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..