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 →
Robert William Perks
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.
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
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.
