Some historical and global examples of tax resistance → religious groups and the religious perspective → British Nonconformists → Early 20th Century resistance to publicly-funded sectarian schools → James Hirst Hollowell

Continuing from where I left off yesterday, 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 4 June 1903 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, Tuesday evening. 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 6 June 1903 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 yesterday 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 6 June 1903 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 1902. The “rock of offence” in their eyes, as well as in ours, is the teaching of denominationalism at the public expense. At Cardiff, on Wednesday, 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 8 June 1903 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 Saturday, 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 9 June 1903 News and General Advertiser brought this news:

Berwick Passive Resistance League.

This League met in the Baptist Church on Tuesday night, 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 11 June 1903 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 17 June 1903 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, 1902, 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 Monday night 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 Sunday evening, 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 19 June 1903 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 23 June 1903 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 Monday night, 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 24 June 1903, 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 26 June 1903 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 the next day’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 June…

The “passive resistance” campaign against the Education Act continued to heat up in July, 1903. Here are some excerpts from news reports of from the time.

First, from the 3 July 1903 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 3 July 1903 Leamington Spa Courier and Warwickshire Standard included this detail:

At Hastings, on Tuesday, and again at Stroud, on Wednesday, 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 7 July 1903 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 yesterday, 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 3 July 1903 which appeared in the Shields Gazette some days later 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 10 July 1903 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 11 July 1903 reported:

The Nonconformist View.

The Rev Ambrose Pope at the Sunday evening 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 Wednesday evening 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 Friday 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 14 July 1903 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 15 July 1903 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 Tuesday 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 16 July 1903 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 17 July 1903 issue:

Passive Resistance.

William Ramsill and Samuel Newbold, of Donisthorpe, were summoned at Ashby-de-la-Zouch on Saturday 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 Saturday 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 Saturday, 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 Saturday, 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday, 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 1902, 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 17 July 1903 Sunderland Daily Echo reported on a passive resistance meeting that had been held alongside the United Methodist Free Churches Assembly the previous evening. 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 24 July 1903 reported:

Passive Resistance.

At the Bath County Police Court on Saturday, 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 Friday. 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 Saturday, 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 the previous Saturday 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, 1889. 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 27 July 1903 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 29 July 1903 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 Tuesday 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, 1902. 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 Tuesday, 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 Tuesday, 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.

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 September of 1903.

A story in the 2 September 1903 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 2 September 1903 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 3 September 1903, 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 3 September 1903 issue, printed a letter from Richard Glover which gave an update on the campaign there. Excerpts:

Last Thursday 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. Yesterday 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 9 September 1903 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 that evening 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 11 September 1903 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 11 September 1903 Cambridge Independent Press reported on the seizure of goods from 34 resisters earlier that week.

[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 12 September 1903 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 15 September 1903 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 yesterday 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 91^st 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 yesterday, 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 15 September 1903 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 yesterday, 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 18 September 1903 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 19 September 1903 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 Wednesday, 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 25 September 1903 issue, and noted that some members of the League had appeared in court that day 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 26 September 1903:

Passive Resistance: This Morning’s Sale

To the editor of the Derby Daily Telegraph–

Sir,– Allow me to express my indignation at the way the sale was conducted this morning at the County Hall. Until this morning 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.
Sept. 25, 1903.

The Manchester Courier and Lancaster General Advertiser of 26 September 1903 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 Thursday 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 the 14^th inst. 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 30 September 1903 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 October, 1899, 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 3 October 1903 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 30 September 1903:

Passive Resistance.

A Mayor Distrained On.

Twenty Wimbledon passive resisters had their goods sold at a Battersea auction-room on Tuesday. 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 Tuesday, 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday 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 Tuesday, Police-Sergeant Frederick Charles Woolley was charged with assaulting Edward John Thorne at Wiveliscombe Police-Court on August 25^th. On that day 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 the end of September.

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

The only article in my sample from this month comes from the 16 December 1904 Cambridge Independent Press. Excerpts:

Passive Resistance at St. Ives.

Citizens’ League Formed.

A meeting was held in the Corn Exchange, St. Ives, on Thursday in last week, 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.

Skipping ahead to September 1906, the passive resistance movement against the Education Act of 1902 has lost some momentum, as, at first anyway, it appears that they’re making political progress toward their goals.

On 13 September 1906 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 November, 1904. 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 1870 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, Sept. 12^th, 1906.

Another letter to the editor, this one from the 15 September 1906 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, 14^th September, 1906.

A note in the 21 September 1906 Gloucestershire Echo said that distress warrants had been made out in Yarmouth against “the Mayor, some aldermen, councillors, magistrates, and one of the overseers.”