We are accustomed to the story of the ass teaching the ancients wisdom; the modern version seems to be that the cow is on the side of the tax-resisters.
The story of what happened while Miss [Edith Kate] Lelacheur was attending a sale of a dog cart at Reading for the non-payment of the agricultural land tax on one of her farms might be deemed a practical joke on the part of the revenue authorities, but for the fact that the cow took the matter entirely into her own hands and flouted the bailiffs.
In the absence of Miss Lelacheur, a cow was seized for non-payment of other taxes; inquiry elicited the fact that “twice the bailiffs took the cow away and got it three miles or so along the road, but that then it bolted back.”
Finally they gave it up, and left Miss Lelacheur the distraining order — and the cow.
We wonder whether in due time Suffragists will have reason to worship the cow — taking a different point of view from the Hindus.
Meanwhile, we congratulate Miss Lelacheur on her tax resistance and on the noble support of her cow.
Later: We hear that force majeure has prevailed; the cow is to be sold — to a tax-resister, we hope!
Also from the same issue:
Tax Resistance.
Under the auspices of the Tax Resistance League and the Women’s Freedom League a protest meeting was held at Great Marlow on , on the occasion of the sale of plate and jewellery belonging to Mrs. [Mary] Sargent Florence, the well-known artist, and to Miss Hayes, daughter of Admiral Hayes.
Their property had been seized for the non-payment of Imperial taxes, and through the courtesy of the tax-collector every facility was afforded to the protesters to explain their action.
A quiet little group — a large crowd for Marlow — listened attentively to Mrs. Florence, Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr, Miss [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, and Miss [Alison] Neilans.
Mrs. Sargent Florence had been distrained upon more than once, and intends to continue her passive protest until women have the vote.
At the County Court, Woodbridge, Dr. Elizabeth Knight was charged with keeping a dog without a license and refusing to take out a license for her dog cart; Mrs. H[ortense].
Lane was charged also with refusing to pay the license for her trap.
Dr. Knight said she believed taxation and representation should go together; and Mrs. Lane, who was unable to attend, wrote to the Bench saying she refused to pay taxes as a protest against women’s political disability.
Mr. Eton White, the presiding magistrate, said his duty was to administer the law as it stood; therefore Dr. Knight was fined £2 10s. and costs, and Mrs. Lane £1 10s. and costs.
A protest meeting was afterwards held on Market Hill.
Mrs. [Lila] Pratt, hon. secretary of the Women’s Freedom League, Ipswich branch, presided, and an interesting crowd listened appreciatively to the speech of Mrs. [Emma] Sproson who explained the reason why women should adopt the policy of tax resistance and urged upon all women to make the position of the Government intolerable and untenable unless it conceded to women their common human right.
Silver belonging to Miss [Dorinda] Neligan, of Croydon, and Mrs. [Florence Gardiner] Hamilton, of Wendover, was sold for non-payment of taxes on , and vigorous protests made.
At Wendover, in the John Hampden County, an Anti-suffragist from London made a speech.
After nearly two years’ delay, during which some attempts have been made to fathom the depths of the Freedom League’s resistance to the Insurance Act — even though Mr. Wedgwood Benn, in the ‘unavoidable absence’ of Mr. Masterman, assured Mr. Jowett in the House of Commons that he had not heard of it — an inspector of the Insurance Commissioners arrived at Headquarters on and spent what Mark Twain used to call “a variegated time” in interviewing the members of the staff.
We anticipate the Government’s next move with lively interest.
Our hon. treasurer, Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight, is still awaiting the announcement that accommodation has been reserved for her in the Government’s “Third-rate Hotel” at Holloway owing to her refusal to recognise the Insurance Act.
But the Government has remembered her dog at Woodbridge!
Mrs. [Hortense] Lane, who has charge of the dog, has been summoned for non-payment of its license and that of her own dog.
Next week we shall have pleasure in reporting the proceedings.
Our secretary, Miss F[lorence].A. Underwood, has been honoured by a letter offering a “final opportunity” to pay Income-tax on a supposititious figure, all other attempts to gain information as to her income having been met by a flat refusal couched in the words, “No Vote, No Information!”
Miss Underwood is only surprised that the fertile imagination of the authorities did not put her income at a figure high enough to come under the proposed new working of the Super-tax.
The letter, signed by the solicitor of Internal Revenue, runs as follows:—
I am directed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to apply for payment of an arrear of Income-tax, Schedule E, due from you for , amounting to £11 13s. 4d., and to acquaint you that unless the same be paid to the Accountant-General of Inland Revenue at this office within seven days from this date, proceedings will be commenced for the recovery thereof without further notice.
As the result of proceedings in the High Court of Justice will be to render you liable to costs, in default of payment, I think it right before the Writ is issued to give you this final opportunity of settling the matter by payment of the duty.
As soon as the Writ is received it will be put up to auction, and offers for this historic communication between the Monarch and the subject may now be sent to our hon. treasurer for the benefit of the League.
The Women’s Freedom League has defied the Insurance Act ever since it came into force; not one penny has been paid into the Government coffers to lessen Mr. Lloyd George’s deficit.
Our members are refusing to pay income tax and, as is well known, our president has for several years treated with contempt cajoling “final opportunities” and “last chances” to pay.
This action is a protest against the Government’s betrayal of Liberal principles as applied to women.
“No vote, no tax,” is our impregnable position, not to be surrendered until women have equal rights with men in controlling national expenditure.
Every Budget Day is an insult to us.
Money is demanded of women for the ever-growing millions required to pay the Nation’s debts, all incurred by men, and to pay the salaries of the men who incur them.
Voteless women are victims plundered by the Government and powerless to say how their money should be spent.
We welcome the indications that the Government is now making a move against us.
Our secretary, Miss F.A. Underwood, after having returned many applications from Somerset House for income tax with the message, “No Vote, No Information.” has now received a “final opportunity” letter, the forerunner of a writ against her.
Particulars will be found in another column, and we call attention to the fact that the writ, when received, will be put up for auction.
Who will bid for this interesting document?
In due time it will become historic — an object lesson of the fight women had to wage with “chivalrous” men for freedom.
In the meantime we say to the Government: “We are prepared!
Do your worst!”
Imprisonment of Miss [Constance E.] Andrews at Ipswich.
Our Hon. District Organizer for East Anglia has been sent to prison for one week in the second division as a consequence of her plucky and conscientious fight against taxation without representation.
Miss Andrews was sentenced a month ago, but was only arrested morning.
Our prisoner will be released on from Ipswich Prison, and every member in the district should be there to welcome her.
A public meeting will be held in the evening, and will be addressed by Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard and Miss [Marguerite A.] Sidley.
Sale at Woodbridge.
Our report is taken from The East Anglian Daily Times:—
“Do you want a waggon?” seemed to be a sort of catch phrase at Woodbridge yesterday, and the explanation was a huge farm waggon, to be seen in the centre of Market Hill.
It bore the names of Knight and Lane, of Cowslip Dairy, Witnesham, and stood there a silent witness to the enthusiasm of two ladies, Dr. Elizabeth Knight and Mrs. [Hortense] Lane, in the cause of “Votes for Women.” The preliminary stages, leading to the seizure of the waggon by the police, have previously been related in our columns.
The two ladies named are joint occupiers of a farm, but each separately owns a dog and a governess-car.
The law requires “persons” who own such luxuries shall pay a tax for the privilege, and the ladies say, “No, we are not persons in the eyes of the law when the law says certain persons shall have a Parliamentary vote, and therefore if the State won’t have our vote it shall not have our money.”
There was many a sharp contest of wits over the subject of Women’s Suffrage,
and from these it was quite evident that there was no real hostile feeling
amongst the men present. On the other hand, there were many admissions of
belief in the principle that a woman owning property should have a vote for
a Parliamentary candidate, but there seemed to be a consensus of opinion
against women entering Parliament.
Miss Alison Neilans, the chief star in the local Suffragette firmament on Thursday, stood with her back to one of the waggon wheels and “held her own” with all the half-serious, half-chaffing comment from farmers and merchants’ representatives on the cause of women’s rights.
At length the time for the sale arrived, and the business was very quickly
over. Miss Neilans obtained the auctioneer’s permission to give a
two-minutes’ speech in explanation of the proceedings, and she occupied
59½ seconds. Then Mr. Arnott mounted the waggon for the purpose of selling
it. The bidding started at £3, and mounted quickly to £8, when by slower
degrees it reached £9
10s., at which figure the
waggon was knocked down to Mr. Rush.
Thereafter the Suffragettes again took possession of the waggon, and Miss Neilans led off in a very capable speech dealing with the well-known arguments about representation and taxation going together, in a bright and original manner.
The happy and successful home, she said, was where the man and the woman each took a share in its affairs, and not where one had the upper hand.
She disapproved of the nagging woman as much as of the man who beat his wife.
The politics of the State was the housekeeping of the nation, and women should have their share in the work.
Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett also addressed the meeting.
The waggon was then decorated and driven to Ipswich, where a demonstration had been well advertised for 8 p.m. Miss Andrews took the chair and was well received, but the crowd of rowdy youths had considerably increased their forces before Mrs. Tippett, who was the next speaker, had finished, and when Miss Neilans had been speaking a few minutes, the singing and shouting made it quite impossible for the audience to hear a word.
As, however, the noisy element were quite few in proportion to those genuinely interested and anxious to hear, Miss Neilans turned her back on the rowdies, and for over half an hour held the serious attention of quite a large section of those around, in spite of the din behind.
A collection could not be taken, but many men and women came near and pressed money into the speaker’s hand, and when the meeting ended, it was felt that much sympathy had been gained.
Mrs. Tippett and Miss Andrews gave great help with speaking, and an
excellent sale of The Vote was made, both at
Woodbridge and Ipswitch.
Mrs. Despard, who was in the chair, spoke in cheerful, anticipatory vein of the trend of events.
A sense of hope, a sense of expansion, a sense of exhilaration, she said, was in the air; yet, in spite of our confidence, we must not relax our efforts, for it was sometimes in the last stages of work, just before reforms were accomplished, that obstruction became strongest.
She spoke of the activity of the Women’s Freedom League at the present time in the direction of Tax Resistance.
During the past week she had attended several auction sales of goods of members of the Women’s Freedom League, who were following the example of John Hampden and fighting for a great principle — the right to exercise the duties of citizens and to resist the payment of taxation while their citizenship was unrecognised.
Her own goods were to be sold on the morrow, and she would not allow them to be bought in.
When they had taken everything she possessed they would have to again imprison her; but she ventured to think that before that day arrived the Conciliation Bill would have passed, and women would begin to come into their own.
A scene which was probably never equalled in the whole of its history took place at the Oxenham Auction Rooms, Oxford-street, on .
About a fortnight before the bailiffs had entered Mrs. Despard’s residence in Nine Elms and seized goods which they valued at £15.
Our President, for some years past, as is well known, has refused to pay her income-tax and inhabited house duty on the grounds that taxation and representation should go together; and this is the third time her goods have been seized for distraint.
It was not until the day before — — that Mrs. Despard was informed of the time and place where her furniture was to be sold.
In spite of this short notice — which we learn on good authority to be illegal — a large crowd composed not only of our own members but also of women and men from various Suffrage societies gathered together at the place specified in the notice.
When “Lot 325” was called Mrs. Despard mounted a chair, and said, “I rise to
protest, in the strongest, in the most emphatic way of which I am capable,
against these iniquities, which are perpetually being perpetrated in the name
of the law. I should like to say I have served my country in various
capacities, but I am shut out altogether from citizenship. I think special
obloquy has been put upon me in this matter. It was well known that I should
not run away and that I should not take my goods away, but the authorities
sent a man in possession. He remained in the house — a household of women — at night. I only heard of this
sale, and from a man who knows that of which he is speaking, I know that this
sale is illegal. I now claim the law — the law that is supposed to be for
women as well as men.”
The whole assembly listened in respectful silence to our President’s dignified protest, upon the conclusion of which all Suffragists present, and many other sympathisers left for the Gardenia where a very successful meeting was held.
Tax Resistance protests are multiplying throughout the land, and signs are not wanting that the seedling planted by the Women’s Freedom League is developing into a stalwart tree.
This form of militancy appeals even to constitutionally-minded women; and the ramifications of tax resistance now reach far beyond the parent society and the other militant organisations, necessitating the expenditure of great energy on the part of the officials who work under the banner of John Hampden — the Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard is no longer even asked to pay her taxes; the Edinburgh Branch of the W.F.L. is in almost the same happy position; Mrs. [Kate] Harvey has once more heroically barricaded Brackenhill against the King’s officers, and Miss [Mary] Anderson has again raised the flag of revolt in Woldingham.
Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight, with praiseworthy regularity, refuses to pay her dog license and other taxes in respect of a country residence; and these protests never fail to carry to some mind, hitherto heedless, a new sense of the unconstitutional position women are forced to occupy in a country that prides itself on being the home of constitutional Government.
Activities of the Tax Resistance League.
Last week we had five sales in different parts of the country.
On three Tax Resisters at West Drayton and two at Rotherfield, made their protest.
Miss [Kate] Raleigh, Miss Weir, and Miss [Margory?] Lees had a gold watch and jewellery sold on the village green, West Drayton; speakers at the protest meeting were Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Mrs. Hicks, and Miss Raleigh.
Miss Koll and Miss Hon[n]or Morten, of Rotherfield, had a silver salver and gold ring sold from a wagonette in the village street; speakers at the protest meeting were Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mr. Reginald Pott.
Miss Maud Roll presided.
On Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown gave an at home at her house when short speeches were made by the Hampstead Tax Resisters who were to have their goods sold on , and by Mrs. [Louisa] Thompson Price, whose case is being further looked into by Somerset House.
There was a very good attendance and many new members were gained for the League.
On , sales took place at Hampstead and at Croydon.
Misses Collier, Mrs. Hartley, Mrs. Hicks, and Dr. Adeline Roberts had their goods sold at the Hampstead Drill Hall and at the protest meeting the speakers were Miss Hicks and Mrs. [Margarete Wynne] Nevinson.
The goods of Miss [Dorinda] Neligan and Miss James were sold at Messrs. King and Everall’s Auction Rooms, Croydon; the protest meeting was addressed by Mrs. Kineton Parkes.
On the sale took place of a ring, the property of Mrs. [Adeline] Cecil Chapman, President of the New Constitutional Society, and wife of Mr. Cecil Chapman, the well-known magistrate, at Messrs. Roche and Roche’s Auction Rooms, 68A, Battersea-rise.
Mrs. Chapman made an excellent protest in the auction room, and afterwards presided at the protest meeting, when the speakers were Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, and Mrs. Teresa Gough.
Sequel to Hastings Riot.
As a result of the disgraceful scenes at Hastings on , Mrs. Darent Harrison appealed to the magistrate on Tuesday.
A large number of sympathisers were present and Mrs. [Jane?] Strickland, president of the local National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, spoke, and Mrs. Darent Harrison.
The magistrate said the matter was not within his province and the Watch Committee must be referred to.
We hope that the result may be adequate police protection when the resisters hold the postponed protest meeting.
In spite of threats, Dr.
[Elizabeth] Knight and the other Headquarters members who have resisted the
Insurance taxation remain at large.
Dr. Knight’s sentence of one
month still hangs over her head; but no action has yet been taken against
Headquarters.
Mrs. [Emma] Sproson has renewed the fight in her own part of the world, and
is now challenging the Inland Revenue to make good their claim to tax her
small holding at Wolverhampton. It is possible that the authorities may hold
her husband responsible; but this is a point that remains to be settled.
Meanwhile, it is a matter for great satisfaction to have Mrs. Sproson back
again in the active fighting lines.
The determined stand made by our good friend Mrs. Harvey, in barricading her house, Brackenhill, Burnley, against the authorities who desire to seize her goods in payment of taxes, still continues.
The barricade is unbroken.
Passers-by read the bold declaration that she refuses to be taxed by a Government that refuses her representation because she is a woman.
Her continued resistance has aroused keen interest in the London and Provincial Press, and afforded excellent “copy” for numerous illustrated papers.
We rejoice in Mrs. Harvey’s determination, and ask all members and sympathisers who can take part in the demonstration when the goods are eventually sold, to send in their names to the Political and Militant Organiser, 1, Robert-street, Adelphi, London.
We must make a brave show to testify to the strong support Mrs. Harvey receives from the League.
Other Resisters: The Growing Movement.
John Hampden statue at Aylesbury
Dr. Elizabeth Knight, our hon. treasurer, and Mrs. Lane, of Ipswich, have again refused to take out dog and trap licenses as a protest against taxation without representation.
A waggon was sold recently to recover the amount due.
Tax resistance by women is growing in a most remarkable way throughout the length and breadth of the land.
Practically every day sees a sale and protest somewhere, and the banners of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, frequently supported by Suffrage Societies, are becoming familiar in town and country.
At the protest meetings which follow all sales the reason why is explained to large numbers of people who would not attend a suffrage meeting.
Auctioneers are becoming sympathetic even so far as to speak in support of the women’s protest against a law which demands their money, but gives them no voice in the way in which it is spent.
Recently a Rembrandt picture, belonging to Miss McGregor, a woman of considerable property, was sold at Arbroath, for £75, and the sale created great interest throughout Scotland.
At a demonstration at Balham, after a silver teapot belonging to Mrs. [Leonora?]
Tyson had been sold, strangers in the crowd proposed and seconded votes of thanks to the speakers.
Keen interest was aroused in Hampstead, when the goods of Miss Lilian Hicks and Miss Constance Collier were sold last week, and at Oxford, after the sale of a gold watch and silver spoons belonging to Mrs. O’Sullivan, a poster parade through the town announced a meeting in the evening at the Martyrs’ Memorial, a novel experience for the University.
A special demonstration is being arranged by the Women’s Tax Resistance League of “Modern John Hampdens,” when the new statue of the great tax resister, John Hampden, now on view at Burlington House, will be unveiled in Aylesbury Market Place on .
While Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight
is in prison we intend to turn every in-door and out-door meeting that we
hold into a Protest Meeting against the taxation of women while they are
unrepresented in Parliament.
, we
shall hold a meeting outside Holloway Prison, at 3.30, our speakers being
Miss Eunice Murray, Mrs. Tanner and Mrs. Mustard.
, we shall hold
a joint protest meeting with the Tax Resisters’ League, further particulars
of which will be announced in next week’s Vote.
, the day after
her release, we have arranged a reception to
Dr. Knight at Caxton Hall. We
rely on the support of our readers at all these meetings.
On our
hon. treasurer,
Dr. Elizabeth Knight, was
sentenced at Hampstead to a fine of £20 and
19s. costs for resisting
the National Insurance Act with regard to two maids, and in default of
payment or distraint on her goods, one month’s imprisonment. No money being
forthcoming, about the middle of May a warrant was issued for her arrest,
but she was left alone until , when the police
arrived at her house to escort her to Holloway Prison. On hearing the news,
Miss [Florence A.] Underwood and Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett went immediately to
see Dr. Knight; Madam Putz,
hon. secretary of the
Hampstead Branch, also arrived, and all accompanied
Dr. Knight to Holloway.
We learn from Miss Mary Anderson that her house has been “entered” by the authorities, and that some of her goods, among them a copy of the famous picture, “Hope,” by G.F. Watts, have been seized to pay the taxes claimed by a Government which denies representation to women.
The sale will take place at Woldingham on , and will be followed by a meeting in the Public Hall.
All friends are cordially invited to be present, especially those living in Croydon, Thornton Heath and South London district.
On Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight was summoned to appear at the Woodbridge Police-court for non-payment of her dog-tax.
As it was not convenient for her to attend, Miss [Constance] Andrews went in her place again to protest against taxation without representation.
She was supported by Miss Bobby and Miss Pratt.
The Woodbridge Police-court compares very favourably with the London ones, and patience is not lacking in the way it was at Marlborough-street.
When our case came on Miss Andrews asked to be allowed to make a statement; this was refused, but she made it all the same, and it took the form of a Suffrage tax-resistance speech.
In reply to a question why Dr. Knight did not appear, it was pointed out she had professional duties to attend to, and they might take the form of certifying a man to be insane thereby depriving him of his vote, while she herself was not counted capable of exercising one.
After some consultation a fine of 30s. and 14s. cost was levied; failing this, distraint and in default 7 days’ imprisonment.
Whereupon the Suffragists made a further protest in court, and then held a meeting outside.
Miss Andrews addressed an orderly crowd for forty minutes, one man who tried to create a disturbance being promptly ejected.
The next act of this annual drama will be the sale of the wagon which has become historic in the history of tax-resistance.
At Balham.
On , Miss Helen Smith’s goods were sold for tax-resistance at Philip’s Auction Rooms, Balham.
Mrs. Tanner spoke on behalf of the Freedom League, of which Miss Smith is a member.
Mrs. [Leonora?]
Tyson took the chair.
Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes and Mrs. Teresa Gough also spoke.
The crowd was very large and quite orderly.
The speakers had an excellent hearing.
The resolution of protest was passed with only a few dissentients.
Women’s Tax Resistance League
Our members are still protesting against the sale of their goods to pay King’s taxes.
On , goods belonging to Miss [Ina] Moncrieff were sold at Harding’s Auction Rooms, near Victoria Station.
Miss Hicks and Mrs. Kineton Parkes spoke at the meeting, and a neighbourhood that was once distinctly hostile has become thoroughly sympathetic.
On , Mrs. Portrey’s goods were sold at the Harrow.
A garden-party was given by Mrs. Huntsman, of the Women’s Freedom League, and the procession to the auction-room started from her house, it being a joint demonstration of the Tax Resistance and Freedom Leagues.
Mrs. Kineton Parkes presided, and Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard and Mr. Laurence Housman spoke at the open-air meeting to a large crowd, which was gradually won over to sympathy with the arguments of the resisters, and finally passed a resolution approving tax-resistance.
The Branch wishes to express its very hearty thanks to our President and Mr. Laurence Housman for the splendid speeches they made at our garden meeting on .
Six new members were enrolled, and £4 8s. taken in collection.
A large crowd assembled and the meeting was in every way a great success.
After tea a procession was formed up to go to the protest meeting which was to be held after the sale of Mrs. Portrey’s goods for tax-resistance.
Mrs. Kineton Parkes made a splendid protest in the auction-room, and an open-air meeting followed, at which Mrs. Despard, Mrs. Parkes and Mr. Housman all spoke again.
The tax-resistance banners and the W.F.L. pennons marching down in procession created a great effect in Wealdstone.
Scotland — Edinburgh.
Suffrage Shop, 90, Lothian-road.
We have not yet quite arrived at the happy state of “not even being asked to pay our taxes.”
About ten days ago we received once more the Sheriff Officer’s intimation that if the tax be not paid within three days our goods would be seized and sold, and now await developments, as needless to say the tax remains unpaid.…
(from W.F.L. Literature Department, 1s.; post free, 1s. 1d.)
Not long ago, at the final meeting of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, it was decided to present the famous John Hampden Banner (which did such magnificent service at so many women’s protest meetings against the Government’s unconstitutional practice of taxation without representation), to the Women’s Freedom League.
We treasure this standard of former days, and now we are the grateful recipients of an edition of “The Tax Resistance Movement in Great Britain,” written by our old friend, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, with an introduction by another of our friends, Mr. Laurence Housman.
This little book is charmingly produced, and on its outside cover appear a figure of Britannia and the colours of the Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Every reader of The Vote knows that it was the Women’s Freedom League which first organised tax resistance in as a protest against women’s political disenfranchisement, and all our readers should be in possession of a copy of this book, which gives a history of the movement, tracing it back to , when two sisters, the Misses [Anna Maria & Mary] Priestman, had their dining-room chairs taken to the sale-room, because, being voteless, they objected to taxes being levied upon them.
Dr. Octavia Lewin is mentioned as the first woman to resist the payment of licenses.
It is refreshing to renew our recollections of the tax resistance protests made by Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Mr. [Mark] Wilks (who was imprisoned in Brixton Gaol for a fortnight), Miss [Clemence] Housman (who was kept in Holloway Prison for a week), Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison, Mrs. [Kate] Harvey (who had a term of imprisonment), Miss [Kate] Raliegh, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Saunderson, Dr. [Winifred] Patch, Miss [Bertha] Brewster, Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight (who was also imprisoned), Mrs. [Mary] Sargent Florence, Miss Gertrude Eaton, and a host of others too numerous to mention, and last, but not least, Miss Evelyn Sharp, who, as Mrs. Parkes says, “has the distinction of being the last tax resister to suffer persecution at the hands of unrepresentative government in the women’s long struggle for citizenship.”
The full list of tax-resisters appearing at the end of this pamphlet will be found to be of special interest to all suffragists.
I haven’t yet found a copy of this book on-line or available via interlibrary loan.
I might be able to order photocopies of a microfilm version held by a library in Australia, but I’m too cheap and so I’m holding out for a better option.
Any ideas?
Another source I’ve had trouble tracking down is Laurence Housman’s The Duty of Tax Resistance, which comes from the same campaign.
The Vote printed excerpts from it in their issue:
The Duty of Tax Resistance
By Laurence Housman.
Two years ago Members of Parliament determined to place the payment of themselves in front of the enfranchisement of women; and now women of enfranchised spirit are more determined than ever to place their refusal to pay taxes before Members of Parliament.
To withdraw so moral an object-lesson in the face of so shabby an act of political opportunism would be not merely a sign of weakness, but a dereliction of duty.
Nothing can be worse for the moral well-being of the State than for unjust conditions to secure to themselves an appearance of agreement and submission which are only due to a Government which makes justice its first duty.
It is bad for the State that the Government should be able to collect with ease taxes unconstitutionally levied; it is bad for the men of this country who hold political power, and in whose hands it lies to advance or delay measures of reform, that they should see women yielding an easy consent to taxation so unjustly conditioned.
If women do so, they give a certain colour to the contention that they have not yet reached that stage of political education which made our forefathers resist, even to the point of revolt, any system of taxation which was accompanied by a denial of representation.
It was inflexible determination on this point which secured for the people of this country their constitutional liberties; and in the furtherance of great causes, history has a way of repeating itself.
Our surest stand-by to-day is still that which made the advance of liberty sure in the past.
In this country representative government has superseded all earlier forms of feudal service, or Divine right, or the claim of the few to govern the many; and its great strength lies in the fact that by granting to so large a part of the community a voice in the affairs of government, it secures from people of all sorts and conditions the maximum of consent to the laws and to administration; and, as a consequence, it is enabled to carry on its work of administration in all departments more economically and efficiently than would be possible under a more arbitrary form of Government.
But though it has thus acquired strength, it has, by so basing itself, entirely changed the ground upon which a Government makes its moral claim to obedience.
Representative government is a contract which requires for its fulfilment the grant of representation in return for the right to tax.
No principle for the claim to obedience can be laid down where a Government, claiming to be representative, is denying a persistent and active demand for representation.
People of a certain temperament may regard submission to unjust Government as preferable to revolt, and “peaceful penetration” as the more comfortable policy; but they cannot state it as a principle which will bear examination; they can give it no higher standing than mere opportunism.
It may be said that the general welfare of the State over-rides all private claims. That is true.
But under representative government it is impossible to secure the general welfare or a clean bill of health where, to any large body of the community which asks for it, full citizenship is being denied.
You cannot produce the instinct for self-government among a community and then deny it expression, without causing blood-poisoning to the body politic.
It is against nature for those who are fit for self-government to offer a submission which comes suitably only from the unfit; nor must you expect those who are pressing for freedom to put on the livery of slaves, and accept that ill-fitting and ready-made costume as though it were a thing of their own choice and made to their own order and taste.
Representative Government man, without much hurt to itself, acquiesce in the exclusion from full citizenship of a sleeping, but not of an awakened section of the community.
And if it so acts toward the latter, it is the bounden duty of those who are awake to the State’s interests to prevent an unrepresentative Government from treating them, even for one single day, as though they were asleep.
They must, in some form or another, force the Government to see that by its denial of this fundamental claim to representation its own moral claim to obedience has disappeared.
That is where the great distinction lies between the unenfranchised condition of certain men in the community who have still not got the vote and the disenfranchised position of women.
It is all the vast difference between the conditional and the absolute.
To no man is the vote denied; it is open to him under certain conditions which, with a modicum of industry and sobriety, practically every man in this country can fulfil.
To woman the vote is denied under all conditions whatsoever.
The bar has been raised against her by statute, and by statute and legal decision is still maintained.
There is the woman’s direct and logical answer to those who say that, after all, she is only upon the same footing as the man who, without a vote, has still to pay the tax upon his beer and his tobacco.
The man is always a potential voter; and it is mainly through his own indifference that he does not qualify; but the woman is by definite laws placed outside the Constitution of those three estates of the realm from which the sanction of Government is derived.
If it asks no sanction of her, why should she give it?
From what principle in its Constitution does it deduce this right at once to exclude and to compel?
We see clearly enough that it derives its right of rule over men from the consent they give it as citizens — a consent on which its legislative existence is made to depend.
But just as expressly as the man’s consent is included in our Constitution, the woman’s is excluded.
From that exclusion the State suffers injury every day; and submission to that exclusion perpetuates injury, not to the State alone, but to the minds of the men and of the women who together should form its consenting voice as one whole.
This submission is, therefore, an evil; and we need in every town and village of this country some conspicuous sign that among women submission has ceased.
What more definite, what more logical sign can be given than for unrepresented women to refuse to pay taxes?
If Women Suffragists are fully awake to their responsibilities for the enforcement of right citizenship, they will not hesitate to bring into disrepute an evil and usurping form of Government which does not make the recognition of woman’s claim its first duty.
The Cæsar to whom in this country we owe tribute is representative government.
Unrepresentative government is but a forgery on Cæsar’s name.
For Suffragists to honour such a Government, so lacking to them in moral sanction, is to do dishonour to themselves; and to offer it any appearance of willing service is to do that which in their hearts they know to be false.
From pamphlet published by The Women’s Tax Resistance League.
1d.
Questioned on the Mark Wilks case in Parliament, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the ridiculous condition of the law, but was prepared to enforce it again in the same fashion to enrich his Treasury.
In the House of Lords, with even greater cynicism and dishonesty, Lord Ashby St. Ledgers denounced Mr. Wilks’s action as “in the nature of a political demonstration,” and said that “this imprisonment was intended to be a deterrent, a result to a great extent achieved, as other husbands were not likely to put themselves to the same sort of inconvenience.”
He admitted “illogicality” and “a certain substratum of hardship,” and “something especially out of date,” in a husband being imprisoned for failure to pay his wife’s taxes.
The Lord Chancellor agreed that the laws were full of anomalies, but appeared to think change even more dangerous, and involved himself in the following luminous remark:— “They would have to be very careful lest in making changes they stumbled into the temptation to take advantage of provisions which belonged to a past state of law, while at the same time taking advantage of changes which had been made in quite another direction.”
Dr. Elizabeth Knight, hon. treasurer of the W.F.L., was “hauled up” before the Justices of the Peace for non-payment of dog license at the Hampstead Petty Sessions, Rosslyn-hill.
Writing this in time to go to press, we do not know the result; but if our treasurer is penalised for this time-honoured protest against the upkeep of an unrepresentative Government, the W.F.L. members, we are certain, will rally strongly to a great demonstration in support of her action.
Mrs. Fyffe’s protest was a great success, a procession marching from Roxborough-mansions, Kensington, to the auction rooms at Westbourne-grove.
Miss Constance Andrews carried the W.F.L. banner and moved the following resolution:—
That this meeting protests against the seizure and sale of Mrs. Fyffe’s goods, and is of opinion that the tax-paying women of this country are justified in refusing to pay all imperial taxes until they are allowed a voice in deciding how these large sums of money shall be spent.
The John Hampden banner and other colours were carried, and speeches were made from a carriage decorated in the brown and black of the W.T.R.L. by Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Miss [Constance] Andrews, Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, and the Rev. Charles Baumgarten.
…An extraordinary general meeting was held on … Mrs. Rentoul Esler in the chair.
Business: To confirm the election of Mrs. Flora Annie Steel as president of the society (vice Miss Elizabeth Robins, resigned).
On the agenda: “Whether the W.W.S.L. should, as a society, resist the new insurance tax and refuse to insure their secretary, with her full consent to their so doing?”
A brief report from the Stamford Hill branch noted that “Mr. Mark Wilks’ reception was well attended by our Branch, and the crowded meeting testified to the high appreciation we all feel of his and Dr. Elizabeth Wilks’ plucky protest against the vagaries of Income-tax Law.”
Members of the Women’s Tax Resistance League attended the dinner of welcome held at the Hotel Cecil to the Men’s International Alliance for Women’s Suffrage, and the League was represented at the Congress by Mr. Laurence Housman.
Reception to Dr. and Mr. Mark Wilks.
The Women’s Tax Resistance League wish to announce that they have decided to hold a public reception to Dr. and Mr. Wilks on .
They trust that all Suffrage Societies will support this effort, because not only do they wish to do honour to those who have made such a brave stand for tax resistance, but to use the occasion, as one of many others, to keep before the public mind the necessity for the alteration of the laws which affect the taxation of married women until the reform promised by Mr. Lloyd George is debated in the House of Commons.
Amongst the speakers will be Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, Mr. George Lansbury, M.P., Mr. F. Pethick Lawrence, and Mr. Mark Wilks.
Tickets, 2s. each, including refreshments, may be had from all Suffrage Societies and from the office of the League, 10, Talbot House, St. Martin’s-lane.
The Case of the W.F.L. Hon. Treasurer.
On the hon. treasurer of the Women’s Freedom League was summoned to appear before the Hampstead Petty Sessions Court, at the instance of the London County Council, for refusing to contribute to taxation in the form of dog license.
Dr. Knight did not appear in person, and was represented by Miss Nina Boyle, of the Political and Militant Department, who was supported by Miss Andrews (National Executive Committee), Miss Hunt (assistant secretary to the League), Mrs. Spiller (hon. secretary of the Hampstead Branch), Miss Hicks, Mrs. Garrod, and other friends and supporters.
Mr. Dashwood Carter put the case for the London County Council, and Miss Boyle, invited by the chairman, Mr. Henry Clarke, to state Dr. Knight’s case, asserted that Dr. Knight was “not guilty,” as it was manifestly improper that she should be called upon to contribute to the upkeep of the Government when women were denied representation.
The chairman declared that those were considerations into which they could not go, as they were there to administer the law; whereupon Miss Boyle, expressing her desire to put her case “with the utmost courtesy,” contended that as women not only had to pay for the upkeep of the Government, but also for the upkeep of police-courts, they considered themselves fully entitled to make use of them for the ventilation of their grievance.
The Bench, after a period of indecision, suddenly remembered that the Council had not proved its case; and a witness was hurriedly summoned.
The prosecution incautiously admitted that since calling on Dr. Knight, a license had been taken out in respect of a dog, “but whether it was in respect of the dog at Hampstead, or another at Woodbridge (Suffolk), the prosecution could not say.”
Miss Boyle pointed out that if that were so, there was no proper case for the prosecution; and she would call attention to the grossly improper and slovenly fashion in which the case had been brought into court.
After much consultation, and on Miss Boyle stating that they were not there to contest the case, the Bench fined Dr. Knight £2, with 5s. costs, which, with extraordinary lack of understanding, the court then asked Miss Boyle to produce.
On the assurance that Dr. Knight had not the least intention of paying fines to the Government, the sentence was altered, after more deliberation, to “seven days.”
The prosecuting counsel then greatly improved his case by saying that more witnesses could have been brought from Suffolk, but he had not brought them “because of the expense.”
(Any law and any evidence, apparently, is good enough on which to convict voteless women.)
Dr. Knight’s friends were thereby enabled to leave the court with another emphatic protest against the slovenly and slip-shod procedure in bringing a case.
Dr. Knight has heard nothing further from the Arm of the Law, and is now awaiting developments with her well-known composure.
In Glasgow.
According to The Manchester Guardian, a Sheriff’s officer in Glasgow on , acting on behalf of the Crown, exposed to public sale a number of articles belonging to three women suffragists who as a protest had refused to pay their Imperial taxes.
Two are members of the Women’s Social and Political Union, and one is a member of the Women’s Freedom League.
A solid silver tea service, a gold watch and brooch, and a table and clock were sold.
They were bought on behalf of the parties concerned.
The women addressed the large crowd that assembled.
Miss Janet Bunten is, no doubt, our member referred to, and next week we hope to publish particulars.
Our hon. treasurer is still
at large, and members of Headquarters’ office, and those who kindly
volunteer to help with the arduous duties wrestled with there, still have the
pleasure of seeing Dr.
[Elizabeth] Knight coming and going as usual, in perfect unconcern. The
sentence of “seven days” has neither ruffled her serenity nor interfered with
the even tenor of her way; and the discharge of her term appears to have
receded into the dim and distant future. In this connection we may recall to
the minds of our members that the threat of immediate arrest levelled at Mrs.
[Charlotte] Despard some two years ago, for non-payment of taxes, has not yet
been carried out! Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s barricade against the tax-collector
also remains unbroken, and has in no way hampered her magnificent energy on
behalf of the International Suffrage Fair.
Probably not one of our keenest observers would, on a casual acquaintance
with Mrs. Kate Harvey, discern a fraction of the capacity for organisation and
business-like execution possessed by this unassuming woman. Even after many
years’ personal knowledge of her and of her generous support of our League in
so many ways, this splendid characteristic came as a revelation to me when I
called at her residence in Bromley the other day.
The house itself has been in a state of siege against the tax collector for
some months past, the windows bearing placards of the Tax Resistance League.
Entrance, therefore, was not too easy, even for a comrade. The locked gates
and the silence of the surrounding grounds gave an appearance of inertia,
but what a contrast when once admission was gained! The whole house, which is
a large one, seemed to have been converted into a warehouse and factory
combined. Here was the great clearing house on which the success of our Fair
depends.…
Suffragists will rally in force to greet Mr. Mark Wilks and his wife,
Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, at the
reception, organised in their honour by the Tax Resistance League, to take
place at the Caxton Hall, on The sympathy of
teachers with Mr. Wilks’ protest and imprisonment is shown by the fact that
the chair will be taken by Mr. R. Cholmeley, Headmaster, Owen’s School,
Islington, N. For particulars see page 30.
Mrs. [Ethel] Ayers Purdie’s splendid success at Sunderland, single-handed
against the Board of Inland Revenue, will be given in detail next week. The
Inland Revenue authorities, we understand, intend appealing to the High
Court.
The goods of Mr. J.A. Hall, of “Glenamour,” on
, Waterloo-park, Lancashire,
were sold for the second time against distraint consequent on his refusal to
pay income-tax on house property belonging to his wife. The goods were bought
in by a friend for the amount of the tax and expenses.
Mrs. Hall, who attended the sale in the unavoidable absence of her husband,
explained — by the courtesy of the auctioneer — to the large company of
sympathisers present that this action was taken as the most practical and
emphatic protest possible against the stupid and unjust action of the Revenue
authorities who despite the fact of the Married Woman’s Property Act under
which she herself is liable for her own debts, had forced the issue under the
Income Tax Act of 1842. This Act, whilst making the husband liable for the
payment of any tax on his wife’s own income, leaves him absolutely without
any power to obtain from her any information with regard to her income if she
declines to disclose it.
Mrs. Hall emphasised the absurdity and unfairness of such an enactment,
and said it was matter for considerable surprise that, quite apart from the
merits of the woman’s question, men had not bestirred themselves to force
the Government to remedy this utterly impossible state of things and make
women, if they could, pay this or any other tax whilst withholding
from them the Parliamentary vote.
[Our readers will be specially interested in the following account by Mrs. Ayers Purdie of her successful appeal against the Inland Revenue authorities.]
I desire it to be clearly understood that the following narrative is not an extract from Alice in Wonderland, neither is it a scene out of a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera.
It is a simple and faithful account of a successful Income-Tax appeal which was heard at Durham on .
The appellant was a Suffragist, belonging to the Women’s Tax-Resistance League and the Women’s Social and Political Union.
I was conducting the case for the appellant, which I am legally entitled to do under Section 13 of the Revenue Act, 1903.
Dramatis Personæ
The dramatis personæ are as follows: Two Commissioners of Taxes, elderly gentlemen, inclining, like all their kind, to baldness; spectacled of course; one of them wearing his spectacles high on his forehead, and looking out at me from under his eyebrows with a pair of piercing eyes.
These gentlemen hear appeals under the Income-Tax Acts, and are the judges therein.
Their decision is absolutely final, except on a point of law, in which case a further appeal may be made to the High Court.
To continue the list, there is also the Clerk to the Commissioners, who is a solicitor, member of a well-known North-country firm.
His business is to record everything, and to help the Commissioners on knotty legal questions; and, finally, the Surveyor of Taxes, who conducts the case for the Crown.
Opposed to all these learned gentlemen are my client and myself.
Unlike all other cases, in which the plaintiff or appellant has the opening and closing of the case, the procedure in these appeals is reversed; the Crown has the first and the last word, which puts a handicap on the appellant.
Accordingly the Surveyor of Taxes is invited to open the proceedings with a statement of his case; and he sets forth that Dr. Alice Burn, of Sunderland, Assistant Medical Inspector for the County of Durham, is receiving an official salary of so much per annum, and, though she has a husband, he lives in New Zealand, according to her own admission, so an assessment has been made on her salary and the Surveyor claims that he is fully entitled to do so.
Then it is my turn to put my case, and I freely admit all the facts as stated by the Surveyor, but challenge the conclusion he has drawn from them; my case being that by Section 45 of the Income-Tax Act of 1842 Dr. Burn cannot be held liable for the tax.
The solicitor reads this section aloud to the Commissioners.
Most women are familiar, since the famous [Elizabeth & Mark] Wilks episode, with the words on which I am relying.
They are, “the profits (i.e., income) of any married woman living with her husband shall be deemed the profits of the husband, and shall be charged in the name of the husband, and not in her name.”
One of the Commissioners asks in whose name was Dr. Burn’s salary assessed, and is told that it has been charged in her own name.
Geographical Separation.
The Surveyor, invited to offer any arguments or evidence to support his case, says that as Dr. Burn is here and Mr. Burn is in New Zealand, she cannot be living with him.
I argue, as against this, that the case really involves a point of law as to what is meant or implied by the words “living with her husband;” that these words must be interpreted strictly in accordance with their legal signification, and therefore I shall contend that my client lives with her husband in the legal sense, though I fully admit the geographical separation.
This term, “geographical separation,” seems to strike one of the Commissioners very forcibly; he repeats it with much relish, adding, “Yes, I can see what you mean, and I suppose you will say that the Crown cannot take any cognisance of a mere geographical separation.
Quite so.”
Apparently he thinks this is a good point, and he glances towards the solicitor, as if wondering how in the world they will get over it.
By this time both Commissioners, who started with the expression of men about to be frightfully bored, have become thoroughly alert and impressed; and the Surveyor appears to realise that his task will nt be such an easy one as he anticipated.
He becomes slightly nervous and confused, a little inclined to bluster, and to take the matter personally, which causes him sometimes to contradict himself and to refute his own arguments.
Being now invited to consider the point about “the geographical separation,” he declines to have anything to do with it, and strenuously denies that any point of law is involved.
He absolutely refuses to consider the matter from this standpoint, and declares that the Commissioners do not take the legal aspect into account in forming their decision.
According to him, this case is purely one of fact, and what the Commissioners have to do is to consider the actual fact, and nothing else.
He knows that if a woman’s husband is at the other side of the world she is not living with him in actual fact, and therefore cannot be said to be living with him at all.
Impertinent Questions
Asked by me to state on what authority he bases this last assertion, he says that he bases it on his own authority; and on his own common-sense.
This leads me to inquire how it happened that, being so fully convinced that my client was not living with her husband, he yet had written to her asking her to furnish him with her husband’s name, address, occupation, the amount of his income, &c. He begs this question by complaining that her reply had been that she could not tell him her husband’s address; and, of course, if a woman could not give her husband’s address it was perfectly plain that she could not be living with him.
I point out that this does not follow, and one of the Commissioners mildly suggests that my client shall explain why she made this reply.
She readily answers that her primary reason was indignation at his questions.
The Commissioner, who seems to be rather human, and quick at grasping things, remarks, “Ah, I see.
You thought he had asked you a lot of impertinent questions, and that was your method of showing your resentment.
Very natural, I’m sure.”
The Surveyor being apparently unprepared with any further argument or evidence beyond the assertion of his own common-sense, it is again my innings.
I take up the tale by reference to the decision in Shrewsbury v. Shrewsbury, which showed that the Crown can only claim to levy tax on spinsters, widows, or femes soles, and my client does not correspond to any one of these descriptions.
I quote precedents set by the Inland Revenue Department on other occasions; as witness the successful objection made to taxation by Miss Decima Moore, Miss Constance Collier, and sundry other ladies, whose circumstances were precisely the same as those of my client.
The Surveyor pretends to be too dense to understand how those ladies whose names I have mentioned could have husbands, and has to have it all minutely explained to him before he is convinced.
A Commissioner asks if I can give any other instances, and I reply, “I am an instance myself, if that will do.
My husband’s business compels him to live in Hampshire, while my own business equally compels me to live in London; but no Surveyor of Taxes has ever ventured to assess me, or to insinuate that I am a feme-sole.
Perhaps you will tell me that I do not live with my husband,” I gently suggest to the present Surveyor of Taxes, who looks as if nothing would give him greater satisfaction if he only dared, but he does not offer to accept this invitation, and the Commissioner hastily says, “I think we are now quite satisfied on the question of precedents.”
I am then proceeding to state that the Crown has itself embodied the correct attitude towards married women in one of the forms issues from Somerset House, in which reference is made to the treatment of “a married woman permanently separated from her husband,” when the Surveyor interrupts — “Are you giving that as evidence?”
“Yes, I am,” I reply.
“Then I shall object to it,” he says.
“I deny that there is any Revenue form having such words upon it, and I object to that statement being received as evidence.”
“As he repudiates the existence of this form, I fear we must uphold his objection,” says the Commissioner apologetically to me.
“Oh,” I exclaim, affecting to be greatly dismayed, “this really was my strongest point.
Do you mean to say you will not admit it because you have not this form before you?”
“I am afraid we cannot, if the Surveyor persists in his objection.
As you see, he is also making avery strong point of it,” is the reply.
The Surveyor intimates that he will persist.
“Very well,” I say, in a tone of resignation to the inevitable; and then there is a short and uncomfortable pause.
The Surveyor looks pleased, as though he fancies he has scored at last.
The other three appear to sympathise with me; even my client begins to look apprehensive, as if she fears I am done for.
Because (as she tells me subsequently) she also thinks I cannot produce this thing, and that I have only been bluffing.
Piece de Resistance
But I make a sudden dive down to my satchel, which lies open on the floor at my feet, and where, unseen by anybody else, the disputed form (No. 44A) has been lying in wait; my last act, before I left London, having been to equip myself with this most important document.
It is laid in front of the Commissioners, and they and the solicitor stare very hard at it, shake their heads over it, and murmur to one another, “Yes, it says so, right enough,” and “This settles it, don’t you think?”
When they have quite done with it, the Surveyor has his turn, and he pounces upon it, examines it intently, up and down, and all round, as if to convince himself that there is no deception, and that it is not a conjuring trick.
(I must do him the justice to say that I honesty believe he has never seen or heard of this form before, as it is very little used.)
It is now fairly evident that my pièce de résistance, No. 44A, has clinched the business, as I knew it must, and that my case is as good as won.
But the Surveyor starts off desperately on a fresh tack.
“Even if those words are on this form,” he says, in portentious tones, “it does not follow that what is stated on official forms is necessarily in accordance with law.”
“I quite agree with you there,” is my cordial reply.
“If everything that is contrary to law were to be eliminated from the form, there would be very little left.
But you may take it that the part I am relying on is perfectly good law,” and I glance toward the solicitor, who nods his assent.
“Then I shall maintain that you cannot reply upon what any form says, because the Board of Inland Revenue can at any moment alter the wording of a form,” says the Surveyor.
“Yes, the Board always have the power to vary the forms when they think fit,” echo the Commissioners.
“But they have not yet altered this one,” I object, “and you cannot raise a valid argument against it by simply saying that it might be something different if it did not happen to be what it is.
The Board have put these words on this form to serve some particular purpose of their own; and it so happens that it equally suits my purpose to make use of them here and now.
It is ‘up to you’ to decide this case in one way or the other; but the Crown is not going, as hitherto, to claim to have things both ways.”
“Both ways, indeed,” laughs one of the Commissioners.
“Why, the Crown will have it three ways, if it is possible.”
“And I am here to show the Crown that it is not possible,” I retort.
The Surveyor is disinclined further to contest the validity of Form No. 44A; but the solicitor seems to be uneasy, as if he feels that the Crown is losing prestige, and that somebody must make the running for it.
So he starts to read an obscure and wearisome section of the Income-Tax Act relating to “foreigners” coming to reside in this country!
Ethel Ayers Purdie.
(To be continued.)
I’ll post the second part of the above article on .
After inexplicable delays, the representatives of the Law have finally made up their minds to wrestle with the case of Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight.
On , the Hon. Treasurer of the League received a call from a gentleman who embodied in his person the might, majesty and power of the London County Council, and the Court of Petty Sessions, and showed a desire to annex Dr. Knight’s property in lieu of the £2 5s. which she declines to pay.
It is hardly necessary to tell readers of The Vote that he got very little satisfaction out of his visit, seeing that no fine was forthcoming, no property could be seized, and no information was vouchsafed.
After some slight altercation, and an almost pathetic attempt at persuasion, in neither of which was any advantage gained, the Law retired, to return at some future period (unstated) with a warrant for the arrest of the smiling culprit, who declined, in accordance with the attitude taken up by the Women’s Freedom League, to furnish any information or facilities to the agents of the Government.
Miss Janet Bunten, whose goods were seized in Glasgow at twenty-four hours’ notice, was absent from home with the women marchers at the time that the Government executed its mandate for the distraint.
We are glad to be able to say that a staunch friend of Miss Bunten’s, who belongs to the Women’s Social and Political Union — some of whose members were in the same plight — bought in the goods for her.
Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Last week Mrs. Kineton Parkes spoke at Manchester and Leeds, and on Mrs. [Caroline] Fagan spoke at Woking on the subject of Tax Resistance.
New members joined the League at each place.
On , a Tax Resistance meeting was held under the auspices of the Hampstead W.S.P.U., and was presided over by Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown.
Mrs. Kineton Parkes and Mr. Mark Wilks were the speakers.
Particulars appear in another column [sic] of the Caxton Hall Reception, on , to Mr. Mark Wilks.
Great interest will also be attached to the account of the case of Dr. Alice Burn, Medical Officer of Health for the County of Durham.
Mrs. Ayers Purdie appeared for her in Durham, and won our case against the Inland Revenue — a notable triumph for the Cause.
The Women’s Tax Resistance will join the Marchers at Camden-town on and proceed with the John Hampden Banner to Trafalgar-square.
“If anyone fears that he has not courage to go to prison he will soon find, when he is inside, that one of its peculiar characteristics is to produce a determination and courage undreamed of to resist, not its discipline, which is a farce, but its tyranny, which oppresses the weak, and vanishes like the mist before the strong.”
— Mark Wilks
Two meetings; the same hall; the same man as the centre of interest; yet what a difference!
In , Mr. Mark Wilks was in prison, and the Caxton Hall rang with the indignant demand for his release.
In Mr. Mark Wilks was on the platform, and the Caxton Hall rang with enthusiastic appreciation of his service to the Woman’s Cause.
“It is fitting that on this memorable day, when the Government has been defeated in the House of Commons, that we should meet to celebrate the defeat of the Government by Mr. Mark Wilks,” said Mr. Pethick Lawrence.
One had only to scan the platform and glance round the hall on to note that the Women’s Tax Resistance League has the power to call together men and women determined to do and to suffer in order to win the legal badge of citizenship for women and the amending of unjust laws.
Mr. Wilks and his brave wife, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, had a fine reception, and their speeches were clear, straight challenges to all to carry on the fight.
“We must never tire,” said Dr. Wilks, as she showed the injustice of the working of the income tax methods of collection, and told heartrending stories of the betrayal of young girls, “until we have won sex equality.”
“If anyone fears that he has not courage to go to prison he will soon find, when he is inside, that one of its peculiar characteristics is to produce a determination and courage undreamed of to resist, not its discipline, which is a farce, but its tyranny, which oppresses the weak, and vanishes like the mist before the strong.”
Thus, Mr. Mark Wilks; and, having been inside himself, he declared that he was most anxious that Captain Gonne should enjoy a similar experience, because he is resisting taxation, largely on account of the White Slave Traffic.
“They seized an obscure man; let the important ones be seized.
They did not know you were behind me; we will show the one or two men who really stand for the great scheme we call ‘Government,’ that we are behind Captain Gonne.
I have been inside and know how to do it.
Play the band and cheer.
The effect is electric!”
Mr. Robert Cholmely, M.P., from the chair, blessed the Tax Resistance movement; Mr. Pethick Lawrence acclaimed it as part of a militant policy against a Government which abandons its Liberal principles and finds itself defeated; Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard rejoiced that the best men were standing by the women; Mrs. Cobden Sanderson pleaded for more recruits for the League to help it to find more Mark Wilks; Miss Bensusan and Miss Decima Moore delighted and amused everyone by their recitations of imaginary Antis and real tax collectors.
A notable gathering on a notable day.
Few places could seem so unpropitious as a field for Suffrage propaganda as Bromley, in spite of the constant presence of a Suffragist of the calibre of Mrs. [Kate] Harvey; yet, strange to say, the outcome of her protest meeting on Monday was more than gratifying, and the event must be chronicled as an unmitigated success.
By the skilful handling of Miss Munro, a dense crowd which threatened disorder settled down to listen in patience to four speeches of more than average excellence; and when at the close three cheers were raised for Mrs. Harvey, there was a definite show of goodwill and appreciation of the attitude and view which inspired the protest.
From early in the day Mrs. Huntsman and a noble band of sandwich-women had paraded the town announcing the sale and distributing leaflets.
In the afternoon a contingent of the Tax Resistance League arrived with the John Hampden banner and the brown and black pennons and flags.
These marched through the town and market square before entering the hall in which the sale and meeting were to be held, and which was decorated with the flags and colours of the Women’s Freedom League.
Mr. Croome, the King’s officer, conducted the sale in person, the goods sold being a quantity of table silver, a silver toilette set, and one or two other articles.
The prices fetched were trifling, Mrs. Harvey desiring that no one should buy the goods in for her.
Much hostility was displayed throughout the proceedings; and several Freedom Leaguers were of opinion that it was long since so much unpleasantness had been experienced as during the day’s campaign.
When the Inland Revenue vacated the rostrum and Miss [Anna] Munro took the chair, an ugly spirit appeared to possess the meeting for a few brief moments; but it was charmed away by the chairman’s tact and firmness, and an excellent and most courteous hearing was given to all the speakers — melting, towards the end, into real sympathy.
The first speech was from Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, in her most spirited style, winning a hearty meed of applause; and she was followed by Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, who has an admirable “way” with a crowd.
Miss [C. Nina] Boyle then spoke, provoking much amused laughter; and the last speaker, Miss Hicks, closed the “case for the defence” with a well-pointed and finely-balanced argument.
After that came questions, which Miss Munro dealt with in her usual adroit manner.
The audience departed well satisfied and good-humoured, and several new members were won.
Tea was served at Brackenhill after the meeting, a party of ten having been entertained to lunch earlier in the day by Mrs. Clarkson Swann.
In the forenoon Mrs. Harvey and some of her friends, including Mrs. Snow, Mrs. Fisher, Miss Boyle, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Mrs. Clarkson-Swann, and some members of Mrs. Harvey’s household held rendezvouz at the local Sessions Court to hear the case against Mrs. Harvey in respect of not paying a tax on her gardener.
As when Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight was summoned, the representative of the London County Council brought his case into court in the most slovenly, scandalous fashion — these cases furnishing a lurid light on the way the liberties of the public are held cheap by careless authorities.
A spirited defence, which made the cocksure representative aforesaid look extremely foolish, was put up by Mrs. Harvey’s counsel; the verdict of the court being 30s. fine, and costs.
Mrs. Harvey declared she would not pay fine or costs, and the ultimate verdict was “distraint or seven days” — in the second division.
Among those who were at Bromley for the protest were Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Huntsman, Mrs. Kux, Mrs. Macpherson, Mrs. Smith, Miss F[lorence].
A. Underwood, Miss Howard, Miss Rowell, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr, Miss Barrow, and Miss Taylor.
In pursuance of our policy of tax-resistance, the Women’s Freedom League has decided to resist the Insurance Act on the ground that we refuse to acquiesce in any legislation which controls the resources of women without the consent of women.
We are now threatened with prosecution by the Insurance Commissioners, but it remains to be seen whether the latter will make good their case.
The public examination of Dr. Patch (Women’s Freedom League) in the bankruptcy proceedings against her by the Inland Revenue Department brought together a large crowd of suffragists belonging to all suffrage societies at Bankruptcy Buildings last Tuesday morning.
The officials were astonished to see women bringing in extra benches and overflowing into the solicitors’ seats and the Press pen.
The usual first item on the programme is the swearing of the alleged bankrupt.
Dr. Patch was therefore invited to take the oath, but replied that that was impossible, as she could not bow to the authority of that Court; a suggestion that she should affirm instead of swearing received the same answer.
The Court, being thus up against an insurmountable obstacle, waited a moment and thought it over.
Dr. Patch refused to answer any questions, “not recognising that the Court had any authority over her,” and the only information that the Court could secure was that she was determined not to pay the tax demanded, and that nothing they could do would maker her.
Asked whether she quite understood the fearful consequences of persistence (imprisonment &c.), she assured the Court that she was prepared for anything that might come.
Further progress seemed difficult, and the solicitor to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue suggested that the proceedings should be adjourned sine die, but the Court preferred to adjourn the case for three weeks, making the cryptic remark that three weeks would be “quite sufficient.”
The next gathering, therefore, will be on at Bankruptcy Buildings, Carey-street.
is the date of the official “Women’s Day,” and very appropriate for the next state of this protest.
Meeting at the Women’s Freedom League Headquarters.
There was a splendid gathering at the meeting at Headquarters to support the protest of Dr. Patch, and keen appreciation was expressed of her courageous stand at this time on behalf of unenfranchised women.
Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight presided, and pointed out that if the Government would enfranchise women much time would be saved that is now spent in endeavours to discover facts about tax-resisters, and the country would be better administered.
Dr. Patch’s statement of her experiences as a tax-resister and of the steps which led to the proceedings of , aroused special interest.
She declared that her action was not prompted by unpatriotic motives, as she was ready to give her utmost to the country — but of her own free will; her protest was against taxation without representation.
Mr. Pethick Laurence said that, as far as he knew, he and Dr. Patch were the only suffragists who had gone through the inconvenient form of protest of bankruptcy proceedings.
It was a form which caused inconvenience to the authorities, and brought home to the public the meaning of the suffrage agitation.
In an interesting survey of the situation to-day he discussed the Report of the Electoral Conference, and insisted that no franchise would be satisfactory which did not achieve equality for men and women.
Even in the most remote and unlikely possibility of the votes of all men being cast on one side and of all women on the other in an important issue, it would only mean the majority rule on which the administration of the country is based.
Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, a veteran tax-resister, said she had offered to give voluntarily the amount demanded of her by the Revenue authorities to any war charity, but her offer had not been accepted, and spoke strongly on the importance of resisting the possible conscription of voteless women.
The League meant to live up to its title, and women would only be free when they stood shoulder to shoulder as equals with men in the service of humanity.
Miss [Kate] Raleigh, another tax-resister, showed how the very universe works by the power of resistance, and urged the need for continuous resistance to fictitious ideas, including man’s domination of woman.
If conscription of voteless women should be attempted, sex oppression will follow.
Miss [Florence A.] Underwood, in paying tribute to Dr. Patch, as did all the speakers, made a stirring appeal to women suffragists to rally round the Flag and show Parliament, the public, and the Press that they were alive and active and meant to win their victory — the vote on equal terms with men.
On Tuesday, , Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight and Mrs. [Hortense] Lane had a waggon sold for non-payment of taxes, Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett came to speak.
The auctioneer was very sympathetic, and allowed Miss [Anna] Munro to make a short speech before the waggon was sold.
He then spoke a few friendly words for the Woman’s Movement.
After the sale a meeting was held, and Mrs. Tippett and Miss Munro were listened to with evident interest by a large number of men.
The Vote and other Suffrage literature was sold.
In the evening a meeting was held on Cornhill.
A large audience gathered, and listened for an hour.
At the evening, as well as the morning meeting the logic of tax resistance was appreciated.
Ipswich may congratulate itself on a good demonstration.
We are very grateful to Dr. Knight and Mrs. Lane for giving us this opportunity of declaring our faith in “No Vote No Tax.”
Elizabeth Knight also penned a fundraising request for the same issue, to defray the costs of her defense and imprisonment.
A resolution on the militant policy declared that “We continue our policy of resistance to taxes and to the Insurance Act until a measure for Woman Suffrage is on the Statute Book; that Suffragists refuse subscriptions to churches and organised charitable institutions till the vote is granted, with a view to women making their power felt and to show the difference their withdrawal from religious and social work would make…”
Dr. Knight has not yet been consigned to Holloway to serve the sentence inflicted on her for her courageous resistance of Mr. [Lloyd] George’s extortions.
In the meantime, the Waggon was once more seized for taxes at Woodbridge, and Mrs. Tippett and Miss Munro took charge of the protest, which was made .
Miss Kate Raleigh gave a most interesting lecture on the “Daily Life of a Taxpaper [sic] in Ancient Athens” at Dr. Alice Corthorn’s drawing-room meeting held under the auspices of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, on .
Miss Raleigh held her audience spellbound as she showed the man’s day to be full of interests and life, while the woman had nothing beyond her weaving and spinning, even marketing being an excitement denied to her.
The chair was taken by Mrs. [Adeline] Cecil Chapman, who concluded her short speech with this advice to her audience:
“It’s dogged that does it — you must keep on and worry, worry, worry.”
A keen discussion followed, and a hearty vote of thanks was given to Dr. Alice Corthorn and Miss Raleigh.
Woman Scientist’s Protest.
On scientific instruments and book-cases belonging to Miss Ethel Sargent, Botanist of Girton College and President of the Botanical section of the British Association at the Birmingham Conference — a unique distinction — were sold at Girton as a protest against being taxed for national expenditure while she was denied a vote.
The sale attracted wide attention, and Miss Sargent’s dignified speech, maintaining that resistance to taxation without representation was “the only resource for voteless women,” made a deep impression.
Her speech was reported at length in the Press.
Forthcoming Sales.
, Mrs. Bacon and Mrs. Colquhoun will have goods sold for tax-resistance at , at Messrs. Westgate and Hammond, 81, South-street, Romford.
Procession from auction room to open-air protest meeting.
Speakers, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes and Miss Nina Boyle.
, Drs. [Francis] Ede and [Amy] Sheppard will have goods sold for tax-resistance at at Messrs. Hawkings, 26, Lisson-grove.
Procession from Marble Arch Tube at sharp.
Speakers, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, and others.
There is a waggon on the Cowslip Farm at Witnesham, Suffolk, which has
become quite celebrated. It has been sold twice annually for
and still remains on
the same farm.
It was drawn into Bond’s Sale Yard at Ipswich on
, and the plate on it
disclosed it as the property of
Dr. Elizabeth Knight and Mrs.
[Hortense] Lane. A placard described it as Lot 21, and when the other lots had
been sold the auctioneer approached the waggon, followed by a large crowd who
were curious to see what was the meaning of three women being seated inside,
apparently with a set purpose. Just as the crowd assembled
Dr. Knight came into the sale
yard to look after the welfare of her property.
Miss Andrews asked the auctioneer if she might explain the reason for the
sale of the waggon, and, having received the necessary permission was able to
give an address on tax resistance, and to show how it is one of the weapons
employed by the Freedom League to secure the enfranchisement of women. Then
came the sale — but beforehand the auctioneer said he had not been aware he
was to sell “distressed” goods, and he very much objected to doing so. He
declared that he regarded Dr.
Knight and Mrs. Lane as persons, and thereby showed himself to be in advance
of the law of the country. The meeting and the auctioneer together made the
assembly chary of bidding, and the waggon was not sold, which was a great
triumph for the tax-resisters. Further developments are eagerly awaited, for
it is assumed that the Government will not thus easily give up its claim to
tax unrepresented women, and will endeavour to find a less scrupulous
auctioneer. Miss Trott and Miss Bobby helped to advertise the meeting by
carrying placards round the crowded market.
C[onstance].E.A[ndrews].
Women’s Tax Resistance League.
At a Members’ Meeting at the offices of the League on
, with Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson
in the chair, speeches were given on the following subjects:— “The Recent
Sales and Protests,” by Mrs. Kineton Parkes; “Married Women’s Dividends” — test case, by Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie; “Married Women and Income Tax,” by
Miss Amy Hicks, M.A.; an interesting
discussion followed.
Sales of the Week.
On , Mrs. Skipwith, 13,
Montagu-square, W., and Gorse Cottage,
Woking, had a silver dish sold at Woking for refusal to pay Property Tax. A
good protest meeting was held, the speaker being Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd
Brown. On , a clock, belonging to
Miss Bertha Brewster was sold by auction at Wilson’s Repository,
Chenies-mews, Gower-street, because of non-payment of Inhabited House Duty.
At the subsequent protest meeting at the corner of Grafton-street, and
Tottenham Court-road, the speakers were Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Miss Sarah
Bennet, and others. On at
Eastchurch, Kent, Miss [Kate] Raleigh’s goods were sold for refusal to pay
Imperial Taxes. The speakers were Mrs. Sadd Brown, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, and
Miss Raleigh.
Rallies outside the courthouse or prison are one way of supporting resisters who are looking at doing time for taking their stand (see The Picket Line for ), and supporting their families while they’re being held captive is another (see The Picket Line for ).
Other ways to show support are to accompany resisters as they go to prison, to visit them or correspond with them while they are inside, and to be there to meet them when they are released.
Today I’ll give some examples of these ways of showing support for imprisoned tax resisters.
Sylvia Hardy
Accompanying resisters to prison
When elderly council tax rebel Sylvia Hardy was threatened with jail in , her supporters organized a convoy of cars to accompany her to the jail as a show of support.
In , Annuity Tax resisters in Edinburgh, Scotland, would go to prison in a parade of protesters.
One description of such a procession read:
[H]e was marched off to the Calton Jail, accompanied by the usual hasty muster of people carrying flags and poles, having placards on which were a variety of devices and inscriptions…
His daughter, a fine young woman, in a fit of heroic indignation which overmastered her grief and the natural timidity of her sex, seized one of the flags, and would have walked before her father to prison with the crowd, but was prevented by him and the interference of the humane bystanders.
When Kate Harvey went to prison for her resistance as part of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, fellow-resisters Charlotte Despard and Mary Anderson accompanied her to the prison gates.
When Elizabeth Knight was imprisoned on similar charges, she was accompanied to Holloway by resisters Florence Underwood and Isabel Tippett.
Visiting resisters in prison
Thomas Story, an English Quaker who was visiting the American colonies, was able to help two Quakers from Rhode Island who were in prison for not paying a militia exemption tax after having been drafted and refusing to fight.
Story helped them hold a Quaker meeting in the prison itself, and also (having some legal experience) tried to assist them in court.
When Zerah Colburn Whipple was imprisoned for failing to pay a war tax in , it was a comfort to him to have friends on the outside trying to get in.
He wrote: “Our friend John J. Copp, proved himself a true friend indeed.
Knowing that I would be lonely in the jail, he visited me every day after he learned that I was there, and when the keeper refused him admission, he demanded it as his right to visit his client, and claimed the right to see me alone too, which was granted.”
The Trafalgar Square Defendants’ Campaign helped to organize prison visits to people who had been imprisoned in the Poll Tax rebellion.
Corresponding with imprisoned resisters
I’ve done a lot of volunteer work with the Prison Literature Project in Berkeley, California.
Most of the letters we get are from prisoners requesting books — which makes sense, because that’s the sort of letter we explicitly ask for.
But a pretty hefty percentage of the letters we get are just expressing gratitude for the books and letters we previously sent — heartfelt, often heartbreaking gratitude, especially since many of the prisoners are of limited means and can barely afford to put a stamp on a letter.
This impresses on me how meaningful it is for people behind bars to get letters from friends outside.
The Anarchist Black Cross of New York City held a letter-writing evening for imprisoned war tax resister Carlos Steward in .
Brian Wright was the first person thrown in prison for Poll Tax resistance, during the rebellion in the United Kingdom, in .
While there he received over 800 cards and letters from supporters.
The Trafalgar Square Defendants’ Campaign made it a policy to ensure that at least one personal letter per prisoner per week came from someone in the campaign.
When Kate Harvey had barricaded herself in her own home to try to defeat government attempts to seize her property for taxes, a supporter sent her a poem to keep her mood up:
Good luck, my friend, I wish to thee,
In thy brave fight ’gainst tyranny.
Bracken Hill Siege will bring good cheer
To those who hold our Freedom dear,
And fight the good fight far and near.
And when oppression is out-done,
And Liberty, at last, is won,
When women civic rights possess,
They’ll think, I hope, with thankfulness,
Of those who bore the battle’s stress.
When a Colorado doctor was jailed for refusing to pay federal income taxes that fund weapons of mass destruction, it was reported that “[l]etters of approval have been pouring in to Dr. Evans, and since he is only allowed to write very few, his mother in Philadelphia has taken up the task of acknowledging them, sending at the same time a typewritten sheet explaining the affair in detail.”
Welcoming resisters back from prison
The campaign to resist Thatcher’s Poll Tax organized a march to Brixton Prison, which held most of the resisters then in custody.
Police attacked the march and arrested 135 people.
“That evening,” says campaign volunteer Danny Burns, “volunteers were sent to every police station to welcome those who were released on bail.”
This served not only to show solidarity, but also to make the arrested people aware of the legal support available to them and to encourage them to cooperate in their defense.
When Constance Andrews of the Women’s Tax Resistance League was released after having been jailed for a week for failure to pay a dog license tax, “a very large crowd — described in the local press as ‘an immense gathering’ — collected outside the prison to cheer Miss Andrews on her release.”
A procession with suffrage banners walked along with Andrews as she walked from the prison to a reception held in her honor.
When Mark Wilks was released from prison for failure to pay his wife’s income tax in , the Women’s Tax Resistance League held a reception for the Wilkses, saying that “not only do they wish to do honour to those who have made such a brave stand for tax resistance, but to use the occasion, as one of many others, to keep before the public mind the necessity for the alteration of the laws.”
Katsuki James Otsuka served a 120-day sentence for refusing to pay war taxes to the U.S. government (and then refusing to pay the fine he was given for his initial refusal) in .
A group of supporters demonstrated outside the prison at the time of his anticipated release, though “four carloads of state police” broke up the demonstration at one point, smashing a picket sign that read “You did right in refusing to pay taxes for A-bombs.”
During the white supremacist rebellion against the Reconstruction state government in Louisiana a man named Edward Booth was imprisoned for 24 hours for refusing to pay a license tax.
[I]t was agreed among his immediate personal friends, the members of the tax resisting association and their sympathizers, to make a grand demonstration, at the hour of his release, and escort him to his place of business, to show their sympathies, and in what approbation he was held for having become the object of an oppression, in the defence of his personal rights.
Before the hour of his release, a large concourse of people assembled before the doors of the prison, to hail the deliverance of the prisoner, and the anteroom was thronged with friends anxious to proffer the hand of sympathy and condolence. …
Mr. Booth filed out of the room and stepped into a carriage in waiting, amid rousing cheers and a stirring air from the band.
The carriage led off, followed by the band and the large concourse of people, who gradually fell into an orderly line of twos, to the number of about 400.
The marchers hung an effigy of the Reconstruction governor from a lamp post while loudly cheering.
When the procession reached Booth’s place of business, he gave a speech thanking the crowd for their support and urging them to renew their resistance.
William Tait, editor of Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine, was imprisoned for refusing to pay the Annuity Tax in that city, which went to support the official church, of which Tait was not a member.
After four days, he was released.
The Scotsman covered the story:
[Tait] stepped into the open carriage, drawn by four horses, which stood on the street…
At this moment, one of the gentlemen in the carriage, waving his hat, proposed three cheers for the King, and three cheers for Mr. Tait, — both of which propositions were most enthusiastically carried into effect.
The procession was then about to move off, when, much against the will of Mr. Tait and the Committee, the crowd took the horses from the carriage, and with ropes drew it along the route of procession…
As the procession marched along, it was joined by several other trades, who had been late in getting ready; and seldom have we seen such a dense mass of individuals as Prince’s Street presented on this occasion.
In the procession alone, there were not fewer than 8,000 individuals; and we are sure that the spectators were more than thrice as numerous.
Mr. Tait was frequently cheered as he passed along, — and never, but on the occasion of the Reform Bill, was a more unanimous feeling witnessed than on that which brought the people together yesterday afternoon.
