Here is another excerpt from Helena Normanton’s series of articles on “Foundations of Freedom” that she wrote for The Vote. This one comes from the issue:
Seeing that he who pays the piper calls the tune and that political power is
merely the cutting edge of economic power, this article will offer a few
considerations upon how Parliament came to control our taxation.
The whole of English history might be written to centre round the subject of
taxation direct and indirect. From the time when
Canute made the
law: “I command all my
reeves that they
justly provide on my own and maintain me therewith; and that no man need give
them anything as
feorm-fultum unless
he himself be willing” down to
Magna Carta, disputes
between King and nobles constantly circled round taxation. The question which
agitated the mind of the mediæval landowner was this: Might the King take
only certain dues which were recognised and customary, or had he the power to
take other taxes if he thought fit? If necessity really arose that the King
should have extra money to meet some national emergency, how was he to get
it? By obtaining the personal consent of those who were to pay it assembled
in a Great Council, said Magna Carta. Those people who drag in at this point
that the barons intended that representation should precede taxation are
introducing an unnecessary confusion. In his great work on Magna Carta
Prof. McKechnie has shown
how unhistorical it is to assign so advanced a point of view to thirteenth
century barons. Personal consent to taxation was the point of view
that interested them, not representation. The earlier struggles of
reluctant taxpayers with the Crown assumed the principle of personal consent
preceding taxation. The later struggles in Stuart days centred round the
consent of Parliament to all taxation. The American Revolution was
grounded on the principle that as the Colonies were not represented in the
British Parliament it was unconstitutional to tax them therein. No Taxation
without Representation was their cry, and they meant it in a national sense,
not an individual one.
A long series of Charters and Statutes extending
shows the intensity of
the struggle made by Parliament against arbitrary taxation by the Crown. Four
national rebellions of the first magnitude have been waged to secure this
right — against John, Richard
Ⅱ., Charles
Ⅰ. and James
Ⅱ. Individual protests
have also played their part such as the cases of Reed, Bate, Darnel, and the
celebrated one of John Hampden against shipmoney in the reign of Charles
Ⅰ. John Hampden is often
quoted in platform speeches, and people frequently get hold of the wrong end
of the stick about him. He did not refuse shipmoney because of lack of
representation, but because the King was imposing the tax without the consent
of Parliament. It is noteworthy that out of the twelve judges seven gave
verdict against him and he lost his case. But the decision was very unpopular
and was undoubtedly one of the causes of the Civil War. This trial made
Hampden “the argument of all tongues, every man inquiring who and what he was
that he durst of his own charge support the liberty and property of the
kingdom and rescue his country from being made a prey to the court.”
Where suffragists may well take Hampden as an example is in his fearlessness
in making an individual protest. He was a lawyer and great student of the
Constitution. Those who desire to bring about political changes or help in
great movements, such as the enfranchisement of women, will never find a
moment wasted in studying the character and achievements of such men as
Hampden. We are told by his enemy Clarendon that “he was of an industry and
vigilance not to be tired out or wearied by the most laborious, and of parts
not to be imposed upon by the most subtle or sharp, and of a personal courage
equal to his parts.”
How women in the Suffrage Movement need to share in that quality of “not
being imposed upon by the most subtle or sharp!” The wisdom of the serpent is
as necessary now as ever! That is why knowledge of the Constitution is
invaluable in political work.
The long struggle between Parliament and the Crown over the control of
taxation was practically decided by the Civil War of
. After the Restoration of the
Stuarts James Ⅱ.
attempted to revive illegal taxation; for this and other misdoings he lost
the throne, and by the Revolution of William
Ⅲ. and Mary were offered
it on conditions. One of those conditions was:—
“Levying money by pretense of prerogative without grant of Parliament is
illegal.” (Bill of Rights, )
Normanton tosses out the names “Reed, Bate, Darnel” so casually, but I have no idea who they are, and they don’t seem to have warranted a mention in Stephen Dowell’s two-volume A History of Taxation and Taxes in England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day either.
