A CLAUSE TO ABOLISH "PASSIVE RESISTANCE."
WE have always maintained the old Whig principle that any law which gives a chance to its opponents of posing as martyrs is worth reconsidering. Convictions, of course, are not necessarily and invariably to be respected because they are conscientious. The needs of society may require that the cherished beliefs of this or that man, however well-meaning, be firmly overridden. But none the less the principle holds good that, saving in the last necessity, it is an error in the art of government so to outrage the opinions of any large body of men that they go to that extreme of opposition in which they come into conflict with the powers of the law. Such opposition seems to us, as it must seem' to most people, to argue in the majority of cases a weak sense of public duty. A man must be very certain of the wisdom and justice of his case before he takes on himself the responsibility WE have always maintained the old Whig principle that any law which gives a chance to its opponents of posing as martyrs is worth reconsidering. Convictions, of course, are not necessarily and invariably to be respected because they are conscientious. The needs of society may require that the cherished beliefs of this or that man, however well-meaning, be firmly overridden. But none the less the principle holds good that, saving in the last necessity, it is an error in the art of government so to outrage the opinions of any large body of men that they go to that extreme of opposition in which they come into conflict with the powers of the law. Such opposition seems to us, as it must seem' to most people, to argue in the majority of cases a weak sense of public duty. A man must be very certain of the wisdom and justice of his case before he takes on himself the responsibility of refusing his civic obligations. There is a type of conscientiousness which really lacks conscience, which is so preoccupied with the minor duty that it misses the greater. For this reason we thought the "passive resistance" movement undignified, illogical, and there- fore blameworthy ; but we did not deny that those who bad their goods distrained on or went to prison were according to their lights acting honestly. A. law which inspires so strong a protest is, as we have said, always on d priori grounds worth reconsideration. But it is also worth considering whether it may not be possible by some change of method to make this self-imposed martyrdom more difficult.
There is, we fear, more than a chance that the new Education Act will produce a crop of "passive resisters" of its own. In spite of the wise, and in our view essentially religious, warning of the Archbishop of Canter- bury, there may be found Churchmen who will wish to imitate the unworthy tactics of their opponents, and it is possible, too, that the more extreme among the Noncon- formists may continue in their present courses. It is idle to hope to satisfy all parties, and it would be impolitic to try. But something can be done to prevent extremists from earning a cheap reputation as martyrs. Let them by all means resist, if they please, and satisfy their conscience with a protest. But there is a difference between having your goods distrained on for the rate, and going to prison for it. Distraint has no sympathetic attraction for the ordinary man, but imprisonment is a. step nearer martyr- dom. If " passive resistance " began and ended in having a piece of household furniture sold to meet a modest demand, it would be difficult to invest it with any rhetorical splendour. The resister would have resisted, the State would have come by its own, and the whole transaction would have a commonplace business air.
As the law stands, the Education-rate is collected as part of the Poor-rate. By an old statute of Elizabeth, amended by 12 and 13 Victoria, c. 14, in case of a refusal, Magistrates are empowered to issue a distress warrant. If there are no goods, or insufficient to satisfy the demand, they may commit the offender to prison for a period not exceeding three months. Such imprisonment is punitive, and not merely a device to enforce payment, and the Magistrates in ordering it are acting judicially, not, as is sometimes said, ministerially, That is to say, they have a discretion to issue or withhold the warrant of committal. This fact in itself is unsatisfactory. Magistrates in one district may imprison, while Magistrates in another for the same offence refuse the warrant. It is in the power of any one who desires to be advertised as a martyr to see that his goods are insufficient for the distress and to court the severer penalty. But we do not see what good purpose is served by imposing the penalty except the advertisement of the offender. The sentences are merely nominal, and in the eyes of the accused they carry no stigma. Indeed, they may be said to be actually attrac- tive. It seems to us that in the public interest it would be wise to introduce into the new Bill a clause limiting the remedy of the State to distress. In ninety- nine cases out of the hundred there will be sufficient goods to distrain on. When the cause of their absence is poverty, it is scarcely the State's business to imprison the offender any more than it imprisons a bankrupt. When, on the other hand, the ratepayer courts imprison- ment, the State is merely playing into his hands by enforcing it. The instance of the man who, without any conscientious grounds, goes to immense pains to get rid of his goods in order to avoid the payment of a small rate must be so rare as to be negligible. In any case where fraud can be proved there are the usual common law remedies.
It may be said that by thus abolishing the penalty of im- prisonment we shall be leaving the payment of rates to the option of the ratepayer. But a moment's reflection will show that this is not the case. A ratepayer is in essence a man with certain belongings, and where these exist distress is an ample form of compulsion. It should also be remem- bered that it is only rates which are collected as Poor-rates which carry imprisonment as their sanction. Under the Public Health Act of 1875, for example, the expenses of local Councils in rural districts are met out of the Poor-rate, and imprisonment may follow non-payment on the part of the citizen. But in urban districts distress is the only remedy. Here is an anomaly without any distinction of principle to support it; but we have never heard that rates were less easy to collect in urban than in rural districts. We do not advocate the total abolition of imprisonment as a penalty for non-payment of all rates, though there is much to be said for the view. Our whole law on the subject is in an anomalous and unsatisfactory position, and there is a crying need for a short Rates Recovery Act to unify and simplify the practice. This, however, may wait a little; but in the case of the Educatiou- rate, where imprisonment has lost all punitive meauiug, we should be glad to see the precedent of the Public Health Act in urban districts followed. " Passive resistance," if deprived of its rhetorical effect, would, we believe, soon cease to commend itself to the average Englishman.
We would therefore urge most strongly upon Mr. Birrell and his colleagues the considerations above stated, and would suggest that a clause be added to the Bill on the report stage making it impossible for men to carry " passive resistance" to the Education-rate to the point of imprisonment.
Previous page
