Tax Resistance at Wolverhampton
by Frank Sproson.
The position in Wolverhampton in regard to tax resistance is certainly of
interest to the supporters of militancy.
We do meet occasionally in the Suffrage movement, the woman with the pitiful
tale: I should like to help you, but I dare not; my husband is against me.
But it is, indeed, a revelation to meet an enthusiastic supporter with an
equally sympathetic husband, who finds herself hampered, through the
decisions of magistrates who hold the husband liable for the deeds of his
wife.
Ever since I began to take a serious interest in politics I have believed in
sex equality, and have never denied my wife the freedom that I myself claim,
and, as I shall endeavour to show, it [is] because of this that I was
convicted.
The humiliating position of the married woman, especially the working woman,
is admitted by all Suffragists; but I never realised that she was such an
abject slave so clearly as when I stood in the Wolverhampton Police Court,
side by side with my wife, charged with aiding and abetting her to keep a dog
without a license. The only evidence submitted by the prosecution (the
police) that I actually did anything was that I presided at two meetings in
support of the “No Vote, No Tax” policy of the Women’s Freedom League. That I
said anything that was not fair comment on the general policy of militancy
there was no evidence to show; if, then, on this point I was liable, then all
supporters of militancy are equally so. But I do not believe it was on this
evidence that I was convicted. No. The dog was at my house, and cared
for by my children during my wife’s absence. In the eyes of
the law, I was lord and master, so that my offence, therefore, was
not that I did anything, but rather that I did not do anything.
I did not assert my authority, I did not force my wife into subjection, and
however legal the magistrate’s decision may have been, it certainly was not
just.
Emma Sproson
It was the spirit of rebellion against injustice displayed by Mrs. [Emma]
Sproson that first won for her my admiration. This admiration is far too deep
rooted to be suppressed by the decision of magistrates.
I admire the rebel against injustice, man or woman, because I know that it
is to them that all real progress is due. A friend once said to me, when
criticising my wife, “But what would happen if all other women did as she is
doing?” I replied: “They would get the vote to-morrow”; and he saw it. The
pity is that others do not.
Mr. Churchill Questioned.
As no answer was received to our letter addressed to Mr. Churchill, steps
were taken to get the matter raised in the House of Commons, and Mr. H[enry].
G[eorge]. Chancellor very kindly undertook to draft and put the questions. As
originally drafted they were as follows:—
.
Mr. Chancellor: To ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that after
serving in Stafford Gaol a sentence of one week’s imprisonment in the third
division passed upon her on last
for refusing to pay a dog license, as a protest against her political
disenfranchisement, Mrs. Sproson was on tried a second time for the same offence and sentenced to one
month’s imprisonment in the first division; whether two trials and two
sentences for one offence are lawful, and what steps he proposes to take in
the matter.
.
Mr. Chancellor: To ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in
addition to a sentence of one month’s imprisonment passed upon Mrs. Sproson
for passive resistance to taxation her husband was sentenced to one week’s
imprisonment for aiding and abetting her, and leave to appeal refused to
him, and whether, as his wife was held by the court to be sufficiently
responsible to suffer the punishment named, he can see his way to prevent
such manufacture of criminals and multiplication of punishments for single
offences of a political character.
All questions have to be passed by the Speaker, and the first one was
modified to read: “And whether he can see his way to take steps to avoid, in
future, the infliction of two sentences for one offence.” The second one was
censored. In doing this the Clerk at the Table was merely upholding the
traditions followed in all Government Departments in their treatment of
married women. Married women are treated as individuals so long as there are
penalties to be inflicted, but to curtail their liberty or hamper their
activities the Law of Coverture is brought into force.
Mrs. Sproson may be treated as the owner of a dog, be liable for the fine,
and for non-payment of it serve first a week and then a month’s imprisonment.
But Mrs. Sproson is a married woman under coverture, so the law secures a
second victim in proceeding against her husband. If Mrs. Sproson happened to
possess an income of her own she would not be treated as the owner of that,
the amount must be added to her husband’s and he is held liable for
income-tax.
This provides only another illustration that the whole Law of Coverture must
be abolished in order to make it possible to improve the legal position of
married women.
To the first question Mr. Churchill replied:—
The offence of which Mrs. Sproson was convicted on
was not the same as that of which
she was convicted on . It is an
offence against the law to keep a dog without a license, and after her
conviction of Mrs. Sproson
continued deliberately to break the law. The punishment was a fine which she
was well able to pay if she had wished.
I may add that the dog she kept was a dangerous one and had bitten three
children, and that in spite of a friendly warning from a neighbor, whose
little girl had been bitten by it, she allowed him to run at large. As the
law stands no person can be punished twice for the same offence, but where
an offence is repeated the penalty is usually increased, and in this
particular case the law imposes an increased penalty for the second offence.
As usual, the Home Secretary entirely overlooks the political motive for Mrs.
Sproson’s action. He repeats the charge brought at the trial which was by no
means proved, and omits altogether to say that the dog was dead before the
trial came on. As the dog for which the tax was refused was the same dog, it
is difficult to see where the one offence ended and the other began. In reply
to our letter the following has at last been received:—
Whitehall, .
Madam,— The Secretary of State, having carefully considered your application
on behalf of Emma Sproson, who is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment,
I am directed to express to you his regret that he can find no sufficient
ground to justify him, consistently with his public duty, in advising His
Majesty to interfere in this case.
I am, madam, your obedient servant,
E. Blackwell.
We are now making efforts to get the sentences made to run concurrently. All
friends who approach Members of Parliament should urge them to put this
request before Mr. Churchill, as in this way Mrs. Sproson would have one
week’s remission of her excessive sentence of five weeks.
Edith How Martyn.
N.B.—
Mr. Sproson writes on Monday, :— “I
have just left Mrs. Sproson. I am glad to say she seems well, and is
determined to do the full time which expires on
. I was only allowed to see her
through a grating for fifteen minutes.” — E.H.M.
Women’s Tax Resistance League.
On Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton
Parkes addressed the members of the Brighton and Hove Suffrage Society, and
also delegates from Worthing and Shoreham, on the subject of “Tax Resistance”
in the Hove Town Hall. Miss [Maria?] Merrifield presided, and there was a
long and animated debate at the conclusion of the lecture, led by Colonel
Kensington, as to whether the National Union should or should not adopt the
policy of tax resistance. A meeting was held on
evening in the drawing-room at
Warren House, Guildford, by the kind invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Baker, and
Mrs. Kineton Parkes
spoke at a garden party at Farnham.
The last of these meetings was held on
at Tunbridge Wells at the rooms
of the Suffrage Society and presided over by Mrs. [Edith Kate] Lelacheur.
Mrs. Kineton Parkes’ address was followed by a most animated and instructive
discussion led by Madame Sarah Grand.
The council meetings to decide this question will be held at Edinburgh next
week.
On , also, a most
successful protest against taxation without representation was made by Mrs.
Muir, of Broadstairs, whose goods were sold at the Auction Rooms, 120,
High-street, Margate. The protest was conducted by Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr;
and Miss Ethel Fennings, of the
W.F.L.,
went down to speak. The auctioneer, Mr. Holness, was most courteous, and not
only allowed Mrs. Muir to explain in a few words why she resisted taxation,
but also gave permission to hold meeting in his rooms after the sale was
over. Prior to the sale a well-attended meeting was held in the Cecil-square,
and Miss Fennings sold some copies of The Vote.
A short note in the same issue read:
Croydon.
…On we had the pleasure of a visit
from Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn, who spoke upon Tax Resistance, and explained
Mrs. Sproson’s refusal to pay her dog tax, and the undue and seemingly
vindictive sentence of five weeks’ imprisonment that she is now undergoing.…
