, and settled righteously.
At present the Lords barred the way.
“If they don’t mind they will be swept into oblivion, as they deserve to be,” said Mr. Wilson amid applause.
“They had better be wise, and read the notice, ‘Beware of the steam roller,’ for it is coming surely on, and if they don’ get out of the way, so much the worse for them.”
… The Act of , said Mr. Wilson, in conclusion, was still the law of the land.
Could they in the sight of God obey that law?
They were not bound to obey a law simply because it was the law.
A law might infringe the most sacred rights of humanity, and were they going to obey it because it was the law?
Certainly not.
In the sight of God they dare not obey this law, and there came to them to-day an emphatic call for greater resistance than they had ever yet made.
(Loud applause.)
“Clerical Scoundrels.”
In a stirring speech, the Rev. J.W. Ogden, who was received with great enthusiasm, seconded the resolution.
… Why did Mr. Bell go to prison?
Because he refused at the bidding of Cæsar to render the things he regarded as belonging to God.
(Applause.)
Proceeding, Mr. Ogden said he hoped those (if any) who came to that meeting expecting a comic show would be sadly disappointed.
He had never yet been able to see and appreciate the comic aspect of passive resistance.
If those people had seen as he had seen in ministers’ homes the sorrowing wives and children, they would not see, as they seemed to, anything of a comic character in meetings like this.
“Are you going to take this lying down?”
he exclaimed a few moments later.
“So far as I am concerned,” he continued, “I would rot in gaol before I would permit a single penny of my Master’s money to be used by these clerical scoundrels for the poisoning of the minds of our children.”
(Loud applause.)
“You never had such a chance in your life for striking a blow for God and liberty as you have at this moment,” Mr. Ogden went on to say.
[“]What are you going to do?
Protest and pay?
The enemy can stand any amount of that.
The paying of money is to me a moral act.
I have ceased to speak of ‘my’ money, ‘my’ house, or ‘my’ property.
They are God’s, and I shall one day give an account to my Master of the monies I have withheld for this education rate — and I hope the bishops and curates will be there to audit it.”…
Mr. Bell’s Address.
The resolution was carried with enthusiasm, and the Rev. G.R. Bell, whose rising was the signal for a prolonged round of applause, then addressed the meeting.
He began by saying that he had dreaded that meeting more than he had dreaded the gaol.
He expressed his very hearty appreciation of their welcome.
That meeting was a great surprise to him, for he had thought that the passive resistance movement in that district was despised and rejected, and that there was not sufficient interest in it to get together such a large audience.
When he heard that they wanted to have a brass band and a carriage, and to pull him up to the church, that surprised him more than ever.
He really had not thought there was all that heart and soul in the people of the district towards this very important movement.… Perhaps they would be surprised when he told them that ever since the beginning of the movement in Northumberland and Durham Mr. Ogden had made it his duty, when a passive resister had been imprisoned, to ascertain the day and hour of the prisoner’s release, and meet him at the prison gates, with a full heart and a full bag.
(Applause.)…
In prison, said Mr. Bell, they were not allowed to speak to one another, and they were allowed to have only one letter a week, all letters sent in being read by the Governor.
He remarked that the Governor had learned quite a lot about the passive resistance movement while he (Mr. Bell) was in prison, through the letters he had to read and his conversation with Mr. Ogden when the latter was endeavouring to gain admission.
He hoped that the next time he had to go to prison they would send him plenty of letters so as to further educate the Governor in regard to the movement.
(Laughter.)
A second article in the same paper gave a more in-depth look at Bell’s prison time.
Excerpts:
Mr. Bell’s Experiences in Prison.
His Exposition of the Passive Resistance Attitude.
The week’s imprisonment undergone by the Rev. G.R. Bell was (writes a representative of the Herald) in respect of his second commitment by the Morpeth magistrates, and as a matter of fact there is still another week in gaol “due” to him.
When, on , Inspector Howey called on Mr. Bell to execute the warrant, the minister asked, “Is it for a fortnight?”
The officer assured him the term was only a week, and it is therefore to be assumed that the commitment order of six months earlier has been allowed to lapse.
Mr. Bell had been laid up with influenza some days prior to the police officer’s visit, and he was still suffering from the enervating effects of the prevalent disease.
He was really not fit to go away, but it is characteristic of the man that, without saying anything to his doctor as to what was about to happen, he immediately prepared himself to accompany Inspector Howey to the Newcastle Gaol.
Many sneers have been directed at the “martyrdom” of the Passive Resisters; but there can be no doubt that a week in prison must be a terrible ordeal for one who has no affinity with criminals, and Mr. Bell unquestionably suffered a great deal, both physically and mentally, during his seven days’ incarceration within the walls of the prison on Tyneside.
Passive Resisters who go to prison are treated as delinquents in Class B, a division in which the food is dispensed less frugally than is the case in Class A. Mr. Bell was allowed meat twice a week, but I rather gathered that his reminiscences in connection with the commissariat of the gaol were scarcely pleasant.
A man of modest disposition, he was, I found, very reluctant to talk about his prison experiences.
He was allowed to wear his own clothes, this being one of the concessions for such “privileged” inmates of His Majesty’s prisons.
He was, however, given a certain amount of manual labour to perform every day, this taking the shape of picking hemp.
But, as will readily be believed, the day, with its anchorite fare, its exercise in the court-yard, and its hemp-picking, was more tolerable than the night when the prisoner was left to his hard pallet — and his thoughts.
Mr. Bell calculates that he would sleep no more than some eighteen hours throughout the whole of the six nights that he was in custody; and the severity of the nervous strain of such sleeplessness, and strenuous reflection, on a sensitive mind can be readily imagined, though to be adequately comprehended the actual experience must be undergone.
On , Mrs. Bell was permitted to visit her husband, the interview taking place under the usual regulations of prison– that is to say it was restricted to a quarter of an hour, and was carried on in the presence of the warder.
The term of imprisonment expired Unknown to Mr. Bell, the Rev. J.W. Ogden was waiting at the prison gates early in the morning; and the sight of a ministerial brother at such a moment was most welcome.
As was reported in the Herald last week, Mr. Bell reached Ashington .
It had been arranged at Ashington to organise a demonstration and to escort the rev. gentleman from the station to his home amid the inspiring strains of a brass band; but Mr. Bell promptly put his foot on any such outward manifestation.
He was, however, accorded a tremendously enthusiastic reception at the public meeting on , a report of which appears above.
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
Here is some newspaper coverage from the later years of the “passive resistance” movement against the Education Act.
From the 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 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 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 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., .
From the London Daily News (excerpts):
Prison Preferred.
Dr. Clifford and Passive
Resistance.
Twenty-eight Paddington Passive Resisters, headed by Dr. J. Clifford, appeared 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), :
Refuses to Pay Tax to England
(By Associated Press.)
London, Eng. . — 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 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 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 Cheltenham Chronicle and Gloucestershire Graphic (excerpts):
Cheltenham Passive Resisters.
Nineteenth Appearance Before the Bench.
Cheltenham Passive Resisters to the Education Act of made their 19th appearance at the Police-court on …
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 Scotland Daily Record and Mail and seems to suggest that the struggle was now over:
Dr. Clifford, Passive
Resister.
The occurrence of 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 .
I have one reference in my files to a resister (A.E. Dent) still resisting the education rate as late as , however, so apparently this did not settle the controversy.
