Tax-Resistance — More Comparisons.
Adding to the information given last week showing the contrast between the
sentences passed on a man (a voter) and a woman (a non-voter) for resisting
the Insurance Act, we call the attention of our readers to the following case
of a man resister, and repeat the particulars of Mrs. Harvey’s sentence, as
follows:—
Mr. F. Hamblin, an optician, of Eastbourne, had “conscientious” objection — which we find must be quite different from objections on “principle” — to
paying the Insurance Tax on two employees. Summoned on twenty counts, he
was ordered to pay fines, costs, and arrears to the amount of £6
14s.
8d. This gentleman appears to
be fully as “contumacious” as Mrs. Harvey, as “a friend,” in consultation,
has agreed to pay the contributions for him!
On , Mrs. Kate Harvey, of
Brackenhill, Bromley, was summoned on ten counts in respect of her
gardener, William David Asquith. She was fined £1 on each count, costs £4
10s., “special costs”
asked for by the Insurance Commissioners £2
2s., and ordered to pay
the arrears, 5s.
10d.; total, £16
17s.
10d..