Some historical and global examples of tax resistance →
women’s suffrage movements →
British women’s suffrage movement →
Anne (& Mr.) Cobden Sanderson
On there was a most interesting open air meeting in Upper-street, Islington, when Dr. Jessie Murray, of Endsleigh-street, Tavistock-square, protested against the seizure and public sale of her carriage clock, owing to her refusal to pay Imperial taxes.
Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes and Mrs. Tyson also spoke, and gained the attention of a large crowd by whom the usual resolution was unanimously passed.
Tax Resistance in John Burns’ Borough.
On , Mrs. Beaumont Thomas and Mrs. Sutcliffe had goods sold by public auction, because of their refusal to pay King’s taxes.
The sale took place at Warren’s Auction Room, Battersea Rise, and afterwards a procession with banners flying wended its way to Mosbury-road, where a protest meeting was held and a big crowd assembled.
Miss Beaumont took the chair, and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. Kineton Parkes, of the Tax Resistance League, explained the reasons of tax resistance and answered the questions asked.
At the conclusion of the speeches cheers were given for the speakers, and a resolution was carried:
“That this meeting is of opinion that women taxpayers are justified in refusing to pay all Imperial taxes till they have the same control over the national expenditure as male taxpayers possess.”
In the Country.
On , goods belonging to Miss Rose were sold at Frinton-on-Sea, owing to her refusal to pay Imperial taxes.
. —
At Hammersmith, furniture was sold, the property of Miss Carson.
Open-air meeting. Speakers: Mrs. Armstrong, Mrs. Merrivale Mayer,
Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes.
. —
At Kilburn, a bookcase was sold, the property of Miss Green,
Hon.
Treas.
W.T.R.L.
Procession and open-air meeting. Speakers:
Dr. [Helen] Hanson, Mrs.
[Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr, Mrs. Kineton Parkes.
. —
At Mile End, a gold watch was sold, the property of
Dr. Elizabeth Wilks.
Procession from Aldgate Station to open-air meeting. Speakers: Mrs.
[Charlotte] Despard, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Kineton Parkes.
. —Brighton. Goods belonging to Mrs. Gerlach and Miss [Mary] Hare were
sold. Open-air meeting and public meeting in Lecture Hall at night.
Speakers: Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Miss Gertrude Eaton, Miss Hare,
Miss Nina Boyle, and the Rev.
J. Kirtlan.
Bournemouth. — Old silver was sold, the property of Miss Symons.
Open-air meeting. Speakers: Miss Howes, Miss Pridden, Mrs. Kineton
Parkes.
Henley-on-Thames. — A cow was sold, the property of Miss
Lelacheur. Open-air meeting. Speakers: Mr. and Mrs. Cobden Sanderson,
Mrs. Juson Kerr and Mr. Carlin.
. —Putney. The goods of Mrs. and Miss Richards were sold. Protest
meeting. Speakers: Miss Richards, Mrs. Juson Kerr, Miss Phyllis
Ayrtin, Miss Gilliat and Mrs. Cobden Sanderson.
Battersea. — Goods belonging to Mrs. [Helen Alexander] Archdale were
sold. Open-air meeting. Speakers: Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Miss Clemence
Housman, Miss Thomas.
Highbury. — At the sale of a silver salver belonging to
Dr. Winifred Patch, of
Highbury, Steen’s Auction Rooms, Drayton Park, were crowded on
by members of the Women’s Freedom
League, the Women’s Tax Resistance League, and other Suffrage societies. The
auctioneer refused to allow the usual five minutes for explanation before the
sale, but Miss Alison Neilans, of the Women’s Freedom League, was well
supported and cheered when she insisted on making clear the reasons why
Dr. Patch for several years
has refused to pay taxes while deprived of a vote. A procession was then
formed, and marched to Highbury Corner, where a large open-air meeting was
presided over by Mrs. [Marianne] Clarendon Hyde, of the Women’s Freedom
League, and addressed by Mrs. Merrivale Mayer.
Bromley. — Mrs. [Kate] Harvey,
Hon. Head of the
W.F.L.
Press Department, is again resisting payment of taxes, and has, in addition,
barricaded her house at Bromley. She hopes members of the Women’s Freedom
League will support her when the sale takes place, and if any members will
send their names to her, Mrs. Harvey will communicate with them direct as
soon as she knows the date and time of the sale. If possible, full
particulars will be published in next week’s Vote,
and information may be had from Headquarters.
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.
On , Mrs. [Margaret]
Kineton Parkes addressed the members of the National Union, at Cardiff, on
“The Principles of Tax Resistance,” with
Dr. Mary Evans in the chair.
On , Mrs. [Anne] Cobden
Sanderson visited Birmingham, and gave a lecture on “Tax Resistance” at the
Annual Meeting of the Women’s Suffrage Society, presided over by Mrs.
[Catherine?] Osler. Mrs. Cobden Sanderson has since left England to attend
the Stockholm Conference, representing the above Society.
During this week goods will be sold which have been seized from Mrs. Lilian
Hicks, Dr. Katherine Heanley
and Miss [Kate] Raleigh.
Also in the same issue was a letter from Kate Harvey:
To the Editor of The Vote
Madam,— Will you allow me a short space in your columns to protest against
the sale of my goods, which took place at Brackenhill, Bromley, on
?
Being by training, as well as by temperament, a law-abiding woman, I strongly
object to the necessity for such a course of action; but there is — there
should be — a limit to a woman’s patience. The limit is reached when they
talk of compelling us to contribute towards the salaries of the men who slam
the door in our faces! Resistance is our most effective weapon, for even the
stone wall of stupidity will yield to sufficient pressure.
I am not forgetting our mercies, labeled facilities, or Sir Edward Grey’s
speech; but I have heard of a trick played by ill-mannered boys. A
tempting-looking parcel is thrown right in front of you. When you stoop to
pick it up they pull a string which is invisible to you, and all you get for
your pains is a crick in the back. We must cut that string! — Yours
faithfully,
(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.
The statue of John Hampden, presented to the county of Buckinghamshire by Mr. James Griffiths, of Long Marston, in commemoration of the Coronation, was unveiled at Aylesbury on by Lord Rothschild.
There was a large gathering, representative of Buckinghamshire generally.
After some difficulty the Women’s Tax Resistance League received the assurance that they would be able to pay their last tribute to the great Tax Resister.
At the close of the unveiling ceremony a procession of members of the League crossed the market square to the statue, the crowd readily making way, while police lined the short route.
On behalf of the League, two delegates, Miss Gertrude Eaton and Miss Clemence Housman, laid a beautiful wreath at the foot of the statue.
It was made of white flowers, on which, in black letters, were the words, “From Women Tax Resisters.”
Within the circle of flowers was a ship in full sail with the name of John Hampden in gold letters on the streamers.
The ship was made of brown beech leaves (the beech is the tree most famous in Buckinghamshire) and white flowers.
Emblems were also laid at the base of the statue from the Irishwomen’s Franchise League [this was corrected in a later issue; it was actually from the Irish League for Women’s Suffrage] (a harp in Maréchal Niel roses), the Gymnastic Teachers’ S.S. (blue immortelles and silver leaves), and the London Graduates Union (a laurel wreath).
Among those present were Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown, Mrs. [Mary] Sergeant Florence, Dr. Kate Haslam, Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Miss [Minnie?] Turner, M.A., Miss [Maud?] Roll, Mr. Lee and Mr. Sergeant.
Tax Resistance: The Situation at Bromley.
“My goods are not yet seized for non-payment of taxes. I am still barricaded.
“Outside the gate!
“A most uncomfortable position for the tax collector!
But, while offering sympathy, I feel the experience will be beneficial.
There is nothing so enlightening as a little ‘fellow-feeling.’
Nothing like going ‘there’ to learn the discomforts of being where the woman is, and should be, according to the gospel of the man at Westminster.
Bolts and bars are never pleasant things to deal with — from outside!
They are terribly, cruelly hard to remove when fixed by men driven by fear to protect an unjust wall of separation.
But walls must yield to pressure, and the women gather, intent on ‘breaking down’; content, if need be, to ‘be broken.’
While men, relying on their fastenings, ignore the trembling of foundations, women know the wall is doomed, and when it falls they will flock in to do the bidding of the “Anti” — to scrub and clean, to mind the babies, to stay in the home — the National Home.”
K[ate]. Harvey.
Meetings in the Market-square, Bromley.
Meetings are now being held every evening in the Market-square, Bromley, and are exciting wide interest.
Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard was the speaker at the first, and told the crowd why Mrs. Harvey was making this emphatic protest against taxation without representation.
Mrs. Despard’s own experiences aroused much interest.
The following evening Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett spoke, and still larger crowds gathered to hear her.
By news of these regular meetings had spread, and the audience was ready to receive the speakers.
The “Antis” are showing themselves — a sure sign of our success — but the chief argument they bring forward, in the form of questions, is that of physical force: because women do not fight they should not vote.
Mrs. Merivale Mayer, the speaker on , was able to show how beneficial the women’s vote had proved in Australia, and told of the surprise of Australian politicians that the Mother Country still refuses to give the women the chance to stand side by side with men in the fight against evil.
The police are exceedingly kind — and evidently interested.
More Tax Resisters.
On , at Redding, goods belonging to Professor Edith Morley were sold.
Speakers: Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Miss Gertrude Eaton.
Also goods belonging to Miss Manuelle, at Harding’s Auction Rooms, Victoria Station, W.
Speakers: Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Dr. [C.V.] Drysdale; and at Working, silver, the property of Mrs. Skipwith, was sold.
Speakers: Mrs. [Barbara] Ayrton Gould, Mrs. Kineton Parkes.
On , at Southend, silver belonging to Mrs. Douglas Hameton and Mrs. [Rosina] Sky was sold.
There was a procession with brass band prior to sale, and also a very successful protest meeting.
Speakers: Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Mr. Warren.
The need for women to be on the watch is strikingly shown in the news of her experiences which has been sent us by Miss Clara Lee, of Thistledown, Letchworth, who points out how she forced an admission of error from the Inland Revenue Authorities.
She writes thus:—
As a tax resister, the following experiences prove the carelessness of Government officials.
Having refused to pay Inhabited House Duty (8s. 9d.) to the local collector, I was reported by him to the surveyor for this district, who sent a demand containing two inaccuracies.
I wrote to point that one ought not to have occurred, seeing that we had had compulsory education since ; the other, he would see did not agree with the original:—
Local Demand.
s.
d.
Schedule A
5
0
House Duty
8
9
Surveyor’s Demand.
£
s.
d.
Schedule A
0
5
0
Schedule B
1
1
5
House Duty
0
8
9
Schedule B, I found, applied to nurseries and market gardens.
So I wrote pointing out that the nearest connection I had to either, was that under the Lloyd George Insurance Act I was classed with agricultural labourers.
To this I received the following letter:—
4, Cardiff-road, Luton, .
Inland Revenue — Surveyor of Taxes.
Madam, — Referring to your letter of , I much regret that £1 1s. 5d. was included upon your demand note in error — the entry relating to the next person upon the collector’s return. — Yours faithfully,
(Signed) G.R. Simpson.
Is this the exactness of the work for which women, as well as men, pay so heavily?
How long would a commercial firm exist, if it allowed such errors?
How long would the public tolerate such mistakes by women workers in our hospitals and elsewhere?
The title of idiot, lunatic and criminal must revert to the people responsible for such a condition of things.
The 8s. 9d. Inhabited House Duty has now been deducted from my claim of return Income-tax; this seems an unusual proceeding.
Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s barricade is still unbroken.
Again congratulations.
Among the events of last week were:—
Drawing-room Meeting, , at Hans-crescent Hotel.
Hostess: Mrs. Alfred Nutt.
Chair: Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan.
Speakers: Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, and Rev. Hugh Chapman.
Drawing-room Meeting, , at 17, Kensington-square, W. Hostess: Lady Maud Parry.
Chair: Lady Maud Parry.
Speakers: Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mr. Laurence Housman.
Sale of goods, the property of Miss Maud F. Roll, on , at Rotherfield.
Speakers: Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Miss Honnor Morten, and Dr. C.V. Drysdale.
A great gathering assembled at Brackenhill to support Mrs. Kate Harvey in her spirited protest against the
Insurance Act. A decorated brake, adorned with Women’s Freedom League and
Women’s Tax-Resistance League banners, started from Headquarters’ Office at
, conveying some twenty-seven
persons, among whom were Mesdames Huntsman, [Anne] Cobden Saunderson, Tanner,
Mustard, Catmur, Pierotti, Green, Ball, Kux, Presbury, Johnson, Sanders,
Pyart, Watson, Spiller, Sutcliffe, Moser, Miss [Florence] Underwood, Misses
[Nina] Boyle, Sanders, St
Clair, and Lawrence. Miss F.A. Underwood and
Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight, who
went down by train, were accompanied by other members, and at the Bromley
Police-court were joined by Mrs. Snow, Mrs. Terry, Mrs. and Miss [Emma] Fox
Bourne, Mrs. Fisher, and other well-known members of the League.
Mrs. Harvey, charged on ten counts with neglecting to insure William David
Asquith under the provisions of the National Insurance Act, pleaded guilty
and said she did not mean to pay. Asquith was put in the box to prove that
his employer had refused to stamp his card; and the solicitor for the
Insurance Commissioners pressed for “special costs” on the strange ground
that there was no defence and that therefore the “public” should not be at
the cost of such a prosecution. Allusion was also made to Mrs. Harvey’s
well-known “objection” to paying taxes of any kind.
Mrs. Harvey then spoke. She said: “I am not resisting the Act as an Act. If
it had come straight down from heaven I should resist it just the same. I am
doing what every business man throughout the country does as a matter of
course — I refuse to pay for goods which I cannot choose.”
Continuing, Mrs. Harvey insisted on her right to choose the men who went to
Westminster to make the laws. “I am here because of my right to choose
clean-living men to make those laws, to save women from prostitution, to make
life more safe and our streets more safe for women and girls — aye, for our
children even. I stand here because I refuse to break the law — the
law has declared that there can be no taxation without the right of
representation.”
After consultation the magistrates imposed the vindictive sentence of £1
for each offence, £10; arrears of insurance due to Asquith,
5s.
10d.; court fees, £4
10s.; and “special” costs
(which we presume to be the solicitor’s own fees), £2
2s.; total, £16
17s.
10d.
Before leaving the dock Mrs. Harvey reiterated her intention not to pay. “I
would rather die first,” she exclaimed in a burst of fierce indignation as
she addressed the Bench. “I stand for justice, and this is injustice, an
injustice which will hang round your necks like a millstone and drown you in
your own incapacity and folly.” Loud cries of “Shame!” from the Suffragists
in court greeted the sentence, and Mrs. Harvey’s concluding remarks were
applauded.
The entire party was entertained to lunch and tea at Brackenhill, and in
the afternoon a poster parade, with alternate
W.F.L. and
W.T.R.
posters, was organised by Mrs. Huntsman. The placards were inscribed, “We
Refuse to Break the Law,” “Taxation of the Unrepresented is not Government,
it is Tyranny,” “We Refuse to Pay for Goods We Cannot Choose.”
In the market-place a mass meeting was held at
, with Miss Anna Munro in the chair.
A large, expectant crowd gathered long before the hour, and it is a
significant fact that the extreme hostility so characteristic of other
meetings at Bromley was conspicuously absent. A sea of upturned, attentive
faces listened without interruption to Miss Munro, who went over the grounds
on which women demand the Vote; and Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, who as
representing the Women’s Tax-Resistance League, pointed out that women
resisted the Act as women, as voteless women, and as tax-paying women; and to
Miss Nina Boyle, who summed up the position and set forth the policy of the
Women’s Freedom League.
That Waggon!
On ,
Dr. Knight’s famous hay waggon
was sold again at Woodbridge — this time to recover the amount of her dog
license and of the costs connected with the case. Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett, Mrs.
Lane, and Miss [Marguerite A.] Sidley represented the Women’s Freedom League.
Before the sale Miss Sidley addressed the market, explaining the
circumstances of the sale and the reasons for tax resistance. Afterwards Mrs.
Tippett gave a most excellent and telling speech which was listened to with
the greatest attention. While waiting by the waterside for their train our
members listened with much interest to an animated discussion on the merits
and demerits of tax resistance, and the speeches of the afternoon and of the
preceding evening when the Suffrage Pilgrims were at Woodbridge. The waggon
has done duty so often that it has now become historic in the Suffrage Cause;
future generations will, no doubt, rank it with John Hampden’s ship.
Dr. Knight is also resisting
the Insurance Act, and has received several calls from harassed officials.
She has arranged to meet them at some future date to discuss the whole
question.
Land Tax Resisted.
Miss Boyle has forwarded to the District Valuer of Worcester the following
communication in relation to the Inland Revenue “Forms” sent to her in
valuation of property in that neighbourhood:—
Sir,— I am exceedingly obliged to you for the interesting collection of
Forms 7, 17, 35 and 36 which you have been good enough to send me from time
to time. I trust you will continue and send me many more.
As for the provisional valuation being correct, I should think that in the
last degree unlikely. But as I have not the slightest intention of paying
anything whatever to the Government so long as women remain unenfranchised,
that is a question we need not go into for the present. — Faithfully
yours,
On , the last item on the catalogue of Messrs.
Whiteley’s weekly sale in Westbourne-grove was household silver seized in distraint for King’s taxes from Miss Gertrude Eaton, of Kensington.
Miss Eaton is a lady very well known in the musical world and interested in social reforms, and hon. secretary of the Prison Reform Committee.
Miss Eaton said a few dignified words of protest in the auction room, and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Saunderson explained to the large crowd of bidders the reason why tax-paying women, believing as they do that taxation without representation is tyranny, feel that they cannot, by remaining inactive, any longer subscribe to it.
A procession then formed up and a protest meeting was held at Bradley’s-corner, where speeches were made from a carriage by Mrs. Cobden Saunderson, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Mrs. Florence Hamilton, Mrs. Clarkson Swann, and Miss Gertrude Eaton.
The resolution was carried unanimously.
At the offices of the collector of Government taxes, Westborough, on a silver cream jug and sugar basin were sold.
These were the property of Dr. Marion McKenzie, who had refused payment of taxes to support her claim on behalf of women’s suffrage.
A party of suffragettes marched to the collector’s office, which proved far too small to accommodate them all.
Mr. Parnell said he regretted personally having the duty to perform.
He believed that ultimately the women would get the vote.
They had the municipal vote and he maintained that women who paid rates and taxes should be allowed to vote.
(Applause.)
But that was his own personal view.
He would have been delighted not to have had that process, but he had endeavoured to keep the costs down.
Dr. Marion McKenzie thanked Mr. Parnell for the courtesy shown them.
A protest meeting was afterwards held on St. Nicholas Cliff.
A very successful tour has been made by our Caravan in Bucks., under the charge of Miss Muriel Matters and Miss Violet Tillard.
Meetings were held in Great Missenden, Wendover, Aylesbury, Chesham, and Stoke Mandeville.
During the office will be open to receive letters and telephone messages for a couple of hours each morning.
Miss Neiligan, late headmistress of the Croydon High School, who has resided
for nearly forty years in the neighbourhood, and is widely known and
respected, had some of her silver sold at public auction
for the non-payment of
Imperial taxes. Mrs. [Anne] Cobden-Sanderson, representing the Women’s Tax
Resistance League, was, by courtesy of the auctioneer, allowed to explain the
reason of the protest. Judging by the applause with which her remarks were
received, most of those present were in sympathy. Mrs. Clarendon Hyde, on
behalf of Miss Neiligan, bought the article for a sum slightly exceeding the
claim. A meeting was afterwards held, at which most of the Suffrage Societies
were represented. Mrs. Cameron Swann (Chair), Mrs. Cobden-Sanderson, and Mrs.
Hyde were the speakers. A resolution was unanimously passed, calling on the
Government to bring in a Women’s Franchise Bill next year.
The thanks of our League are due to our courageous fellow-member, Miss Mary
Anderson, for the splendid opportunity provided by her for carrying our
gospel into new quarters. The quiet little village of Woldingham, one of the
beauty spots of England, has been thoroughly roused by Miss Anderson’s
spirited protest against the tyranny of taxation without representation; and
a great gathering of its inhabitants attended at the sale of her goods on
.
Our energetic and honoured workers, Mrs. Snow and Mrs. Fisher, most ably
seconded Miss Anderson in organising the protest. By the courtesy of Messrs.
Jarrett, the King’s officers, whose consideration and forbearance call for
our kindest appreciation, the sale was to have been held on the village
green, close to Miss Anderson’s residence; but owing to the inclement
weather, the adjacent public hall was “commandeered” for the ceremony. In
spite of an incessant downpour, the hall was packed with an appreciative
audience.
The sale was conducted, laughably enough, under the auspices of the Women’s
Freedom League and the Women’s Tax Resistance League; for, on obtaining
entrance to the hall, Miss Anderson and Mrs. Fisher bedecked it with all the
insignia of suffrage protest. The rostrum was spread with our flag
proclaiming the inauguration of Tax Resistance by the
W.F.L.;
above the auctioneer’s head hung Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard’s embroidered silk
banner, with its challenge “Dare to be Free”; on every side the green, white
and gold of the
W.F.L.
was accompanied by the brown and black of the Women’s Tax Resistance League,
with its cheery “No Vote, no Tax” injunctions and its John Hampden maxims;
while in the front rows, besides Miss Anderson, the heroine of the day, Mrs.
Snow and Mrs. Fisher, were seen the inspiring figures of our President and
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, vice-president of the
W.T.R.L.
Mrs. Huntsman took the chair as soon as the sale was completed and the
necessary sum realised. Mrs. Despard and Mrs. Cobden Sanderson were the
principal speakers, Miss Boyle expressing the acknowledgments of the two
Leagues and of Miss Anderson to the King’s officers for carrying out the
stern duties of their office with so little unpleasantness.
A resolution, proposed from the chair, and carried with only one open
dissentient, was couched in the following terms:— “That this meeting
supports Miss Anderson in her protest against the tyranny of taxation
without representation, and calls upon the Government to include women in the
Franchise Reform Bill.”
At the close of the ceremony the goods, bought in by her friends, were
presented to Miss Anderson, who briefly returned thanks, and expressed her
intention of maintaining that form of protest.
Among those present were Miss F[lorence].A. Underwood, looking very well and
sunburnt after “holiday” with the Scottish campaign; Mr. Snow, to whose
kind support no words will do justice; Mrs. [Kate] Harvey; Mrs. [Emma]
Fox-Bourne and her son and daughter-in-law; Mrs. Lawrence and her little
sons; Miss Charrington; Mrs. Robert Barr and her daughter and son-in-law;
Mr. and Mrs. Galbraith, Colonel and Mrs. Eales, Mrs. O’Sullivan, Mrs. Croad,
Miss Watson, and other well-known residents of the neighbourhood.
The next event of a similar kind to which we may look forward is the breaking
of Mrs. Harvey’s barricade at Bromley. Mrs. Harvey, with the greatest
resolution, has kept the King’s officer at bay for months; and she should be
heartily applauded for flying the flag of resistance, and invading with
suffrage protest and propaganda so notorious a centre of anti-suffrage
activity as Bromley. It is hoped that all good Freedom-Leaguers and all good
Tax Resisters will rally in force to the protest when the final act is being
played.
Articles of jewellery belonging to Miss [Kate] Rayleigh were sold on at the Chequers Hotel, Uxbridge, having been seized for non-payment of Imperial taxes.
This is the second occasion on which Miss K. Raleigh, who is a member of the Tax Resistance League, has made a similar protest.
The auctioneer was entirely in sympathy with the protest, and explained the circumstances under which the sale took place.
He courteously allowed Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr to put clearly the women’s point of view; Miss Raleigh made a warm appeal for true freedom.
A procession was formed and an open-air meeting subsequently held.
Mrs. Cobden Sanderson presided.
Mrs. [Marianne] Clarendon Hyde, Miss [Alison] Neilans and Miss Raleigh addressed an attentive audience.
A resolution was passed protesting against the sale, and calling on the Member of Parliament for the constituency to support the Conciliation Bill when it comes before the House next year.
The various Suffrage Societies were well represented.
Our Trafalgar-square Demonstration on , is to be a great success. It is being
advertised by the Caravan, which, covered with great banners, is parading
some of the principal thoroughfares all this week; it is accompanied by a
little band of chalkers and bill-distributers. The meeting is one of protest
against the biased administration of the law and its treatment of women, as
instanced in the two months’ imprisonment in the second division which Mrs.
Kate Harvey is now undergoing at Holloway because of her refusal to pay her
Insurance Tax and license for her manservant. We have a fine list of
speakers: Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Miss Nina Boyle, Miss Amy Hicks,
M.A., Miss Anna Munro, Mrs.
M[argaret].W. Nevinson, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Emma] Sproson,
Mrs. Tanner, Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett, Mr. Harry de Pass, Mr. George Lansbury,
Mr. H.W. Nevinson, Mr. John Scurr and Mr. Mark Wilks.
Vote-sellers, literature-sellers, collectors, and
banner-bearers please be at the office
We hope every London member will
attend the demonstration and bring as many friends as possible.
The meeting outside Holloway Gaol, held from the Women’s Freedom League Caravan, was small and not
particularly sympathetic. The speakers — Mrs. Hyde, Mrs. Despard, and Miss
Boyle — were heard without very much interruption, but with little
enthusiasm. The meetings at Bromley, on the other hand, held by the Women’s
Tax Resistance and Freedom Leagues alternately, have been more than
satisfactory. Miss Hicks and Miss Boyle, on
and
nights, secured excellent crowds on
the Market-square, and were listened to with deep attention and quiet
courtesy. These meetings will continue throughout Mrs. Harvey’s imprisonment.
The caravan will continue its advertising campaign through London and the
suburbs until ’s meeting is
over; and the list of speakers for the demonstration is more than satisfactory.
The following resolution will be put to the meeting:—
That this meeting protests with indignation against the vindictive sentences
passed on Voteless Women, and especially that on Mrs. Harvey; and demands
that the Government accord equal treatment to men and women under the law
and under the Constitution.
The arrangements are as follows:—
Platform 1. — Facing National Gallery.
Chair:
Miss Anna Munro.
.
— Mrs. Despard.
.
— Mr. George Lansbury.
.
— Mrs. Cobden Sanderson.
.
— Mr. Harry de Pass.
.
— Miss Nina Boyle.
.
— Resolution.
.
— Collection and Questions.
Platform 2. — Facing Strand.
Chair:
Miss Amy Hicks, M.A..
.
— Mr. John Scurr.
.
— Miss Nina Boyle.
.
— Mr. George Lansbury.
.
— Mrs. Nevinson.
.
— Mr. Mark Wilks.
.
— Resolution.
.
— Collection and Questions.
Platform 3. — Facing Pall Mall.
Chair:
Mrs. Tanner.
.
— Mr. H.W. Nevinson.
.
— Mrs. Tippett.
.
— Mrs. Sproson.
.
— Mr. John Scurr.
.
— Mrs. Despard.
.
— Resolution.
.
— Collection and Questions.
The Chair to be taken at .
Mrs. Despard’s letter to the Home Office asking for Mrs. Harvey’s release has
elicited the reply that the Home Secretary can see no reason to intervene,
and that he does not admit that “Queenie Gerald” is not still serving her
sentence.
Mr. Harben has addressed the following letter to the Home Office:—
Newland-park, Chalfont St.
Giles, Bucks. .
Dear Sir,— May I be permitted to appeal to you to use your power to secure a
reduction of the sentence on Mrs. Harvey, who as a matter of principle has
refused to pay the contribution due under the Insurance Act.
Justice can always afford to be merciful; unfairness is bound to fall back
on cruelty for its support. While women are voteless in the hands of men,
the sense of injustice is bound to arise among them; and that is all the
more reason why a Government, which does not propose to remove that
grievance, should be doubly careful to be fare in all other respects. Yet
more persons have been imprisoned for political offences in the last four
or five years than at any recent period in our history; and while the
administration of the law is thus openly prostituted for political purposes,
there is growing up in the public mind a contempt for the law so widespread
that it has already had a damaging effect on public order, and will
certainly lead to more serious consequences still.
I would ask you, Sir, what good purpose can possibly be served by such a
sentence as this? Two months in the Second Division will cause considerable
suffering to Mrs. Harvey herself; but so far from being a deterrent to her
or anyone else, its effect will be exactly the reverse. The fact that the
offences of Mrs. Harvey and Queenie Gerald are on the same level before the
law will ring as a challenge to all decent men and women throughout the
country to remove the poison from the springs of justice at all costs, and
with the utmost speed. Were it not that cruelty to women has now become a
Government pastime, and that the terrors of Holloway are so obviously the
panem et circenses thrown to the creatures of Llanystumdwy,
it would be impossible to suppose that in England such a sentence could be
allowed to stand. ―I remain, yours faithfully,
Suffragette propaganda postcard: “These useful little Articles / the enemy appals / You’ll find them come in handy / When the Tax Collector calls.”
“No Taxation Without Representation.”
Miss Marie Lawson asks us to publish the following abridged account of her
“snowball” protest, and to correct one or two errors in
our last issue. “Latter” was printed
for “former” in the second paragraph, and an impression was conveyed that the
“snowball” letter was to be anonymous, which is not the case.
Mrs. K. Harvey, of Bromley, has been committed for two months in the second
division for non-payment of a Government Tax and for non-compliance with the
requirements of the National Insurance Act.
As a declaration against the tyranny of arbitrary taxation, Mrs. Harvey
adopted the time-honoured protest of passive resistance — the only form of
protest, short of actual violence, that is open to the women of this country.
She had to choose between passive resistance and cowardly acquiescence. She
chose the former and, as a result, now lies in Holloway Gaol.
You are urgently requested to assist the agitation for her release in two
ways:—
By sending a postcard to the Home Secretary, The Home Office, Whitehall,
S.W., protesting
against the severity of the sentence and demanding her immediate
release.
By copying this statement in full and forwarding it to at least three of
your friends.
Printed postcards for collecting signatures in support of the protest can
be obtained from Miss Lawson on receipt of a stamped envelope.
The protest meeting , in spite of the numerous counter-attractions offered to the public, must be chronicled as one of our successes.
The resolution
That this meeting protests with indignation against the vindictive sentences passed on voteless women, and especially that on Mrs. Harvey, and demands that the Government accord equal treatment to men and women under the law and under the constitution,
was carried from each platform, and the crowd appeared entirely sympathetic.…
Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard made the first speech…
A sentence of monstrous injustice had been passed on Mrs. Harvey.
She refused to pay the insurance tax.
Let her point out the inequality of the sentences passed on insurance resisters.
Mrs. Harvey was sued for a count of ten weeks, amounting to 5s. 5d. To this was added costs and special costs, till it mounted to £17. For refusing to pay a license for a man-servant she was further fined £22. But a man who defaulted for thirty-one weeks and, moreover, deceived his servants into the belief that all was straight, was fined 15s. We realise, therefore, that this is vindictive.
Mrs. Harvey was fined not for refusing to pay her tax but for being a rebel.
Mrs. Harvey was a woman who devoted her life to the help of others.
During the dockers’ strike she had taken into her own home three of the dockers’ children and cared for them as if they had been her own.
For the sake of justice — for the sake of our country’s reputation — she asked the people to help.
“I ask all men — workers or not — to send a card to Mr. McKenna, demanding Mrs. Harvey’s release.
Work for the time to come, when men and women shall stand together to make the world better, purer, happier and holier than that in which we are condemned to live.”
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden-Sanderson’s point was that Mrs. Harvey was worth of the vote as a human being.
She had worked for the great movement of universal brotherhood.
Even caddies were striking now against the Insurance Act.
But the caddies would have a vote one day, and Mrs. Harvey never.
She objected, naturally, to obey laws made without her consent; and if ever there was a law which touched women equally with men, and left them, in fact, in a worse position than men, that law was the Insurance Act.
Resistance to taxation is no new principle.
Mr. Harry de Passe, speaking next, said: “I only wish more people would protest against this insurance tax, which has been imposed against the people’s will.
The sending of a good woman to prison for refusal to pay makes it clear to us that we are living under a Government of compulsion.
It is this principle of compulsion that we must fight.
As for those who had the vote, let them not use it for the furtherance of bureaucratic legislation.
Let the privilege and monopoly everywhere be abolished, so that the people may come into their own and be delivered from the control of the expert.”
Miss Amy Hicks, M.A., who took the chair on No. 2 platform, said that Mrs. Harvey had been sent to Holloway Prison for two months for refusing to comply with the Insurance Act, and for refusing to pay the license in connection with her gardener, on the ground that taxation and representation ought to go together.
Miss Hicks then read the following message from Mr. [George] Lansbury, who was too unwell to speak at the meeting:—
“Please say that I hope every man and woman who really believes in freedom and justice will not rest until Mrs. Harvey is released.
It is perfectly monstrous that the law should be administered in the iniquitous manner it has been in her case.”
Mr. John Scurr said he had come to protest against the action of the Liberal Government in respect to women… Mrs. Harvey, in company with the rest of women, either taxpayers or working women, had not been consulted as to the National Health Insurance Act.
Although that Act has placed a poll tax of 3d. or 2d. on every woman who works or employs labour at all, they have neither been consulted as to whether they desired that tax, what the amount of that tax should be, or what should be the benefits given under the Act; therefore Mrs. Harvey contended that, as she had not been consulted, she under no circumstances was going to pay that tax.
(Hear hear.)
… They have given Mrs. Harvey two months in the second division — (shame) — because she refused to pay a fine three times more than that inflicted on any man, and they called this justice!
The same motion was also carried by another meeting:
Tax Resistance.
The meetings at Bromley continue to be satisfactory, and at night’s gathering in the Market-square the resolution carried on Trafalgar-square was put to the assembled crowd, and carried with only four dissentients.
A good many people, however, refrained from expressing an opinion either way.
The meeting was under the auspices of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, the speaker being Mrs. Emma Sproson, who is now, we are glad to say, once more able to take up Suffrage work.
Bromley gave her a cordial reception.
Another item in the same edition concerns another meeting about tax resistance:
Tax Resistance.
A most enthusiastic meeting was held in the Market-square, Bromley, Kent, on night in connection with the imprisonment of Mrs. Kate Harvey for non-payment of her insurance tax and license on manservant.
Mrs. Cobden-Sanderson, of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, was followed by two Californian ladies, Mrs. [Eliza] Wilks and Mrs. [Laura] Grover Smith, both of whom enjoy the vote in their own country and voted in the recent election for President Wilson.
Both the American speakers supported tax resistance as one of the best methods of protesting against the present injustices to women.
The crowd throughout was entirely sympathetic and vigorously applauded the speakers.
Popular sympathy is obviously with Mrs. Harvey.
Mrs. Wilks is a Unitarian minister, and has worked for the Suffrage for fifty years.
Two charges of contravention of the Revenue Act were made at the instance of the Officer of Customs and Excise against Dr. Grace Cadell, 145, Leith-walk, Edinburgh, the well-known Suffragette, in the Midlothian County Justice of the Peace Court this afternoon.
The Clerk of Court read a letter from Dr. Cadell, dated from London, stating that as she was not a person in the eyes of the law it was impossible for her to appear personally.
Mr. Henry Seex, Officer of the Customs and Excise, stated that Dr. Cadell kept two carriages, and only held a license for one.
She had been told about it, and refused to take out the license.
A fine of £2, with the option of ten days’ imprisonment, was imposed.
The second complaint was that she had armorial bearings painted on one of her carriages, and had taken out no license for the same.
She had had armorial bearings painted on her carriage for years, but this year she had refused to take out the necessary licenses.
When remonstrated with she had only replied that she was a Suffragette.
A fine of £3 3s. was imposed, which included the license, with the option of ten days’ imprisonment.
An editorial by C. Nina Boyle in the same issue gave a criticism of government and taxation that was more radical than just the basic no-taxation-without-representation argument common to women’s suffrage tax resistance:
“False and Fraudulent Pretenses.”
People who “obtain money by false and fraudulent pretenses” frequently find themselves in the dock answering for their unhandsome doings before a jury of their fellow-men.
The ordinary man is supposed to have a prejudice against being defrauded; the law is supposed to protect him against it; the public is supposed to approve of such prosecutions and to be ready to assist the law in its pursuit of the misdemeanant.
What causes surprise, under these suppositious circumstances, is to note the very large class of persons who obtain money by false and fraudulent pretenses who never reach the dock at all, and the apathy of that other class which never makes any attempt to put them there.
The class known vaguely but comprehensively as “the authorities,” for instance, is never put in the dock to answer for its abuse of public trust and squandering of public money.
Yet it has earned that guerdon as fully and as conscientiously as the absconding clerk, the bogus company promoter, the false trustee, and the confidence-trick man.
Why do not “the authorities” reap the same reward as those other malefactors?
We wonder why not?
Mrs. Harvey is in Holloway because she will no longer consentingly give her money to dishonest trustees to handle for her.
She has been adjudged “guilty” of a crime which is in reality no crime, but a public service.
She has set an example of watchfulness in the nation’s interests that others would do well to follow.
She not only will not pay for what she may not choose; she will not pay for inferior goods, for bad service, foisted on her without her consent, by false and fraudulent pretenses.
What is it we pay for? In the taxes and duties levied on the population right down to the poorest and humblest of all — who pay through their tea and sugar and the very necessaries of life — there is a vested right to a good return and to honest and able management.
These paid servants of ours — the Cabinet, the House of Commons, the Army and Navy, the Civil Service — represent the skilled labour of national employment.
Some of them get the highest skilled wages paid.
It is only the exception when skilled work is given in return for those wages.
The legal advisers of the Government, one way and another, draw some £45,000 a year.
The Attorney-General, besides his £7,000 a year, is entitled to charge a daily fee when put on to a job.
The other is only a waiting fee.
The result has been that one of the Government’s chief measures had to be withdrawn because it was not in order and did not comply with the rules; and a few days before the close of the Session a Government amendment of more than ordinary importance, affecting the shameful taxing of married women’s incomes, had to be dropped for the same reason.
These two measures both were of deep importance to women.
One was to have an amendment granting to women the rights of their citizenship; the other was to give them relief from an entirely illegal form of levying taxes on their incomes.
Both attempts at remedying injustice failed because of the incompetence of the Law Officers of the Crown.
Women are still to be refused the benefits of the Married Women’s Property Act when it comes to taxation, and over two millions of unlawful booty are still to be collected and disposed of by those guilty of false and fraudulent pretenses.
No wonder Mrs. Harvey goes to prison sooner than let them spend money of hers!
The President of the Board of Trade draws £5,000 a year.
He has under him inspectors who hold inquiries and make reports, and occasionally a Commission is appointed to make a special report.
Such a report was made, at great expense, about two years ago.
It was then pigeon-holed — a common fate of reports.
Then the Titanic went down, and another Commission sat.
This one cost upwards of £30,000. The Attorney-General cut in and drew his fees, and the Solicitor-General did likewise.
Then it transpired that there had been the former Commission and that its report had been pigeon-holed.
Had its report been carried out, the mortality from the Titanic disaster would in all probability have been less.
The public paid for both Commissions, both reports; and it paid more — the list of casualties.
The Board of Trade is conducting another inquiry now.
Major Pringle is inquiring into the Aisgill disaster, just as three years ago he inquired into the Hawes Junction disaster.
The recommendation made then was that electricity rather than oil-gas should be used for lighting.
The railway boards smiled courteously; the Board of Trade responded in kind; the same recommendation will now be made again.
Women and children have paid with their lives for the false and fraudulent dealings of the Board of Trade, whose duty it is to maintain and to introduce safeguards up-to-date for those who travel by land and by water.
Small wonder that some women are refusing to pay these “wicked and slothful servants.”
There was a fire at Messrs.
Arding and Hobbs.
Nine girl children were roasted to death on the roof or smashed to pulp on the pavement.
It transpired that young lads monkeyed around among the piled heaps of celluloid with gas-rings and blazing sealing-wax.
L.C.C. inspectors had said nothing; the manager pooh-poohed fire-drill as farcical.
No report of this scandalous neglect ever reached the L.C.C. through its inspectors.
There was another fire at John Barker’s. Five more girls frizzled to death in that outbreak; and it transpired that only a trifle over 500 of the thousands of London firms that keep young employees on the premises had complied with the L.C.C. regulations of , regarding precautions against fire.
Women are only allowed to vote in proportion of one to every seven men in local government; they cannot turn out these inspectors, and can bring but little influence to bear, for the elections are run on party lines.
The power above the L.C.C. is the Cabinet.
No London County Councillors have been put in the dock.
The Cabinet is composed of persons who at divers and sundry times perambulate the country with their cohorts of supporters and parasites, telling the gullible public, with an unparalleled effrontery of bluff, that in their hands the finances, interests, and persons of the community will be safe.
Other sets of politicians also go on circuit giving this a flat denial and upholding their own peculiar political pills and potions and panaceas.
Sometimes the winners call themselves Unionist, sometimes Liberal; they are equally false and fraudulent in their pretenses.
They draw large salaries for themselves, secure office, titles and pensions for their following; make shameless inroads for their own advantage into the public purse entrusted to their keeping, and misadminister the bulk with a recklessness only equalled by its ineptitude and inefficiency.
Commissions sit eternally, for no apparent object but to enable commissioners to draw fees.
The Housing Commission that sat at Birmingham denounced the “back-to-back” design; but houses are still built on the “back-to-back” plan in Birmingham.
The Poor Law Commission presented a Majority and a Minority Report.
Neither have been acted on, and Mr. John Burns is now upholding and extending the crying evils that the Commission sat to remedy.
The Commission on the Jury System sat for months and months; its report gave no relief to sufferers and no promise of justice; but even what it did recommend goes unheeded.
The Divorce Commission’s Report is waste paper; its only result, a private member’s Bill, with no ghost of a chance to obtain time or consideration, let alone a third reading.
The legal advisers help the Cabinet to frame laws, and the legal members of the House discuss and amend them, with the result that no one knows what they mean until other legal gentlemen, or the same ones, have been paid a second time to discuss them before a judge and jury, who must also be paid to say what they eventually do men.
The public pays three times over in this business of law-making; is it any wonder that some women are rising up to say they will pay no more until they have power to ensure more efficiency?
Nay, is it not far more amazing that they have not done so long ere this?
The Government is the Great Fraud of the age.
It and its supporters, with their false and fraudulent pretenses, cannot even govern.
No one will pretend, in this the twentieth century, that “government” is rightly interpreted as mere coercion, repression, or exhibition of force.
Government that is good, government, above all, that claims to be “representative,” must be based on the goodwill of those governed.
The Government does not exist for one set or one class or one portion alone.
No matter who elects it, no matter what its name, party or politics, all the community has an equal claim on it.
Unrest in any direction should enforce on a Government the duty, the necessity, of immediate attention to that unrest, and an endeavour to remove the cause in some fashion that will allay the unrest without causing undue friction elsewhere.
None of our governments do this.
It is the fashion in governing circles to allow unrest to simmer, boil over and create uproar and outrage; upon which police, military, and specially enrolled forces are most improperly burdened with the task of quelling riot and keeping order.
Governments that cannot govern, that delegate their proper functions to subordinate institutions, that prate of the voice of the people and the mandate of the people and the welfare of the people, but heed none of these things until driven to do so by outbreaks of violence; that keep office but neglect their work; that take pay and do not earn it, are an anachronism.
They obtain and keep their power by a system of false and fraudulent pretenses; and just as it is said in our little wars that “regrettable incidents” will continue to occur until one or two generals have been hanged, so lives will be sacrificed, children demoralised, and the people robbed wholesale, until some of the “managing directors” of our national firm make their appearance in the dock charged with obtaining money by false and fraudulent pretenses, or some other charge that will properly describe their crime.
Meanwhile women should not pay their national contributions; Mrs. Harvey will not do so; the goods are not worth the money.
The morals of Somerset House [the offices of Inland Revenue] are like those of the much abused “heathen Chinee.”
The Department has a very simple and convenient maxim by which it regulates its conduct, and that is, Never be aware of anything unless it pays.
So long as money could be easily obtained by annexing Mrs. Wilks’ furniture and effects, the Inland Revenue authorities shut their eyes to the fact that she was Mrs. Wilks, living with Mr. Wilks, and therefore might be assumed by any intelligent person to be married.
Their excuse is that she never “told” them she was married until recently, and so they assumed she was not!
Presumably they thought Mr. Wilks was her father-in-law or her grandfather-in-law, or that she called herself Mrs. Wilks by way of a joke.
So soon as they found no more money would be obtainable from her, they conveniently realised that she had a husband, from whom they demand the tax.
“But a great many excuses must be made for a Department which has only become officially alive to woman’s existence during the current year,” writes Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie to us.
“Hitherto all official letters began with ‘Sir,’ regardless of the fact that women pay taxes, and pay for the official stationery and clerical work.
As I objected to having ‘Sir’ hurled at me every time I opened an official letter, I drew up a form letter, in which I observed that ‘business men’ were in the habit of addressing women clients or customers as ‘Madam,’ and I should be much obliged if they would remember this fact, and refrain from the solecism of addressing me as ‘Sir.’
Every public official from the humble clerk up to Departmental secretaries and arrogant Treasury clerks received one of these letters as regularly as clockwork every time they called me ‘Sir.’
At last they have learnt to address women as ‘Madam,’ and this year even the printed forms begin ‘Sir or Madam,’ for all the world like a respectable business firm.
That “the Law is a Hass” no one has ever seriously attempted to deny; but what one wants to know is what to say of the people who make it?
This is an aspect of the case that has been much neglected; but with a little goodwill and concentration, we hope to make up for lost time and direct attention to the real offenders.
It is a poor kind of wit or wisdom that breaks its shaft over the suffering head of the Law, and keeps silence on the subject of the Law-maker.
The gentlemen who draw salaries large and small, ranging from £10,000 to £400 a year for performing what one might describe as the most highly skilled work required by the country, and who perform that work in such a way as to create such situations as that leading to the arrest of Mr. Mark Wilks for non-payment of taxes not his own and due on an income over which he has no control and whose amount he can only guess at, are surely playing the biggest “bluff” ever put up, on their long-suffering fellow-men.
One’s mind wanders between the alternative possibilities, that those in office are knaves while the others are fools, or that they are all knaves together; or that they are “mostly fools,” both in office and out.
…
…Acts in conflict with each other, such as the Income Tax and Married Women’s Property Acts, the National Insurance and the Truck Acts, should be brought into harmony on some definite ruling; and some attempt should be made by future legislators so to simplify their language as to make their meaning plain without the superfluity of litigation which their unhappy ambiguity at present inflicts on the nation.
While waiting for this legislative millennium, we fill in the time by demonstrating on every possible occasion how poor is the workmanship for which we are called upon to pay such preposterous prices, and how entirely logical and correct a fashion of protesting our displeasure and disability is the Tax Resistance policy, of which Mr. Mark Wilks and Dr. Wilks are the latest exponents.
All Suffragists will thank them for their spirited action, which from the nature of the case must have been painful and unpleasant for them both.
We shall not readily forget such support as that given by Mr. Wilks; and the demonstration on by the W.F.L., the W.T.R.L., the Men’s League and the Men’s Federation, showed how forcible is such action.
The position was entirely appreciated by the large crowds which gathered round the Lions in Trafalgar Square; and in spite of a good deal of laughter and “chaff” which was never ill-natured, a large section of the “long-suffering” British public testified to its dissatisfaction with the present state of the law and its approval of the tactics of the Women Tax Resisters.
True “Queen’s weather” favoured the opening of our autumn campaign on , when the Freedom League, in conjunction with the Tax Resistance League, the Men’s League, the Free Church League, and the Men’s Federation for Women’s Suffrage met in the Trafalgar-square to demand the enfranchisement of women and to protest against the imprisonment of Mr. Mark Wilks for the non-payment of his wife’s taxes.
Mme. Mirovitch and Mr. Herbert Jacobs were among those who supported the speakers.
The large crowd, which gathered half an hour before the meeting began and remained throughout the two hours of its duration, showed the widespread interest in votes for women.
Both before and during the speeches members of the Tax Resistance League paraded the Square, carrying sandwich-boards bearing the words in bold letters, “We demand the immediate release of Mark Wilks.”
There were two platforms on the plinth, one presided over by Miss Anna Munro and the other by Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett.
At both of these the following resolution was put and carried by a large majority:— “That this meeting demands from the Government the political enfranchisement of women this Session, and the immediate release of Mr. Mark Wilks.”
Ridiculous Position of the Government.
Mrs. Tippett, in opening the meeting, pointed out the extraordinary and ridiculous position in which the Government has placed itself by the arrest of Mr. Wilks.
The crowd was intensely interested while she read a statement of Mr. Wilks with regard to his position.
Mr. Futvoye, of the Men’s Federation, in moving the resolution, said how glad he was to be on a common platform with so many suffrage societies.
The women’s movement had drawn together people of different parties, religions and sexes.
He emphasised the fact that women will be unable to get fair conditions of life and labour until they get the vote.
As long as they are unrepresented the Government will take no notice of their demand for a living wage.
Mrs. Merivale Mayer, seconding the resolution, said there was much talk about progress in these days, but when women talked of it it seemed to be thought that she required man’s permission to rise.
This was not progress.
Miss Boyle, in supporting the resolution, showed the ridiculous situation brought about by the incompatibility of the laws with regard to Income-tax and the Married Women’s Property Act.
Members of Parliament are the servants of the people, paid, whether they be ministers or ordinary members, out of the pockets of both men and women.
Though paid to make laws, they did their job so badly that other people then had to be paid to find out what the law meant.
Women wanted better value for their money, especially when it was taken from them under compulsion.
Suffragists had found that Tax Resistance was very effective; but though Government was spending public money in trying to put down the Suffrage movement, they would not succeed.
In being so blind as to the strength and significance of the movement, and in their treatment of the women of this country, they were obliged to look either fools or brutes, and as they were not afraid to look either they succeeded in looking both.
An Appeal to Business Men.
Mr. Simpson supported the resolution.
He appealed to the practical business men in the crowd, who had the vote because others had fought for it for them.
After long years of legislation of the people for the people by the people they wanted less of Party politics and more improvement in social conditions.
In the Labour market, what had been done to raise wages was neutralised by the cheap labour of women.
Votes for women was the only remedy for this.
Miss [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, of the Tax Resistance League, explained that Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her taxes because she realised that such a refusal was the most logical protest a woman could make against a Liberal Government whose cry had been that with taxation must go representation.
The Government was bound either to remove the burden of taxation, or give women the vote.
She thought men ought to make the protest, for the Government had imprisoned a man, while Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Mrs. Pankhurst, and many other women who had not paid taxes for years, were still at large.
Worse than Ancient Rome.
At the other platform, presided over by Miss Munro, the mover of the resolution was Mrs. [Margaret] Nevinson, who kept her audience in a ripple of laughter.
She thought it was high time to alter the laws of this country, which in some respects were worse than those of ancient Rome, when in the twentieth century a man could be put in prison for doing nothing.
She told several very amusing and yet pathetic stories of cases she had known before the passing of the Married Women’s Property Act, but said that the passing of that Act had brought about such anomalies as the present one, when a man could be arrested for not paying his wife’s taxes when he didn’t even know her income.
Mr. Lawrence Housman, in seconding the resolution, said that as a member of the Tax Resistance League he would like first to thank the Women’s Freedom League for allowing them to share in this meeting and to state a man’s grievance.
He found women always ready to help men, and felt that if men had been as ready to help women they would not be in the position they are to-day.
According to the Anti-Suffragists, the sending of a man to prison for his wife’s default is an example of the wife’s privileges under the law.
All honest women want to get rid of this privilege.
At the mention of Mrs. [Mary] Leigh’s release there was loud applause.
Mr. Housman said the Government dare not kill her because, whatever she had done, they knew she was fighting for a just cause.
Here was a case where physical force, so beloved by the Anti-Suffragists was defeated.
Man and Woman Standing Together.
Mrs. Despard, who was received with loud applause, said it gave her peculiar satisfaction to support the resolution, particularly the last part of it, for in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Wilks she saw coming true an old dream of hers, the dream of men and women standing together, not only in the family, but in that larger family — the State.
She was proud that these were her personal friends.
It was difficult to understand the actions of the Government with regard to tax resistance, for she had not paid taxes for two years, and the Government had done nothing but tell her that she should know their intentions.
In Ireland one weak woman had defied them; they had found it useless to coerce; the only possible course was to yield to the just demands of womanhood.
Poetic Justice.
Mrs. Tanner said that although everyone was indignant at the arrest of Mr. Wilks, there was some sort of poetic justice in a man having to suffer through the muddle made by men.
It showed how incapable men were of legislating by themselves.
Women asked for a share in the Government in order to try and prevent such muddles occurring in the future.
Mr. Kennedy supported the resolution as a member of the Men’s League.
He reminded his audience that the poet Whittier, in writing of Women’s Suffrage, had said that it was right because it was just, and although the consequences were not known, it was the safest thing, the truest expediency, to do right.…
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, of the Tax-Resistance League, also very briefly supported the resolution.
She begged for sympathy and support of Mr. Wilks and announced how this could be publicly shown.
…
Enthusiasm for Dr. Wilks.
At the end of the meeting Dr. Wilks spoke a few words from each platform.
She was received with great applause, which was redoubled when she announced that neither she nor her husband intended to pay the tax.
Mr. Mark Wilks, of 47, Upper Clapton-road, N.E., was arrested on while on his way to the school of which he is headmaster, and removed to Brixton Prison, for the non-payment of his wife’s Income-tax.
He is the husband of Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, suffragist and upholder of the principle “No vote, no tax.”
Her goods have been distrained upon on two occasions for non-payment of taxes.
In a “manifesto” he has issued Mr. Wilks says:—
In my wife claimed that such distraint was illegal, asserting that under the Income-tax Act she, as a married woman, was exempt from taxation.
The authorities then wavered in their claim, making it sometimes on her, sometimes on me, sometimes on us both conjointly, finally on me alone.
On my pointing out that her liability had already been established by forcible distraint upon her property, I was informed that for the future I should be held liable, as that by the Income-tax Act the “wife’s property for purposes of taxation is the husband’s,” although by the Married Women’s Property Act it is entirely out of his control.
Thus I am to be held liable for a tax on property which does not belong to me.
I am now told I am to be committed to prison until such time as I shall pay the “duty and costs” — over £37.
Dr. Wilks’s Statement.
Writing to the Standard (“Woman’s Platform”) Dr. Elizabeth Wilks states the case forcibly and clearly thus:—
Will you allow me a space in your columns to explain as clearly as I can the position my husband and I respectively take in regard to the non-payment of tax on my earned income?
The Press misrepresents the case when it speaks of Mr. Wilks’s refusal to pay the tax.
I refuse to pay any Imperial tax until the Parliamentary vote is granted to women on the same terms as to men.
He does not refuse to pay, but as an assistant-teacher under the London County Council he has not sufficient money to do more than pay the tax on his own income, which he has done.
While, however, married women are not recognised as taxable units the claim does not fall on the right person.
At present the Income-tax Act still holds a man liable for the tax on his wife’s income, in spite of the fact that a more recent Act, the Married Women’s Property Act, has taken from him all control over that income.
Yet we neither of us dreamed that this anachronism would be thus glaringly exposed by the imprisonment sine die of a husband earning a smaller income than his wife.
I am taunted with the fact that while asking for my rights I am unwilling to accept my liabilities.
This is untrue.
I am asking to be recognised as a person both as regards rights and liabilities.
If the State comes to recognise me as a person liable to taxation, but still denies me representation, I, as a voteless tax-resister, shall be in Holloway Prison instead of my husband, a voter and taxpayer, being in Brixton — perhaps a somewhat less absurd position than the present one.
In the meantime the law does indeed press hardly on my husband, and a very striking example is given of the tendency of present-day legislation to penalise those who desire to comply with the marriage laws of the country.
Had the tie between us been irregular my husband would have been practically exempt from Income-tax, and for years I could have claimed abatement.
Because we are legally married he has had to pay the tax on the whole of his salary.
There is one other point I should like to mention.
From the outset of my professional career the authorities have sent the claim on my earned income to me and not to my husband.
In , instead of paying, as I had previously done, I wrote across the form, “No vote, no tax.”
They then distrained on me for the amount.
In I questioned the legality of the threatened distraint, and the authorities then wavered in their claim, making it sometimes on me, sometimes on my husband, sometimes on us both conjointly, finally on him alone.
Now after two years’ intermittent correspondence he is in prison for inability to meet it.
Manifestly if he is liable I am not, and the distraints executed on my goods were illegal.
If I am liable his arrest was illegal and the distraints on me should have been continued.
Certainly it is open to suppose that my husband’s imprisonment is not only unjust but unlawful.
A remark made by Mr. Hobhouse in a debate on the Finance Act on , makes this supposition the more probable.
On this occasion (Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 20, No. 92) he said, speaking on Mr. Walter Guinness’s amendment: “It may be said by hon. gentlemen opposite, ‘Why don’t you send one of the demand forms to the wife?’
I am not at all sure if that course were taken that the Inland Revenue would not put themselves out of court subsequently in their demand from the husband.”
Have they not in this case so put themselves out of court?
Mr. Hobhouse was not sure at that time.
Have the officials become sure since?
Teachers Sign a Petition
A petition against the arrest of Mr. Mark Wilks, the Clapton headmaster, for the non-payment of his wife’s Income-tax, has been circulated among London County Council teachers.
On the first day a thousand signatures were received, and many others are rapidly being obtained.
Protest Meeting.
A public indignation meeting, to protest against the imprisonment of Mark Wilks, will be held on , at the Caxton Hall, Westminster.
The chair will be taken by the Hon. Sir John Cockburn, K.C.M.G., and the speakers will be Mr. H[enry].G[eorge].
Chancellor, M.P., Mr. Laurence Housman, Mr. Herbert Jacobs, Rev. Fleming Williams, and Mr. G[eorge].
Bernard Shaw.
Tickets: Reserved, 2s. 6d.; unreserved, 1s. To be had from The International Suffrage Shop, Adam-street, Strand; and from The Women’s Tax Resistance League, 10, Talbot House, St. Martin’s-lane, W.C.
…Mrs. [Marianne] Hyde and Miss Bennett addressed a meeting in Regent’s Park on , and a resolution was passed calling on the Inland Revenue authorities to release Mr. Mark Wilks, who is imprisoned in Brixton Gaol for the non-payment of his wife’s income-tax.
The release of Mr. Mark Wilks, under precisely the same circumstances as the release of Miss [Clemence] Housman — that is to say, after a futile imprisonment, a series of defiant suffrage demonstrations, and with no sort of official explanation — is a triumph for the Women’s Tax Resistance League, the W.F.L., and the various men’s association[s] that helped to conduct the protest campaign.
It is more than a triumph; it is an object lesson in how not to do things.
To incarcerate a helpless and innocent man for his wife’s principles, knowing that that wife was one of a movement that never strikes its colours, was foolish on the face of it.
(That it was also unjust is a matter which we recognise to be of little consequence in the eyes of those who make and administer our law).
But to let him out without rhyme or reason seems foolishness of so low a degree that it is only to be described as past all understanding.
One is reminded of the genial duffer who protested that he might be an ass, but he was not a silly ass.
Our highest authorities are not so particular about their reputations as the stage idiot.
The Pity of It.
Yet we are all set wondering what is behind it all.
Is it a contempt so great for the intelligence of the public on which they batten which makes our rulers so unconcerned about even the appearance of wisdom or consistency?
Or is it sheer contempt for women which makes them bully, badger, and torture in turns, and then dismiss the matter as of not sufficient importance to pursue?
It is too easy and flattering a solution to determine that ministers have been impressed by the women’s resolute defiance.
It hardly accounts for the milk in the cocoanut.
Nothing, for instance, would have been easier than to give Mrs. [Mary] Leigh and Miss Evans first-class treatment, and keep them in durance for months and years!
The release of the latter lady at the same time as Mr. Wilks points, we sadly fear, not to an intelligent appreciation of the gathering forces of progress and humanity, but a cruel and callous disregard of wisdom, righteousness, and decency.
If this be “representative” government, it is a sorry testimonial to the worth of the [sic] those represented.
Terminological…?
No tale appears too farcical to present to the tax-payers on behalf of the Government.
One explanation that has been seriously offered, with a view to relieving the Chancellor of the Exchequer from any odium that may be incurred by those responsible for the Wilks imbroglio, is as follows: “The Chancellor knew nothing of the case.
His official correspondence followed him during his recent Welsh peregrinations, missing him everywhere, and only catching him up on his return to London, where he at once ordered a meeting of the Board of Inland Revenue, on whose report (unpublished) he acted promptly.”
Now this is a little too thin.
Wanted, a Good Lie.
The political and militant organiser of the W.F.L., who pens these lines, has to confess with emotion that during recent wanderings in the fastnesses of the Land of George, certain correspondence, re-addressed to divers and sundry humble cottages in mean streets, did indubitably go astray.
But the political and militant organiser is not a world-renowned personage who on occasion has been reduced to the Royal necessity of travelling incognito.
The more than Royal progress of the Carsons and the Georges does not lend itself to these subterfuges; and we feel inclined to give the Chancellor the advice addressed by a too intelligent master to a schoolboy of our acquaintance, whose effort at explanatory romance was not convincing: “No, no, George, my lad; that doesn’t sound likely.
Run away and think of something better.”
In consequence of the release of Mr. Mark Wilks, a sprightly account of which appeared in The Evening Standard, the proposed demonstration on Trafalgar-square was not held by the Women’s Tax-Resistance League .
The main issues which have been brought forward by this new phase of the struggle are:— “That the present irregular method of administering the Income-tax and Married Women’s Property Acts amount to a penalty on matrimony; that the relief afforded to persons of limited income is unjustly and illegally filched from them; and that the Tax Resistance campaign has for one of its objects the determination to secure to the public one million and a half of money which is at present improperly diverted from the pockets of the people to the Government coffers.
It took a woman expert — Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie — to fathom the real meaning of the law as it is administered to-day; and it is some considerable time since she expressed the opinion, and was laughed at by male legal experts for so doing, that the situation which actually arose was possible.
At Bolton.
A tax-resistance meeting was held at Bolton on , at which Mr. Isaac Edwards presided, the speakers being Miss Hicks and Mrs. Williamson-Forrestier.
The meeting was a public one, explaining the policy and principle of Tax Resistance, and was well attended.
The goods of Mrs. Fyffe, hon. treasurer of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, member of committee of the Horsham and South Kensington Branches of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, and hon. secretary of the London “Common Cause” Selling Corps, have been seized for tax resistance, and will be sold on , at Whiteley’s Auction Rooms, Westbourne-grove.
A procession will form up at Roxburghe Mansion, Kensington-court, at and start at going to the corner of Westbourne-grove and Chepstow-place, where a Protest Meeting will be held.
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, and others will speak.
The procession will then go on to the sale.
It is hoped that as many members of the Freedom League and other Suffragists as can will support Mrs. Fyffe by walking in the procession and attending the sale.
Mrs. Fyffe, who is an ardent Tax Resister, was presiding at a meeting of the Kensington branch of the National Union (London Society) at her own house, when the bailiffs arrived to distrain on her goods.
It was a novel experience for the non-militant ladies!
Pleasant Amenities.
Mrs. Louis Fagan, summoned at West London Police-court for non-payment of taxes in respect of motor-car, man-servant, and armorial bearings, had quite a merry dialogue with the presiding genius, Mr. Fordham, who waxed — might one say waggish?
— during the encounter.
After refusing to discuss her “conscientious objections” — while in no way belittling them — he imposed a penalty of 20s. and 2s. costs in respect of the man-servant; £10 2s. costs in respect of the motor-car; and 2s. 6d. for the armorial bearings.
Mrs. Fagan represented that her conscientious objection included fines as well as taxes, and he expressed regret at having no alternative to offer save imprisonment.
“I shall sentence you to a month,” he said, “but you won’t do it, of course — you ladies never do.
If I really wanted you to have a month, I should have to call it five years!”
With such little pleasantries the affair passed off in the happiest manner; and Mr. Fordham was equally obliging in fixing the time for the distraint on Mrs. Fagan’s goods “at the earliest possible moment,” to suit the lady’s convenience.
The goods were seized on ; and all Women’s Freedom League members who know anything of the way in which the sister society organises these matters should attend the sale in the certainty of enjoying a really telling demonstration.
Mr. Lansbury’s Chivalry
At a meeting held in the Hackney Town Hall on to demand the release of Mr. Mark Wilks, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks and the Rev. Fleming Williams, who were received with enthusiasm, both addressed the audience, and a resolution of protest was carried unanimously.
The stirring speech given by Mr. [George] Lansbury contained valuable hints for Suffragists.
“Parliament,” he said, “did not do more for the cause of the women because the women did not make themselves felt sufficiently.
If, instead of remaining Liberal, Conservative, or Socialists, they went on strike against the politicians, they would get what they wanted.
“Many years ago, Mr. Lansbury continued, he had believed in the honesty of politicians, and in the sincerity of political warfare, but much water had flowed under the bridges since then, and many new ideas had gone through his head.
What was of most importance to the women of this country was not politics — whether Tory or Liberal — but the emancipation of their sex.
“The imprisonment of Mark Wilks, though it might be a laughing matter to the daily Press, was no laughing matter for the man imprisoned.
It was a jolly hard thing for Mr. Wilks.
He believed that if the working-class women of this country could be got to realise that his was no mere fight for a vote, but a fight for their complete emancipation, they would soon get this sort of thing altered.”
Resistance in Scotland
The Glasgow Herald tells us that:— “Dr. Grace Cadell, Leith, has, as a protest against the non-enfranchisement of women, refused to pay inhabited house duty on a property belonging to her in Edinburgh.
Several articles of her furniture have been poinded to meet the amount of the tax, about £2, but so far the authorities have not taken these away.”
We are also expecting news of the distraint on Miss Janet Bunten’s property for the same reason.
Miss Bunten, Hon. Sec. of the Glasgow Branch, has already lost goods in this manner, and has also been sentenced to imprisonment for refusal to pay dog license or fine in default.
The other day a woman, an utter stranger to me, came into the office to seek advice.
She was a pale, worried little creature, and had a little blind child.
Her trouble was that she had had to leave her husband on account of his brutality — he seemed to be a thoroughly bad lot — and had returned to her parents with the child.
She never saw her husband, nor received any money from him, but he was getting her Income-tax repaid to him.
Her income was very small, and she needed it all for herself and her child, and asked how this procedure could be stopped and the money obtained for her own wants.
I could only tell her that nothing could be done, as the law held that her income belonged to her husband, on hearing which, she broke down and sobbed bitterly, saying she had thought that women might be able to help her.
These are cases one hears of every week, but the Press remains conveniently silently about such, and reserves all its sympathies for the “wronged” husband.
These repayments often amount to quite respectable sums, perhaps as much as £40 or £50, for a three years claim.
I must say that personally it is terribly distasteful to me, when I have recovered tax deducted from a married woman’s income, to be obliged to draw the cheques in favour of her husband, though morally the money is hers.
Yet this is what I am forced to do for my own protection, as, if I handed the money to its real owner, I should still have to pay it to the husband in addition.
He could sue me in the County Court for it, or I might perhaps be charged with “feloniously misappropriating” his money, if I dared to hand it to the wife.
The isolated case of Mr. Wilks is a relatively small matter when compared with numerous cases of defrauded wives.
Mr. Wilks, being released, will have saved £40 by imprisonment, and lots of these wives would joyfully do a few weeks in Holloway, if thereby they could save their money.
What we want to do is to get the law altered, and the Married Women’s Property Act recognised by the Crown, so that marriage shall not involve the brand of “idiocy” and a financial penalty for a woman.
But there seems to be a general impression abroad that the only injustice lies in Mr. Wilks being imprisoned, and not in the law being as it is; and that as he has been got out, that will be the end of the whole thing, and nobody need trouble about it or make any further fuss, unless and until another husband finds himself held liable for tax on his wife’s income, and put in prison for not paying it.
Whether people are Suffragists or Anti’s or neutrals, it is equally to their interest to get the law brought up-to-date.
The Anti husband of an Anti wife might quite as easily find himself in Mr. Wilks’ position, and “tax-resistance” has nothing to do with it, because Income-tax on a wife’s income may be demanded from a husband quite without his wife’s knowledge.
There is a case going on at the present time where 2s. 8d. is being demanded from a man for Income-tax on some Consols which the authorities state are held by his wife.
She has never been asked to pay it, and is not even aware that it is being demanded from him.
He disputes paying it on the ground that he has no evidence that she possesses any Consols, as he has never asked her anything about her means and never intends to do so.
He has formally appealed against the charge, and at the hearing of the appeal his wife’s name was not mentioned, nor her existence even referred to, as the Consols in question are legally deemed to be in his possession.
This husband will doubtless be put in prison in due course.
He contends, quite logically, that if he is held liable for the tax on one of his wife’s investments, he ought to be held equally liable for the tax on all of her other investments, and while the whole position remains so unsatisfactory and anomalous he will pay nothing and do nothing, but will remain simply passive.
At the hearing of the appeal two highly-paid Special Commissioners, drawing, I believe, at least £1,000 a year each, sat to consider the matter.
There was also present a Surveyor of Taxes, who had come up on purpose from Brighton at the public expense, the appellant and his legal representative (myself).
This gentleman and I wasted our valuable time, and the three Revenue officials wasted their time (and the public’s money) for upwards of an hour, discussing a matter involving 2s. 8d., and the existence or non-existence of some Consols which none of the persons present knew anything about.
There were also one or two clerks who took everything down; and altogether it was a most amusing demonstration of the methods of the Circumlocution Office, and the sublime art of How Not To Do It.
Numbers of married women invest their money in order to escape from the anomalies of the Income-tax Act, so some day we may see an equal number of husbands being called upon to pay tax on these investments (which they know nothing about), and ultimately getting locked up sine die.
When men in considerable numbers begin to feel the shoe pinching, probably some serious effort will be made to amend the law.
In the course of a well-reasoned speech, Mrs. Cobden-Sanderson said: We live in revolutionary times.
The will of the people must prevail.
The Portuguese Royal Family fell because it did not consider this.
Berlin has also revolted, and the revolt there would have been more sanguinary had it not been for women, who placed themselves in the front — themselves and their children — and it takes much self-sacrifice to sacrifice your child.
Here the women are also in revolt against the social and economical condition of things, for similar grievances prevail here to those which prevail in Tariff Reform Germany.
Mr. Lloyd George will be attacked more severely.
Hitherto he has had some unpleasant moments; now we are going to attack his pocket.
We are going to have our say in the spending of twelve millions on Dreadnoughts, and also on the reform of Poor Law system.
I am a Poor Law guardian, but I am almost ashamed to own it, for I find the whole system of Poor Law administration is rotten to the core, and I work harder as such than in presenting petitions at Downing Street.
Our next move is to pay no taxes.
It is the most direct and unanswerable method.
If we are not good enough to vote, we are not good enough to pay.
No vote, no tax.
Those little income-tax forms, Form Ⅳ. or Ⅵ., or some other number, will be just thrown into the basket and not returned.
Everyone who perhaps has not an income to be taxed can have a dog, and then refuse to pay tax.
We all at the bottom of our souls know that we want a betterment of affairs, and we women are going to try to alter things and improve conditions of men and women, and then the exports and imports will go up by leaps and bounds.
There are starving women in this richest country in the world, and therefore we are going to revolt and make a revolution among the women, and the revolution is sure to succeed if we give our lives and time and money to bring it about.
Mrs. Ayres Purdie A.L.A.A.
Mrs. Purdie spoke about the disabilities and handicap of women in professions due to their lack of status.
She was once the object of a Bill which, if it passed, would have made her liable to a fine of £10 and £1 per day thereafter so long as she continued practising her profession.
It was absurd to suppose women were going to pay M.P.’s to pass Bills such as these.
Women would never break down the barriers which kept them from advancing in the professions while they were denied representation.
Mrs. [Margarete Wynne] Nevinson.
Mrs. Nevinson… in the course of her speech said: The Conciliation Bill is a first instalment of justice, the first righteous thing that we accept and that we are willing to take.
If anybody owed you £1,000, and said, “I cannot give the whole amount to you now, but will pay you £100 on account and the rest later on,” every wise person having anything to do with finance would say, “All right, I will take the £100 now and the rest as soon as you can let me have it.”
Women are naturally becoming very indignant with the Budget, which has put Women’s Income Tax up to 1s. 2d. in the £.
Before the war we only paid 6d. Women had nothing to do with the causes involving increased taxation, and yet we now have to pay 1s. 2d.
Income-Tax Courtesy.
Here I have one of Mr. Lloyd George’s wonderful forms, with its numerous questions, to answer which intelligently I should require, apparently, the training of a lawyer and surveyor, and a fund of universal knowledge which I do not possess.
I am asked to answer those questions, but am not considered fit to vote for a member of Parliament.
This Form is addressed to me because I have a little freehold property, but it starts off with “Sir.”
I am sending it back, pointing our that I must be addressed as “Madam,” and not “Sir,” and that as I have not vote, I do not see what this matter has to do with me.
If you think of it, it is rather an insult to all women property holders to be addressed as “Sir,” and not by their proper title of courtesy.
The State seems to take for granted that there can be no free women or women freeholders in the country, but that all the land must be owned by men.
The Women’s Freedom League for the last three years has preached and practised tax resistance as a protest against unenfranchisement.
It is, therefore, very gratifying that the sister militant society has now decided, in the event of the Conciliation Bill not becoming law this session, also to adopt this form of protest.
It is to be hoped that the Women’s Tax Resistance League will succeed in persuading all the other Suffrage Societies to unite on this logical policy of refusing supplies until our grievance is redressed.
A number of members of the Women’s Tax Resistance and Men’s League rallied at Messrs.
Harding’s sale-rooms, Wilton-street, Victoria, , to support Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan in her protest on behalf of unrepresented tax-payers.
A diamond ring has been impounded, and was the first item on the catalogue.
Mrs. Fagan took advantage of the opportunity afforded to make a very telling statement of her position in respect of paying for the upkeep of unrepresentative government.
The ring was brought in by Miss [Gertrude?]
Eaton, and the “protestors” repaired to a handy pitch, where a street-corner meeting was held at which Mr. Sergeant presided, and Mrs. Fagan spoke again from a dog-cart decorated with the brown and black of the W.T.R.L. Mrs. Fagan called attention to the fact that she was not an habitual offender by stating that her recent appearance before Mr. Fordham was the first, and that it was the women who were not in such urgent need of the vote who were coming out to fight for the right to help the others.
Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes made one of her lucid and logical appeals, and the following resolution was passed:— “That this meeting protests against the seizure and sale of Mrs. Louis Fagan’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 those large sums of money shall be spent.”
The light relief was supplied by an irate dame who scolded Mrs. Fagan for not keeping to her place “in the home,” which brought down on her devoted but misguided head the remark that if that was how she felt, it was strange that she should not be there herself instead of at the meeting.
Sold at the Cross.
A “roup” was held at Mercat Cross of the seized goods of Dr. Grace Cadell, of Leith-walk, Edinburgh, who is also “out” against taxation without representation.
Dr. Cadell and her friends arrived on the scene of action in a decorated dray, and a large crowd assembled, which was addressed at the sale and at a subsequent meeting in Parliament-square, by the undaunted resister, and by Miss M. Burn Murdock.
To-Day’s Sale.
Mrs. Fyffe’s goods will be sold for Tax Resistance , at Whiteley’s Auction Rooms, Westbourne-grove, about A procession will start at from Roxburghe Mansion, Kensington-court, to Westbourne-grove, where a Protest Meeting will be held at the corner of Chepstow-place, and the speakers will be Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Louis Fagan, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Rev. Charles Baumgarten (Rector of St. George’s, Bloomsbury), and Mr. Laurence Housman, if he arrives in time from the North.
Mrs. Fyffe hopes that all who can will come and walk with her and attend the meeting and sale.
Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage.
…
At the monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Men’s League the following resolution was passed on the motion of Dr. Drysdale, seconded by Mr. J.M. Mitchell:—
“The Executive Committee of the Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage desires to record its sympathy with Mr. Mark Wilks in his imprisonment, and to point out that this imprisonment is the logical outcome of the law of coverture and of the non-recognition of women as responsible citizens.
In the interests, therefore, of men as well as women, it calls for the immediate enfranchisement of women, and for such alteration of the law as shall put women on an equality with men, as regards both the rights and duties of citizenship and responsibility before the law.”
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.”
Several married women Suffragists, acting on the advice of Mrs. E[thel].
Ayres Purdie, the only woman income tax expert, were able last year to
withhold moneys from the Treasury. So strong is the law in favour of the
position we take up that a case is now in hand to claim back the moneys
taken in taxation from a married woman during the last three years. The
legal inconsistency will provide us with an effective weapon.
Married women who have been separately taxed, or who have resisted taxation
and had their own goods seized in default should put their cases into Mrs.
Purdie’s hands. The law allows every one who pays income tax to claim
redress for any undue and illegal levy made during the last three years.
Therefore a married woman’s payments during the last three years can be
reclaimed if she can prove that they were paid by herself or deducted from
her personal income. This course should be followed wherever moneys are paid
out by trustees and agents, or deducted from interest on investments. By
this means not only this year’s taxes but a portion of previous years’ can
be withdrawn from the Treasury.
On morning Mrs. [Mary McLeod]
Cleeves appeared in the Swansea Police Court to answer a summons for keeping
a carriage without a license. Mrs. Cleeves made a clear and dignified
statement of her position, but the bench sentenced her to a fine of
10s. and costs, or in
default to seven days’ imprisonment! This alternative was evidently given in
the hope of frightening our Swansea Tax Resister into paying; for immediately
before her case was called an almost identical case was considered, the
defendant — a man — being called upon to pay
10s. and costs with no
alternative. However, Mrs. Cleeves was determined not to pay her fine and
was quite prepared to be taken off to prison at once. Mrs. Cleeves, Mr.
Hyde and I drove back to Sketty in the offending carriage. Later in the day
we heard through a solicitor that the Bench had made a slip regarding the
seven days and that a distraint warrant had been issued. Since then Mrs.
Cleeves has been beseiged by friends asking to be allowed to pay her fine;
but like a true Suffragette, she refused. And on
the police came to execute the
warrant, with orders from the Superintendent to take the carriage, which they
did with as little delay as possible. The warrant was issued for a guinea,
yet the officers of the law come along and seize a carriage valued at £30!
This is a piece of gross injustice. Whatever the motive that prompted it,
which most assuredly was not a friendly one, it has turned out to be the best
thing that could have happened. The newspapers took and published photographs
of the carriage being taken away, and gave splendid notices of this peaceful
protest. The Cambria Daily Leader says:—
“No Vote, No Tax!”
Swansea Suffragette at the Police Court.
At the Swansea Police Court , Mrs.
Mary Cleeves, Chez Nous, Sketty, was summoned for having a carriage without
a license.
Sergeant Thomas, Sketty, said he called at defendant’s house and asked if
she had a license. She replied, “No,” and she didn’t intend to take one
out. “No vote, no tax!” (Laughter.) The officer told Mrs. Cleeves he would
have to report her.
Clerk: And you have seen Mrs. Cleeves use the carriage?
Witness: Yes, sir.
Before this occasion? — Yes, almost daily.
Clerk (to Mrs. Cleeves): Have you any question to ask witness?
Mrs. Cleeves: No; I perfectly agree with what he has said.
Clerk: Have you any statement to make?
Mrs. Cleeves: As a matter of principle I have decided to pay no Imperial
tax till I get the vote.
Chairman (after consultation with the clerk): This can’t be called an
Imperial tax, Mrs. Cleeves, because the local authorities get the benefit.
However, we won’t say anything about that. An offence has been committed
and proved. You will be fined
10s. and costs, or in
default seven days.
Clerk: Seventeen shillings in all, Mrs. Cleeves.
Mrs. Cleeves: I refuse to pay.
Chairman: You had better consider the matter: I’ve hinted to you that I
think you may relieve your conscience a great deal when I say that this is
not an Imperial tax.
Mrs. Cleeves sat down where defendants usually sit who cannot or will not
pay the fine.
Clerk: No, you can go, Mrs. Cleeves.
Thanking the Clerk, Mrs. Cleeves retired, and the Clerk observed to the
Inspector: “Issue a distress warrant.”
On morning all Swansea opened its
eyes in amazement and admiration. The good people of the town are used to
seeing Mrs. Cleeves drive about in her carriage. On Saturday they saw her
driving, not her carriage — that is in the hands of the police — but her
cart. Everyone looked, everyone smiled, and everyone talked of the
Suffragette Tax Resister. One vehicle we passed on the road was full of women
who, on catching sight of Mrs. Cleeves in her cart, called out: “Well done,
ma’am!” Many another smiled encouragement, and we may fairly say that Swansea
is thoroughly roused by this last instance of Governmental tyranny. Now we
are waiting to hear when the sale will take place, and we shall hold protest
meetings all over Swansea. The Cambria Daily
Leader has a paragraph headed “Mrs. Cleeve’s Resource,” in which it
says that:
Notwithstanding the loss of her vehicle she was
seen driving about in a market
cart.
On night Mrs. Cleeves, Mr. Hyde
and I drove drove over to Llanelly and held a meeting in the Town Hall
Square. On we had a magnificent
meeting at Briton Ferry. There was very great interest and enthusiasm shown
in our work. At the close of the meeting we received quite an ovation — a rare thing here in Wales. Many pamphlets and
Votes were sold, and no less than seventy-four
postcards signed. These postcards are to Mr. Lloyd George asking him to
withdraw his opposition to the Conciliation Bill. Here again friends rallied
round and asked us to return on , for two meetings which they will advertise. Wherever we have been
with our cards friends have written asking for a packet to get signed amongst
their fellow-workers. Our Post Card Campaign in Wales has opened
successfully, and we hope this augurs well for the future.
A very successful drawing-room meeting was held on the evening of
, when
Dr. Lewin kindly invited
members of the above league to meet at 25, Wimpole-street, and in spite of
the stormy night her spacious rooms were crowded.
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson presided, and in a forcible little speech urged
the members to redouble their efforts to make this very logical form of
protest known amongst their tax-paying friends. Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard was
the speaker, and her eloquent address was listened to with the deepest
attention and admiration. She threw quite a new sidelight upon the somewhat
prosy subject of taxation by showing how men were giving themselves body and
soul to the piling up of gold and how commercialism was spoiling all that was
best in our nation. Women then, observing this, must attack the stronghold,
and see to it that John Bull’s money-bags were not so easily filled in the
future, as they would assuredly not be if the money of the women taxpayers
is withheld. Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes dealt with the business of the
league, and members signed pledge cards to signify which Imperial taxes they
would resist if the Conciliation Bill does not become law this Session.
An interesting discussion followed, and the collection amounted to £27.
At the Garden City.
Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Secretary of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, by
kind invitation of Miss Stephen Strong, held two most successful meetings at
Letchworth Garden City on .
She pointed out how needful it is to grasp the present opportunity of pushing
on the Conciliation Bill. She called attention to the continued injustice to
women by asking them to contribute imperial money where they had no voice in
its spending. She further urged that much had been said about indiscriminate
charity and the harm it did, yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer placed women
in the childish position of being responsible without an atom of authority.
Many of us had much too alarming ideas as to what would personally happen did
we become so courageous as to resist the tax — should we be sold up, should
we be imprisoned? for in spite of Mr. Winston Churchill’s less severe rules
than those imposed by Mr. Herbert Gladstone, prison has its horrors. Mrs.
Parkes allayed these natural fears by stating that articles to the value of
the required (unjust) tax are taken away and auctioned.
We had a capital meeting; converts were gained, earnest questioners were
satisfactorily answered, subscriptions flowed in, and a spirit of
determination took the place of uncertain fears and hesitation. Many ladies
pledged themselves to resist by filling up cards for that purpose.
Miss Lee, “Thistledown,” 2, Norton-way, Letchworth, Herts., will be glad to
give information and distribute literature.
Hon. Secretary: Miss
[Mary] Hare, 8, San Remo, Hove
Members of the Freedom League in Brighton and Hove are taking interest in
the Tax Resistance Meeting, to be held in the Hove Town Hall on Wednesday,
Mrs. [Caroline] Fagan and Mrs.
[Margaret] Kineton Parkes will speak, and Miss Hare will take the chair. It
is hoped that there will be a good attendance, as all are welcome.
On , a crowd of
Suffragists of all shades of opinion assembled at Hawking’s Sale Rooms,
Lisson-grove, Marylebone, to support
Dr. Frances Ede and
Dr. Amy Sheppard, whose goods
were to be sold by public auction for tax resistance. By the courtesy of the
auctioneer, Mr. Hawking, speeches were allowed, and
Dr. Ede emphasized her
conscientious objection to supporting taxation without representation; she
said that women like herself and her partner felt that they must
make this logical and dignified protest, but as it caused very considerable
inconvenience and sacrifice to professional women, she trusted that the grave
injustice would speedily be remedied. Three cheers were given for the
doctors, and a procession with banners marched to Marble Arch, where a brief
meeting was held in Hyde Park, at which the usual resolution was passed
unanimously.
On , Mrs. [Kate]
Harvey, of “Brackenhill,” Highland-road, Bromley, Kent, gave a most
successful drawing-room meeting to a new and appreciative audience. Mrs.
Harvey, who is a loyal supporter of Tax Resistance and had a quantity of her
household silver sold in , took this
opportunity of placing before her friends and neighbours the many reasons
which led her to take this action. Mr. Laurence Housman was the principal
speaker, and gave an address of deep interest and instruction on Tax
Resistance from a historical standpoint. Mrs. Louis Fagan presided, and made
an eloquent appeal for sympathy and support for this phase of the Suffrage
movement, and short speeches were also made by Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson
and Mrs. Kineton Parkes. Sales are expected in Reading and Holborn during the
coming week.
[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.
A small but representative gathering of old friends of the Tax Resistance League met at the house of Miss Gertrude Eaton, 3, Gloucester-walk, Kensington, on , to wish God-speed to Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, prior to her departure for Dunedin, New Zealand — whither all our best wishes will follow her, a little enviously, perhaps, for in these sad days many of us would welcome the chance of starting afresh in a new land of sunshine and blue skies!
The meeting was partly of a business nature (Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson presiding) to talk over sundry affairs of the League, before its indefatigable and indomitable secretary took leave of these shores.
The most important announcement from the chair was that Mrs. Kineton Parkes had written a book, the manuscript of which she is leaving with the Committee of the League.
It is a brief history of the tax resistance movement in Great Britain, and a record of the work done by the Women’s Tax Resistance League in helping to win the Parliamentary vote for women.
The members present welcomed this news with great enthusiasm, and a publishing committee was formed to see the book through the press when the right moment comes.
Many letters of regret were sent by friends unable to be present, all joining in heartiest good wishes to Mrs. Kineton Parkes for health, happiness and prosperity.
After eight months of masterly inactivity, during which time Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s locked gates, bolted doors, and defiant posters, “No Vote — No Tax!” have preached at Brackenhill, Bromley, their practical lesson to all passers-by of the injustice of taxation without representation suffered by women at the hands of a Liberal Government, the authorities at Bromley evidently endeavoured to give Mrs. Harvey a birthday surprise.
That they were just one day too soon was a mere masculine blunder.
On , after she had left Brackenhill for town, the attack on the barricades was successfully made with files and crowbars, and the “Dauntless Three,” the tax-collector, the bailiff, and a policeman found themselves in possession, representing the majesty of the law of the land, which takes women’s money without consent, and thinks that all is well.
We congratulate our good friend on the long fight she has made, and especially that, in the midst of the inconveniences of barricades, she carried on her magnus opus of the organisation of the International Suffrage Fair.
Members — particularly those who live in or near London — have now an opportunity of showing their gratitude to Mrs. Harvey in a way which she will deeply appreciate.
Let them rally in force at Brackenhill on the day of the sale and demonstrate the strong support which is behind our brave tax-resister.
It is injustice which turns women into rebels; for such earnest workers as Mrs. Harvey and Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett, who made a spirited protest at Stowmarket on , recognised by the State as citizens, are ready to render the help of which the State stands so badly in need, but is too prejudiced to make possible.
We trust that Mrs. Harvey’s eight months’ protest will be the last that she will be required to make, but we know that she, with the great army of rebel women, will resist until votes for women become a reality, and, as citizens, women taxpayers have a right to call the tune for which they have long paid the piper.
Information will be obtainable at Headquarters as soon as the date of the sale is fixed.
After being barricaded since , an entrance was forced into Mrs. Harvey’s home, Brackenhill, Bromley, on , by Mr. Croome, a bailiff, bearing a distress warrant, and accompanied by a tax-collector and a policeman.
Mrs. Harvey had left home for town shortly before the arrival of the three men, who filed the chain on the garden gate and used a crowbar to force the back door, as the servants, acting on Mrs. Harvey’s instructions, refused to open it.
Distraint was levied on the dining-room furniture.
The date of the sale is not yet known, but later in the week Headquarters will be able to supply information.
London members, and others in London on a visit, are urged to make a special effort to attend in force to support Mrs. Harvey in her splendid protest against taxation without representation.
Mrs. Tippett’s Protest at Stowmarket.
The Court, police, and general inhabitants of Stowmarket, on , had an exciting and vigorous incident of an unusual character.
The principal case in the police court was the summons against our esteemed fellow member of the N.E.C., Mrs. Isabel Tippett, for non-payment of a dog tax.
The Court was crowded with men and women, including Mrs. [Lila] Pratt, secretary of the Ipswich Branch, and Mrs. Foster, secretary of the Woolpit Group of the W.F.L.
When the other cases had been disposed of, Mrs. Tippett was called.
The gentlemen on the bench appeared much more nervous than the defendant, who promptly pleaded “Not guilty.”
After asking permission from the magistrates, who were too perturbed to offer any opposition save an occasional feeble interjection, Mrs. Tippett proceeded to call their attention to the delay in any action being taken, and that the whole case was grossly illegal, as women were not persons in the legal interpretation of the term.
On this legal point, she called Miss Anna Munro as witness for the defence.
Miss Munro cited the Scottish Graduates’ Test case, carried eventually to the House of Lords, where, with all the might of the greatest judicial court in Great Britain, it was upheld that women were not persons.
The clerk replied that sometimes women were persons and sometimes not, but in the matter of default of payment of a dog tax, magistrates and clerk unanimously decided, after due consultation, that Mrs. Tippett was a person.
Mrs. Tippett then made a few further remarks, but was interrupted by the chairman, who said that women’s suffrage must not be dragged into it; whereupon Miss Munro reminded him that he had transgressed, and not the suffragettes, on this occasion.
The Bench then retired to consider their verdict.
The chairman, Mr. Prettyman, announced that the defendant had been found guilty, the penalty 10s. and costs.
Mrs. Tippett thereupon, announced that she would not pay, and had no goods which could be distrained, and mildly suggested that they should commit her to prison in default.
This plan, however, they refused to entertain, and proclaimed the court closed.
A protest meeting, with banners and placards, “No Vote, No Tax,” was held shortly afterwards in the Market Square.
Miss Munro presided over an increasing and interested audience, which received Mrs. Tippett most cordially as she gave an eloquent and forceful explanation of the protest, the necessity for such action and of the policy of the Women’s Freedom League.
Miss Munro followed, and replied to a considerable fire of questions at the close of the meeting.
There is no doubt that protests such as this up and down the country create a deep impression, and bring home our message to the average elector in a truly forcible fashion.
On , Mrs. [Adeline] Cecil Chapman will have goods sold for tax resistance at the Broadway Auction Rooms, Walham green Station, at
A joint meeting of protest of the Women’s Tax Resistance League and the New Constitutional Society for Woman’s Suffrage will be held at Kelveden Hall, Fulham-road, opposite Parson’s-green-lane, at
Speakers: Mrs. Cecil Chapman, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown, Mr. J. Malcolm Mitchell, and others.
Friends are invited to join the procession, which forms up at , at Kelveden Hall, and marches to the Auction Rooms.
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.
On , Dr. [Winifred] Patch, of Highbury (Women’s Freedom League), made her second appearance at her public examination in the bankruptcy proceedings brought against her by the Inland Revenue Department, adjourned from .
The crowd of suffragist sympathisers was far larger than on the previous occasion, and included Mrs. Despard, Dr. and Mrs. Clark; Miss Evelyn Sharp, Mrs. Juson Kerr, Mrs. [Barbara] Ayrton Gould, Miss [Bertha] Brewster, Miss Smith Piggott, Miss [Agnes Edith] Metcalf, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Miss [Kate] Raleigh, Mrs. Julia Wood, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Miss Gertrude Eaton, Mrs. Mustard, Mrs. Tanner, Miss [Sarah] Benett, and many others.
To vary the proceedings Dr. Patch offered this time to make an affirmation, and answer any questions which seemed to her to merit a reply.
These were not very numerous.
Dr. Patch then stated her position:—
I do not acknowledge the authority of the Court, for it is being employed by the Crown not to fulfill its proper function of adjusting equitably the claims of creditor and debtor, but to enforce an unconstitutional demand, as did the Court of the Star Chamber 250 years ago.
It is to the British Constitution that the British Empire owes its place among the leading nations of the world, and it is the duty of her children to whom her honour is dear to keep her true to those principles.
I was a tax resister before the outbreak of the war.
The political truce with the Government was tacitly accepted by suffragists, and this would have prevented me from beginning tax resistance after war broke out.
I have paid no taxes for many years, and it is a breach of faith of the Government to have just started proceedings against me now.
By taking my money which is at my bank you only prevent me from putting it into War Loan, as I intended to do.
As regards the money left to me by my brother, who fell a few months ago, gallantly fighting for our country, I do not know whether you wish to take this from me.
I am a suffragist, I love my country, but I claim the right to give to my country in my own way what she has no right to take from me by force until women are represented in the Councils of the nation.
I ask that the judgment of bankruptcy against me be annulled.
The Court adjourned the proceedings for another fortnight, pending the receipt of the signed statement of particulars from Dr. Patch, which the authorities are so anxious to add to their documents.
Further developments will be announced.
Luncheon to Dr. Patch at Headquarters
After the proceedings at Bankruptcy-buildings, Dr. Patch was entertained at headquarters to luncheon, for providing which the Minerva Cafe added to its crown of laurels.
Mrs. Despard presided over a large gathering of supporters.
She expressed, amid applause, the warm appreciation and admiration of all for Dr. Patch’s service to the great cause of Votes for Women.
Dr. Clark praised the ability she has displayed in her plucky action, and declared that no class which possesses power gives in without a struggle.
Mrs. Kineton Parkes pointed out the heavy cost at this time of her sacrifice for conscience’ sake, and hoped that a memorial would tell future generations of Dr. Patch’s service to the cause of Votes for Women.
After short speeches from Miss Evelyn Sharp and Mrs. Mustard, Dr. Patch thanked everyone for their support, and used the words of the late Professor Kettle as expressing the attitude of unenfranchised women:
Bound in the toils of hate we may not cease, Free, we are free to be your friends.
Mrs. [Mary McLeod] Cleeves, who made such a determined stand last autumn
against being taxed and unrepresented, and whose dogcart was seized and
sold, is again defying the authorities.
Mrs. Cleeves, as a married woman, is not liable to pay income-tax, but,
regardless of the Act of Parliament which clearly states this position, the
local tax-collector has put in a bailiff in an endeavour to make Mrs. Cleeves
pay taxes which she is not legally bound to do. Mrs. Cleeves handed the
following statement to the official:—
I protest against your being here in possession, and I protest against any
of the goods in this house being seized. Everything here belongs to me, and
as a married woman I am not responsible for the payment of income-tax.
(When I offered to give the tax-collector Mr. Cleeves’s address, he
refused to take it.)
M. McLeod Cleeves.
The Tax Resistance League, as well as ourselves, is going to support Mrs.
Cleeves in any action which it is deemed wise to take, and in the meantime
both Leagues have written to the authorities at Somerset House and Mr. Lloyd
George. The following letter was sent from the League:—
To Inland Revenue Office.
.
Sir,— I have to request your immediate attention to the serious irregularity
in the case of Mrs. Mary McLeod Cleeves, a member of this League. An
assessment was made on Mr. Ed. A.
Cleeves, but in defiance of the assessment Mrs. Cleeves has been receiving
threatening demands, in her own name, for payment of the assessment. She
has, of course, refused to pay it as she is not liable, and no assessment or
charge may legally be made on her.
The local officials, however, have now proceeded to trespass on her
premises, commit damages, and take possession of her goods to recover a sum
which they are forbidden to charge on her, and which will be paid by the
person assessed as soon as he returns to this country, which may be at any
time now. This person has always paid it, and never refused to discharge his
legal obligations.
I may remind you that your department has said, in reply to a question asked
on behalf of Dr. Elizabeth
Wilks, that the Crown cannot seize the property of a married woman in order
to satisfy the husband’s debt to the Crown. The case of Mrs. Cleeves is
absolutely identical with that of
Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, of
Clapton, London, who informed the persons who were sent to levy a distress
on her property that she was not the person charged or liable, and that her
goods could not be seized. On hearing this the persons immediately withdrew,
and declined to proceed with the distraint. She has not been molested since,
but you will recall that after this incident you addressed a letter to her
husband, Mr. Mark Wilks, in which you call his attention to the fact that he
is the only person liable for all taxes, and that if he fails to pay, the
Board’s solicitor will take proceedings against him to make him pay.
You have now been asking him to pay this money for upwards of a year.
I must ask that, as the above is clearly the proper legal procedure, it shall
be adhered to in the case of Mrs. Cleeves also. Will you be good enough to
instruct the local officials that the distraint must be withdrawn, and that
they must refrain from molesting Mrs. Cleeves or trespassing on her property?
I would add that when the assessment was increased last year, Mrs. Cleeves
wished to raise an objection, but was quite properly informed that she could
not be heard, as she had no locus standi in the matter, as
she was not a person who could be charged under any circumstances, and
therefore could have no grievance, but that Mr. Cleeves was the only person
who could be recognised or listened to. It seems inexplicable that the
officials should seize the property of a person whom they have declared to
have no locus standi in the matter.
Requesting your immediate attention to the above facts, I am, yours
faithfully,
Edith How Martyn. Women’s Freedom League, 1,
Robert-street, Adelphi, London, W.C.
We are determined to do our best to make the authorities abide by their own
Acts of Parliament.
Dividends of Married Women.
All deductions from dividends paid on stock held by married women are illegal,
and married women should write to the secretaries of the companies and request
them to follow the procedure laid down by Parliament and to recover the
income-tax from the husbands, and in future to send the dividend in full.
Steady persistence along the lines afforded by the inconsistencies in the
law must end in drawing the attention of Parliament. Once that attention is
gained, it will be comparatively easy to insist that the first alteration in
the law must be to give representation where taxation is imposed.
Also from the same issue:
Protest at Brighton.
Owing to the enormous pressure put upon our space we are unable to give
details of the final stage of the proceedings taken against Mrs. Jones
Williams for her refusal to pay taxes. The goods seized were sold at the
public auction room. Before selling them the auctioneer allowed Mrs. How
Martyn to make a short explanatory speech, and he himself added that it was
an unpleasant duty he had to perform.
There was also much material about the related campaign of census resistance
in this issue.
One brief note on a meeting of the Great Marlow, Buckinghamshire branch,
mentioned that “Mrs. Scott, of High Wycombe, took the chair, and gave a short
speech on the necessity for tax resistance, which some in the district are
much in favour of.”
On Thursday evening, , a good
public meeting was held in the Town Hall, Uxbridge. The chair was taken by the
Hon. Mrs. [Evelina]
Haverfield, who gave a most earnest and spirited address upon the fundamental
basis of the Suffrage movement. Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes spoke on the
principles of tax resistance, and gave a short resumé of the work being done
by the society formed to put these principles into practice. Mrs. [Anne]
Cobden Sanderson made an urgent plea to the women of Uxbridge to boycott the
Census, and gave most lucid and logical reasons why the women should refuse
to be counted, and endeavoured to show the serious results which follow to
women from legislation without their consent. This meeting was entirely
given and arranged by Miss [Kate] Raleigh, who is a member of the New
Constitutional Society for Women’s Suffrage, and also the “Women’s Tax
Resistance League.”
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.
On old silver was sold at the
house of Miss Wratislaw, Bath, because of her refusal to pay Inhabited House
Duty. The articles were sold under
similar circumstances. Prior to the sale there was a procession, and
immediately afterwards a protest meeting, when Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes
moved the following resolution:— “That this meeting protests against the
seizure and sale of Miss Wratislaw’s goods, and considers that women are
justified in refusing to pay the Imperial taxes until they have the same
control over national expenditure as male tax-payers possess.” A successful
drawing-room meeting was held the next afternoon which aroused considerable
interest. New members were enrolled.
On Romford was shaken out of its
sleepy calm by the tax-resistance sale of goods belonging to Mrs. Colquhoun,
of Gidea Park, and Mrs. Bacon, of Hornchurch. A big crowd collected for the
protest meeting and listened attentively while Mrs. Kineton Parkes, of the
Women’s Tax Resistance League, and Miss C. Nina Boyle, of the Women’s Freedom
League, explained the reason for the refusal to pay King’s taxes, and
answered the questions which were put after the speeches were over. The usual
resolution was passed.
Medical Women Refuse to Pay Unjust Taxes.
On , a gold watch and chain were sold
under distraint for King’s taxes at Messrs Hawkings’ Auction Rooms,
Lisson-grove, the property of
Drs. Frances Ede and Amy
Sheppard, practising at Upper Berkeley-street. A procession with banners
marched from Marble Arch to the Auction Rooms, via
Edgware-road. As soon as Lot 1 was announced,
Dr. Ede protested against the
sale, and her brief speech was listened to with grave attention. The watch
and chain were knocked down at £8
18s.
6d. After three cheers had been
given to the tax resisters, the procession continued to Mary-le-bone Baths,
where an open-air meeting was held.
Dr. Ede presided; the speakers
were Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. Kineton Parkes. At the close of
the meeting, the following resolution was carried: “That this meeting
protests against the seizure and sale of goods belonging to
Drs. Ede and Sheppard, and is
of opinion that women tax-payers are justified in refusing to pay all
Imperial taxes till they have the same control over national expenditure as
male tax-payers possess.”
Come and protest against the official robbery of married women carried on by
the Government for their own benefit. Earl Russell and Mr. [Israel] Zangwill
will speak on the subject at the Caxton Hall on
The meeting is organised by the
Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Distraint was levied, on , upon
the property of [Mary Russell] the Duchess of Bedford in non-payment of
Imperial taxes due in respect of the Prince’s Skating Rink, and a silver cup
was taken to satisfy the claim. The Duchess has instructed the Women’s Tax
Resistance League to point out that this is quite out of order, because as a
married woman she is not liable to taxation, and therefore neither assessment
nor demand note should have been served upon her, but upon the Duke of
Bedford. She, however, allowed the authorities to proceed in this perfectly
irregular manner because she wished to use their mistake as an opportunity of
making her protest against the treatment of Woman Suffrage by the present
Government in the practical way of refusing to pay taxes until women are
enfranchised. Her comment is: “Obviously it is not my business to point out
the law to those whose duty it should be to understand it.”
A quantity of silver, the property of Miss Rhoda Anstey, Principal of the
Anstey Physical Training College, Erdington, Warwickshire, was sold on
, by public auction, under
distraint for King’s taxes. The sale and protest meeting took place in the
gymnasium of the college, and the speakers at the meeting were Mrs.
[Margaret] Kineton Parkes and Miss Dorothy Evans; Miss Leonora Tyson presided.
On goods, the property of
Dr. [Francis] Ede and
Dr. [Amy] Sheppard, of Upper
Berkeley-street, Portman-square, W.,
were sold by public auction at 26, Lisson-grove,
W.;
Dr. Ede made a protest against
the sale in the auction rooms. The speakers at the protest meeting which was
held after the sale were Miss Amy Hicks,
M.A.,
Dr. Ede, and Mrs. [Anne]
Cobden Sanderson.
On , Miss Rose, of Frinton-on-Sea,
had goods sold under distraint for King’s taxes, and Miss Amy Hicks,
M.A., was the speaker at the protest
meeting held in the small Town Hall, Miss Rose being in the chair.
The first tax resistance sale in the Lake District took place on
,
when Mrs. [Kate Raven] Henry Holiday had goods sold by public auction at
Hawks-head, Ambleside. A most enthusiastic protest meeting was held after the
sale, the speakers being Mrs. Kineton Parkes and Miss [Winifred] Holiday.
On , goods, the property of Miss
Corcoran, were sold at Loughborough by public auction, followed by a
successful protest meeting.
Miss Beatrice Harraden’s goods were sold on
, at Gill’s Auction Rooms,
Cambridge-road, Kilburn. Miss Harraden explained, in the auction room, the
reasons for her refusal to pay. At goods belonging to
Dr. Mabel Hardie and Miss
Gibbs were sold. There was a procession after the sale to public meeting at
corner of Harrow-road and Elgin-avenue.
Dr. Jessie Murray’s goods were
sold on , at Davies’ Auction Rooms, 15,
Upper-street, Islington, and a protest meeting held after sale at Highbury
Fields.
On goods of Mrs. Beaumont Thomas
and Mrs. Mary Sutcliffe will be sold at Warren’s Auction Room, 73, Battersea
Rise (five minutes from Clapham Junction) at
Protest meeting after sale. Supporters urgently needed.
Dora Montefiore wrote a book, From a Victorian to a Modern (1927), a chapter of which she devoted to her tax resistance and the “Siege of Montefiore” in which she held off the tax collector for several weeks:
“Women Must Vote for the Laws They Obey and the Taxes They Pay”
I had already, during the Boer War, refused willingly to pay income tax, because payment of such tax went towards financing a war in the making of which I had had no voice.
In a bailiff had been put in my house, a levy of my goods had been made, and they had been sold at public auction in Hammersmith.
The result as far as publicity was concerned was half a dozen lines in the corner of some daily newspapers, stating the fact that Mrs. Montefiore’s goods had been distrained and sold for payment of income tax; and there the matter ended.
When talking this over in with Theresa Billington and Annie Kenney, I told them that now we had the organisation of the W.S.P.U. to back me up I would, if it were thought advisable, not only refuse to pay income tax, but would shut and bar my doors and keep out the bailiff, so as to give the demonstration more publicity and thus help to educate public opinion about the fight for the political emancipation of women which was going on.
They agreed that if I would do my share of passive resistance they would hold daily demonstrations outside the house as long as the bailiff was excluded and do all in their power outside to make the sacrifice I was making of value to the cause.
In , therefore, when the authorities sent for the third time to distrain on my goods in order to take what was required for income tax, I, aided by my maid, who was a keen suffragist, closed and barred my doors and gates on the bailiff who had appeared outside the gate of my house in Upper Mall, Hammersmith, and what was known as the “siege” of my house began.
As is well known, bailiffs are only allowed to enter through the ordinary doors.
They may not climb in at a window and at certain hours they may not even attempt an entrance.
These hours are from sunset to sunrise, and from sunset on Saturday evening till sunrise on Monday morning.
During these hours the besieged resister to income tax can rest in peace.
From the day of this simple act of closing my door against the bailiff, an extraordinary change came over the publicity department of daily and weekly journalism towards this demonstration of passive resistance on my part.
The tradespeople of the neighbourhood were absolutely loyal to us besieged women, delivering their milk and bread, etc., over the rather high garden wall which divided the small front gardens of Upper Mall from the terraced roadway fronting the river.
The weekly wash arrived in the same way and the postman day by day delivered very encouraging budgets of correspondence, so that practically we suffered very little inconvenience, and as we had a small garden at the back we were able to obtain fresh air.
On the morning following the inauguration of the siege, Annie Kenney and Theresa Billington, with other members of the W.S.P.U., came round to see how we were getting on and to encourage our resistance.
They were still chatting from the pavement outside, while I stood on the steps of No. 32 Upper Mall, when there crept round from all sides men with notebooks and men with cameras, and the publicity stunt began.
These men had been watching furtively the coming and going of postmen and tradesmen.
Now they posted themselves in front, questioning the suffragists outside and asking for news of us inside.
They had come to make a “story” and they did not intend to leave until they had got their “story.”
One of them returned soon with a loaf of bread and asked Annie Kenney to hand it up over the wall to my housekeeper, whilst the army of men with cameras “snapped” the incident.
Some of them wanted to climb over the wall so as to be able to boast in their descriptions that they had been inside what they pleased to call “The Fort”; but the policeman outside (there was a policeman on duty outside during all the six weeks of a siege) warned them that they must not do this so we were relieved, in this respect, from the too close attention of eager pressmen.
But all through the morning notebooks and cameras came and went, and at one time my housekeeper and I counted no less than twenty-two pressmen outside the house.
A woman sympathiser in the neighbourhood brought during the course of the morning, a pot of home-made marmalade, as the story had got abroad that we had no provisions and had difficulty in obtaining food.
This was never the case as I am a good housekeeper and have always kept a store cupboard, but we accepted with thanks the pot of marmalade because the intentions of the giver were so excellent; but this incident was also watched and reported by the Press.
Annie Kenney and Theresa Billington had really come round to make arrangements for a demonstration on the part of militant women that afternoon and evening in front of the house, so at an opportune moment, when the Press were lunching, the front gate was unbarred and they slipped in.
The feeling in the neighbourhood towards my act of passive resistance was so excellent and the publicity being given by the Press in the evening papers was so valuable that we decided to make the Hammersmith “Fort” for the time being the centre of the W.S.P.U. activities, and daily demonstrations were arranged for and eventually carried out.
The road in front of the house was not a thoroughfare, as a few doors further down past the late Mr. William Morris’s home of “Kelmscott,” at the house of Mr. and Mrs. Cobden-Sanderson, there occurred one of those quaint alley-ways guarded by iron posts, which one finds constantly on the borders of the Thames and in old seaside villages.
The roadway was, therefore, ideal for the holding of a meeting, as no blocking of traffic could take place, and day in, day out the principles for which suffragists were standing we expounded to many who before had never even heard of the words Woman Suffrage.
At the evening demonstrations rows of lamps were hung along the top of the wall and against the house, the members of the W.S.P.U. speaking from the steps of the house, while I spoke from one of the upstairs windows.
On the little terrace of the front garden hung during the whole time of the siege a red banner with the letters painted in white:
“Women should vote for the laws they obey and the taxes they pay.”
This banner appeared later on during our fight, so it has a little history quite of its own.
The members of the I.L.P., of which there was a good branch in Hammersmith, were very helpful, both as speakers and organisers during these meetings, but the Members of the Social Democratic Federation, of which I was a member, were very scornful because they said we should have been asking at that moment for Adult Suffrage and not Votes for Women; but although I have always been a staunch adult suffragist, I felt that at that moment the question of the enfranchisement of women was paramount, as we had to educate the public in our demands and in the reasons for our demands, and as we found that with many people the words “Adult Suffrage” connoted only manhood suffrage, our urgent duty was at that moment to gain Press publicity up and down the country and to popularise the idea of the political enfranchisement of women.
So the siege wore on; Press notices describing it being sent to me not only from the United Kingdom, but from Continental and American newspapers, and though the garbled accounts of what I was doing and what our organisation stood for often made us laugh when we read them, still there was plenty of earnest and useful understanding in many articles, while shoals of letters came to me, a few sadly vulgar and revolting, but the majority helpful and encouraging.
Some Lancashire lads who had heard me speaking in the Midlands wrote and said that if I wanted help they would come with their clogs but that was never the sort of support I needed, and though I thanked them, I declined the help as nicely as I could.
Many Members of Parliament wrote and told me in effect that mine was the most logical demonstration that had so far been made; and it was logical I know as far as income tax paying women were concerned; and I explained in all my speeches and writings that though it looked as if I were only asking for Suffrage for Women on a property qualification, I was doing this because the mass of non-qualified women could not demonstrate in the same way, and I was to that extent their spokeswoman.
It was the crude fact of women’s political disability that had to be forced on an ignorant and indifferent public, and it was not for any particular Bill or Measure or restriction that I was putting myself to this loss and inconvenience by refusing year after year to pay income tax, until forced to do so by the powers behind the Law.
The working women from the East End came, time and again, to demonstrate in front of my barricaded house and understood this point and never swerved in their allegiance to our organisation; in fact, it was during these periods and succeeding years of work among the people that I realised more and more the splendid character and “stuff” that is to be found among the British working class.
They are close to the realities of life, they are in daily danger of the serious hurts of life, unemployment, homelessness, poverty in its grimmest form, and constant misunderstanding by the privileged classes, yet they are mostly light-hearted and happy in small and cheap pleasures, always ready to help one another with lending money or apparel, great lovers of children, great lovers when they have an opportunity, of real beauty.
Yet they are absolutely “unprivileged,” being herded in the “Ghetto” of the East End, and working and living under conditions of which most women in the West End have no idea; and I feel bound to put it on record that though I have never regretted, in fact, I have looked back on the years spent in the work of Woman Suffrage as privileged years, yet I feel very deeply that as far as those East End women are concerned, their housing and living conditions are no better now than when we began our work.
The Parliamentary representation we struggled for has not been able to solve the Social Question, and until that is solved the still “unprivileged” voters can have no redress for the shameful conditions under which they are compelled to work and live.
I also have to record with sorrow that though some amelioration in the position of the married mother towards her child or children has been granted by law, the husband is still the only parent in law, and he can use that position if he chooses, to tyrannise over the wife.
He must, however, appoint her as one of the guardians of his children after his death.
, the time was approaching when, according to information brought in from outside the Crown had the power to break open my front door and seize my goods for distraint.
I consulted with friends and we agreed that as this was a case of passive resistance, nothing could be done when that crisis came but allow the goods to be distrained without using violence on our part.
When, therefore, at the end of those weeks the bailiff carried out his duties, he again moved what he considered sufficient goods to cover the debt and the sale was once again carried out at auction rooms in Hammersmith.
A large number of sympathisers were present, but the force of twenty-two police which the Government considered necessary to protect the auctioneer during the proceedings was never required, because again we agreed that it was useless to resist force majeure when it came to technical violence on the part of the authorities.
Some extracts from interviews and Press cuttings of the period will illustrate what was the general feeling of the public towards the protest I was making under the auspices of the W.S.P.U.
The representative of the Kensington News, who interviewed me during the course of the siege, wrote thus:—
Independent alike in principles and politics, it is the policy of the Kensington News to extend to both sides of current questions a fair consideration.
Accordingly our representative on Tuesday last attended at the residence of Mrs. Montefiore, who is resisting the siege of the tax collector, as a protest against taxation without representation.
On Hammersmith Mall, within a stone’s throw of the house wherein Thomson wrote “The Seasons”; of Kelmscott House, the home of William Morris, and within the shadow of those glorious elms planted by Henrietta Maria, the consort of Charles Ⅰ, a bright red banner floats in front of a dull red house, inscribed: “Women should vote for the laws they obey and the taxes they pay”….
Certainly as mild a mannered a demonstrator as ever displayed a red banner, refined of voice and manner, Mrs. Montefiore, who is a widow, would be recognised at once as a gentlewoman.
We were received with charming courtesy, and seated in the dining-room proceeded with our work of catechising.
Primarily we elicited that Mrs. Montefiore resented the term suffragette.
“It emanated, I believe from the Daily Mail, but is entirely meaningless.
The term ‘suffragist’ is English and understandable.
What I object to most strenuously is the attempt of certain sections of the Press to turn to ridicule what is an honest protest against what we regard as a serious wrong.”
“So far, what has happened?”
“The tax collector has been, with the sheriff, and I have refused them admittance, barred my doors, and hung up the banner you saw outside.”
Then questioned as to the reason for her action, Mrs. Montefiore explained:
“I am resisting payment of, not rates, but the Imperial taxes.
I pay my rates willingly and cheerfully, because I possess my municipal vote.
I can vote for the Borough and County Councils, and on the election of Guardians.
I want you to understand this; my income is derived mainly from property in Australia, where for many years I resided.
It is taxed over there, and again in this country.
I never objected to paying taxes in Australia, because there women have votes both for the State Parliament and for the Commonwealth.
There women are not disqualified from sitting in the Commonwealth Parliament.
One lady at the last election, although unsuccessful, polled over 20,000 votes.”
“You were not one of the ladies who created a disturbance behind the House of Commons grille?”
“No.
I was, however, one of the deputation to Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, and I listened to his very unsatisfactory answers.
This action of mine is the rejoinder to Sir Henry’s reply.
He said we must educate Parliament — so we thought we would, in my active resistance, give Parliament an object lesson.
Remember, it was the first Reform Bill that definitely excluded women from the franchise.
Prior to that Bill they possessed votes as burgesses and owners of property.
We only seek restitution.
After the Reform Bill certain women in Manchester actually tested their right to be registered as voters, and the judges decided against them.
Mr. Keir Hardie, who is our champion, deals with this in his pamphlet.”
“You are selecting certain candidates to further your cause in Parliament,” we suggested.
“Certainly,” was the reply.
“The women employed in the textile factories at Wigan ran a candidate of their own at the last election, and I addressed vast meetings at every street corner at Wigan.
I have received many messages of sympathy and encouragement from the women and the men in Wigan.”
“Have you taken Counsel’s opinion on your resisting action?”
“No, I am relying on the justice of my cause.”
“What is the next step you anticipate?”
“I believe their next weapon is a break warrant.
I have had my furniture distrained on and sold twice already in this cause.
Of course, I am only a woman.
I know the law, as it stands, is stronger than I, and I suppose in the long run I shall have to yield to force majeure, but I shall fight as long as I am able.
Only,” the lady added with a plaintiveness that might have appealed to the most implacable anti-Woman Suffragist, “one would have thought that men would have been more chivalrous, and would not force us to fight in this way to the bitter end for the removal of the sex disability.”
“Do you look for assistance from any, and which, political party?”
we asked.
Mrs. Montefiore shook her head.
“Our only policy is to play off one, against the other.
I am a humble disciple of Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy, who, now 73 years of age, has for 41 years been a worker in the woman’s cause.
She has witnessed fourteen Parliaments, but has never seen a Cabinet so inimical to Woman’s Suffrage as the present.
Every time the franchise is extended the women’s cause goes back; her hopes are far less now with seven millions on the register than they were with half a million.
Gladstone was the worst enemy woman’s suffrage ever had.”
In conclusion Mrs. Montefiore said: “We claim that the word ‘person’ in Acts of Parliament connected with voting should include women.
We believe that action goes further than words.
I am taking this action to bring our cause before the public.”
Without committing ourselves on the question of the cause itself, we could not resist expressing the hope that the lady’s devotion to it had not entailed hardship or suffering.
She smiled bravely, and said: “I have received much sympathy and encouragement, and many kindnesses.”
We ventured one more question: “Are you downhearted?”
The answer was a smiling “No!” and we left Mrs. Montefiore’s residence impressed at any rate with the sincerity of her belief in, and her devotion to, the cause she has espoused.
The Labour Leader of , had the following:—
“No taxation without representation” is one of the cardinal doctrines of the British Constitution.
But like many other ideas of British liberty it exists more on paper than in reality.
It has been left for the modern generation of suffragettes to point out that one whole sex subject to all the taxes which are imposed, has yet absolutely no representation on the body which determines and passes those taxes.
The siege of “Fort Montefiore” is the tangible expression of this protest.
On two previous occasions Mrs. Montefiore has had her goods seized for refusing to pay income tax.
she determined upon more militant tactics.
Some eight or nine weeks ago she was called upon for the income tax.
As she persisted in her refusal to pay, a bailiff was summoned.
Mrs. Montefiore’s reply was to bolt and bar her house against the intruder, and to display a red flag over her summerhouse, with the inscription: “Women should vote for the laws they obey and the taxes they pay.”
Fort Suffragette, as Mrs. Montefiore’s house may be called, is an ideal place, in which to defy an income-tax collector; and a few determined women could hold it against an army from the Inland Revenue Department.
It is a substantial three-storeyed villa in a narrow road (Upper Mall, Hammersmith).
A few feet from the front the Thames flows by; and the house is guarded by a high wall, the only access being through a stoutly built arched doorway.
The “siege” began on , and up to the present the bailiff has not succeeded in forcing an entry.
Meanwhile, important demonstrations have taken place outside, and the crowd has been addressed by various speakers, including Mrs. Montefiore, who has spoken from an upper window of her house.
On one of these occasions Mrs. Montefiore alluded to the Prime Minister’s reply to the recent deputation on Women’s Suffrage, in which he advised them “to educate Parliament.”
She was giving Parliament an object lesson.
“They had had enough abstract teaching,” she said, “now a little concrete teaching may do them good, and they will see that there are women in England who feel their disability so keenly that they will stop at nothing, and put themselves to every inconvenience and trouble in order to show the world and the Men of England what their position is, and how keenly they feel it”… A resolution was carried declaring that taxation without representation was tyranny, thanking Mrs. Montefiore for her stand, and calling upon the Government to enfranchise women this session.
Susan B. Anthony was one of my dear and valued friends in the suffrage movement, and I received from New York the following interesting communication with cordial wishes for the success of my protest:—
Appeal made yearly by Susan.
B. Anthony to the City Treasurer, Rochester, New York, When paying her property tax.
To THE CITY TREASURER, ROCHESTER, N.Y.
Enclosed please find cheque for tax on my property for , with a protest in the name of ten thousand other tax-paying women in the City of Rochester, who are deemed fully capable, intellectually, morally and physically of earning money, and contributing their full share towards the expenses of the Government, but totally incapable of deciding as to the proper expenditure of such money.
Please let the record show as “paid under protest.”
Yours for justice to each and every person of this Republic. MARY S. ANTHONY.
TO THE COUNTY TREASURER.
Enclosed find County tax for .
A minor may live to become of age, the illiterate to be educated, the lunatic to regain his reason, the idiot to become intelligent — when each and all can decide what shall be the laws, and who shall enforce them; but the woman, never.
I protest against paying taxes to a Government which allows its women to be thus treated.
Please so record it.
MARY S. ANTHONY.
An unusual method of tax resistance is to deliberately make yourself taxable
in order to owe a tax that you can then resist, or, similarly, to defy some
legal condition of your tax-exempt status. For example:
Anne Cobden Sanderson of the Women’s Tax Resistance League said that
while only some women were subjected to the income tax and could join the
resistance to that tax, “Everyone who perhaps has not an income to be
taxed can have a dog, and then refuse to pay tax.” The
New York Sun editorialized:
By buying up dogs of all sorts and refusing to pay the licenses the
suffragettes may get into jail with facility and honor. Why place a bomb
on the front porch or spread carbolic acid in a mail box, when you may
get jugged just as well merely by refusing to pay your dog tax?
If one dog sent you to prison for one month, how many months would you
be forced to serve if you owned 100 or 200 dogs? Meanwhile you might put
on all the dogs blankets inscribed “Votes for Women” and turn them loose
in the Strand to the confusion of the bobbies and Parliament.
For the last several years, a number of American church leaders have made
explicit political endorsements from the pulpit — and have even taped
these endorsements and sent them in to the government as proof. In the
United States, tax exempt organizations are not permitted to engage in
politics in that way. The churches are daring the
IRS
to take away the tax exemption from their churches, and have framed it as
a freedom-of-speech/freedom-of-religion issue. Over the last several
years, the number of participating churches has risen from a few dozen to
over a thousand, but the
IRS
has yet to take up their challenge.
War tax resister Ed Hedemann suggests that people in the United States
who do not owe income taxes (because their income is too low), but who
want to be income tax resisters, deliberately inflate their
declared income with “phantom income” so that they owe some small amount
that they can then resist.
The legal conditions of tax-exempt, non-profit status in the United States
have proven to be a powerful way for the government to make activist groups
timid. Anti-abortion tax resister Jerry DePyper noted that this was a big
reason why he was making no headway in trying to get the tax resistance tactic
on the agenda of the large anti-abortion groups. “[N]o recognized pro-life
leader would want to risk it,” he says, “because of the legal issues with the
IRS, and
they don’t want to lose their tax exempt status.”
Ruth Benn of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee had a
similar experience:
I was talking about a potential [war tax resistance] workshop with a group
for which I have great respect and who are very supportive of war tax
resistance. When I suggested a certain activity as part of the workshop, the
organizer hurriedly said, “Oh, no, we couldn’t sponsor that; we’re 501(c)3
[the section of the legal code that governs tax-exempt non-profits].”
For this and related reasons, tax resisting groups like the Catholic Worker
and NWTRCC
have never tried to apply for tax-exempt non-profit status. In
the
IRS
told the Catholic Worker that it owed some $300,000 in taxes and penalties
because of this (though it eventually backed down and acknowledged that the
group was a de facto non-profit charity, even if it was never
going to fill out the de jure paperwork). This turned out to
be a good propaganda opportunity for the Catholic Worker.
The New York Times editorialized:
Surely the
IRS
must have genuine frauds to investigate. Surely there must be some worthwhile
work this agency could be doing instead of obstructing acts of corporal mercy
for the poor.
Dorothy Day added:
The New York evening Post also editorialized on
our situation. The National Catholic Reporter and
the Commonweal editors also registered their
protest and other papers followed suit. Letters come in daily from our
friends, reassuring, comforting, indignant at the government, a few of them
indignant at us, that we cause them so much worry. …
…[T]he CW
refuses to pay taxes, or to “structure itself” so as to be exempt from taxes.
We are afraid of that word “structure.” We refuse to become a “corporation.”
… [W]e do not intend to “incorporate” the Catholic Worker movement.
A tactic that I’ve encountered on many occasions in my research into tax resistance campaigns is that of disrupting government auctions of goods, particularly those of seized from tax resisters.
Here are several examples that show the variety of ways campaigns have accomplished this:
Religious nonconformists in the United Kingdom
Education Act-related resistance
Some disruption of auctions took place during the tax resistance in protest of the provisions of the Education Act that provided taxpayer money for sectarian education .
The Westminster Gazette reported:
There was some feeling displayed at a sale of the goods of Passive Resisters at Colchester yesterday, the Rev. T. Batty, a Baptist minister, and the Rev. Pierrepont Edwards, locally, known as “the fighting parson,” entering into discussion in the auction room, but being stopped by the auctioneer, who said he did his work during the week and he hoped they did theirs on Sundays.
At Long Eaton the goods of twenty-three Passive Resisters were sold amid demonstrations of hostility to the auctioneer.
A boy was arrested for throwing a bag of flour.
The New York Times reported that “Auctioneers frequently decline to sell goods upon which distraints have been levied.” And the San Francisco Chronicle noted:
Difficulty is experienced everywhere in getting auctioneers to sell the property confiscated.
In Leominster, a ram and some ewe lambs, the property of a resistant named Charles Grundy, were seized and put up at auction, as follows: Ram, Joe Chamberlain; ewes, Lady Balfour, Mrs. Bishop, Lady Cecil, Mrs. Canterbury and so on through the list of those who made themselves conspicuous in forcing the bill through Parliament.
The auctioneer was entitled to a fee under the law of 10 shillings and 6 pence, which he promptly turned over to Mr. Grundy, having during the sale expressed the strongest sympathy for the tax-resisters.
Most of the auction sales are converted into political meetings in which the tax and those responsible for it are roundly denounced.
Edinburgh Annuity Tax resistance
Auction disruptions were commonplace in the Annuity Tax resistance campaign in Edinburgh.
By law the distraint auctions (“roupings”) had to be held at the Mercat Cross — the town square, essentially — which made it easy to gather a crowd; or sometimes in the homes of the resisters. Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine reported of one of the Mercat Cross roupings:
If any of our readers know that scene, let them imagine, after the resistance was tolerably well organized, an unfortunate auctioneer arriving at the Cross about noon, with a cart loaded with furniture for sale.
Latterly the passive hubbub rose as if by magic.
Bells sounded, bagpipes brayed, the Fiery Cross passed down the closses, and through the High Street and Cowgate; and men, women, and children, rushed from all points towards the scene of Passive Resistance.
The tax had grinded the faces of the poor, and the poor were, no doubt, the bitterest in indignation.
Irish, Highlanders, Lowlanders, were united by the bond of a common suffering.
Respectable shopkeepers might be seen coming in haste from the Bridges; Irish traders flew from St. Mary’s Wynd; brokers from the Cowgate; all pressing round the miserable auctioneer; yelling, hooting, perhaps cursing, certainly saying anything but what was affectionate or respectful of the clergy.
And here were the black placards tossing above the heads of the angry multitude — ROUPING FOR STIPEND!
This notice was of itself enough to deter any one from purchasing; though we will say it for the good spirit of the people, that both the Scotch and Irish brokers disdained to take bargains of their suffering neighbours’ goods.
Of late months, no auctioneer would venture to the Cross to roup for stipend.
What human being has nerve enough to bear up against the scorn, hatred, and execration of his fellow-creatures, expressed in a cause he himself must feel just?
The people lodged the placards and flags in shops about the Cross, so that not a moment was lost in having their machinery in full operation, and scouts were ever ready to spread the intelligence if any symptoms of a sale were discovered.
Sheriff Clerk Kenmure Maitland appeared before a committee that was investigating the resistance campaign.
He mentioned that “Mr. Whitten, the auctioneer for sheriff’s sales, was so much inconvenienced and intimidated that he refused to take any more of those sales.”
Q: What was Mr. Whitten’s express reason for declining to act as auctioneer?
A: He was very much inconvenienced on that
occasion, and he believed that his general business connection would suffer
by undertaking these sales, and that he would lose the support of any
customer who was of that party.
Q: It was not from any fear of personal violence?
A: That might have had a good deal to do with it.
Q: Was Mr. Whitten the only auctioneer who declined?
A: No. After Mr. Whitten’s refusal I applied to
Mr. Hogg, whose services I should have been glad to have obtained, and he
said he would let me know the next day if he would undertake to act as
auctioneer; he wrote to me the next day saying, that, after consideration
with his friends, he declined to act.
Q: Any other?
A: I do not remember asking any others. The rates
of remuneration for acting as auctioneer at sheriffs’ sales are so low that
men having a better class of business will not act. I had to look about among
not first-class auctioneers, and I found that I would have some difficulty in
getting a man whom I could depend upon, for I had reason to believe that
influence would be used to induce the auctioneer to fail me at the last
moment.
It was difficult for the authorities to get any help at all, either from auctioneers, furniture dealers, or carters.
The government had to purchase (and fortify) their own cart because they were unable to rent one for such use.
Here is an example of an auction of a resister’s goods held at the resister’s
home, as described in the testimony of Thomas Menzies:
A: I saw a large number of the most respectable citizens assembled in the house, and a large number outside awaiting the arrival of the officers who came in a cab, and the indignation was very strong when they got into the house, so much so that a feeling was entertained by some that there was danger to the life of Mr. Whitten, the auctioneer, and that he might be thrown out of the window, because there were such threats, but others soothed down the feeling.
Q: There was no overt act or breach of the peace?
A: No.
The cabman who brought the officers, seeing they were engaged in such a disagreeable duty, took his cab away, and they had some difficulty in procuring another, and they went away round by a back street, rather than go by the direct way.
Q: Did Mr. Whitten, from his experience on that occasion, refuse ever to come to another sale as auctioneer?
A: He refused to act again, he gave up his
position.
He then described a second such auction:
A: The house was densely packed; it was impossible for me to get entrance; the stair was densely packed to the third and second flats; when the policemen came with the officers, they could not force their way up, except with great difficulty.
The consequence was, that nearly the whole of the rail of the upper storey gave way to the great danger both of the officers and the public, and one young man I saw thrown over the heads of the crowd to the great danger of being precipitated three storeys down.
Then the parties came out of the house, with their clothes dishevelled and severely handled; and the officer on that occasion will tell you that he was very severely dealt with indeed, and Mr. Sheriff Gordon was sent for, so much alarm being felt; but by the time the Sheriff arrived things were considerably subdued.
Sheriff Clerk Maitland also described this auction:
I found a considerable crowd outside; and on going up to the premises on the top flat, I found that I could not get entrance to the house; the house was packed with people, who on our approach kept hooting and shouting out, and jeering us; and, as far as I could see, the shutters were shut and the windows draped in black, and all the rooms crowded with people.
I said that it was necessary to carry out the sale, and they told me to come in, if I dare.
On another occasion, as he tells it, the auction seemed to go smoothly at first, but the buyers didn’t get what they hoped for:
At Mr. McLaren’s sale everything was conducted in an orderly way as far as the sale was concerned.
We got in, and only a limited number were allowed to go in; but after the officials and the police had gone, there was a certain amount of disturbance.
Certain goods were knocked down to the poinding creditors, consisting of an old sofa and an old sideboard, and Mr. McLaren said, “Let those things go to the clergy.” Those were the only things which had to be taken away.
There was no vehicle ready to carry them away.
Mr. McLaren said that he would not keep them.
After the police departed, he turned them out in the street, when they were taken possession of by the crowd of idlers, and made a bonfire of.
A summary of the effect of all of this disruption reads:
So strong was the feeling of hostility, that the town council were unable to procure the services of any auctioneer to sell the effects of those who conscientiously objected to pay the clerical portion of the police taxes, and they were consequently forced to make a special arrangement with a sheriff’s officer, by which, to induce him to undertake the disagreeable task, they provided him for two years with an auctioneer’s license from the police funds.
In , it was found necessary to enter into another arrangement with the officer, by which the council had to pay him 12½ percent, on all arrears, including the police, prison, and registration rates, as well as the clerical tax; and he receives this per-centage whether the sums are recovered by himself or paid direct to the police collector, and that over and above all the expenses he recovers from the recusants.
But this is not all; the council were unable to hire a cart or vehicle from any of the citizens, and it was found necessary to purchase a lorry, and to provide all the necessary apparatus and assistance for enforcing payment of the arrears.
All this machinery, which owes its existence entirely to the Clerico-Police Act, involves a wasteful expenditure of city funds, induces a chronic state of irritation in the minds of the citizens, and is felt to be a gross violation of the principles of civil and religious liberty.
The Tithe War
William John Fitzpatrick wrote of the auctions during the Tithe War:
[T]he parson’s first step was to put the cattle up to auction in the presence of a regiment of English soldiery; but it almost invariably happened that either the assembled spectators were afraid to bid, lest they should incur the vengeance of the peasantry, or else they stammered out such a low offer, that, when knocked down, the expenses of the sale would be found to exceed it.
The same observation applies to the crops.
Not one man in a hundred had the hardihood to declare himself the purchaser.
Sometimes the parson, disgusted at the backwardness of bidders, and trying to remove it, would order the cattle twelve or twenty miles away in order to their being a second time put up for auction.
But the locomotive progress of the beasts was always closely tracked, and means were taken to prevent either driver or beast receiving shelter or sustenance throughout the march.
The Sentinel wrote of one auction:
Yesterday being the day on which the sheriff announced that, if no bidders could be obtained for the cattle, he would have the property returned to Mr. Germain, immense crowds were collected from the neighbouring counties — upwards of 20,000 men.
The County Kildare men, amounting to about 7000, entered, led by Jonas Duckett, Esq., in the most regular and orderly manner.
This body was preceded by a band of music, and had several banners on which were “Kilkea and Moone, Independence for ever,” “No Church Tax,” “No Tithe,” “Liberty,” &c. The whole body followed six carts, which were prepared in the English style — each drawn by two horses.
The rear was brought up by several respectable landholders of Kildare.
The barrack-gates were thrown open, and different detachments of infantry took their stations right and left, while the cavalry, after performing sundry evolutions, occupied the passes leading to the place of sale.
The cattle were ordered out, when the sheriff, as on the former day, put them up for sale; but no one could be found to bid for the cattle, upon which he announced his intention of returning them to Mr. Germain.
The news was instantly conveyed, like electricity, throughout the entire meeting, when the huzzas of the people surpassed anything we ever witnessed.
The cattle were instantly liberated and given up to Mr. Germain.
At this period a company of grenadiers arrived, in double-quick time, after travelling from Castlecomer, both officers and men fatigued and covered with dust.
Thus terminated this extraordinary contest between the Church and the people, the latter having obtained, by their steadiness, a complete victory.
The cattle will be given to the poor of the sundry districts.
Similar examples were reported in the foreign press:
Cork. — A most extraordinary scene has been exhibited in this city.
Some cows seized for tithes were brought to a public place for sale, escorted by a squadron of lancers, and followed by thousands of infuriated people.
All the garrison, cavalry and infantry, under the command of Sir George Bingham, were called out.
The cattle were set up at three pounds for each, no bidder; two pounds, no bidder; one pound, no bidder; in short, the auctioneer descended to three shillings for each cow, but no purchaser appeared.
This scene lasted for above an hour, when there being no chance of making sale of the cattle, it was proposed to adjourn the auction; but, as we are informed, the General in command of the military expressed an unwillingness to have the troops subjected to a repetition of the harassing duty thus imposed on them.
After a short delay, it was, at the interference and remonstrance of several gentlemen, both of town and country, agreed upon that the cattle should be given up to the people, subject to certain private arrangements.
We never witnessed such a scene; thousands of country people jumping with exulted feelings at the result, wielding their shillelaghs, and exhibiting all the other symptoms of exuberant joy characteristic of the buoyancy of Irish feeling.
At Carlow a triumphant resistance to the laws, similar to that which occurred
at Cork, has been exhibited in the presence of the authorities and the
military. Some cattle had been seized for tithe, and a public sale announced,
when a large body of men, stated at 50,000, marched to the place appointed,
and, of course, under the influence of such terror, none were found to bid
for the cattle. The sale was adjourned from day to day, for seven days, and
upon each day the same organised bands entered the town, and rendered the
attempt to sell the cattle, in pursuance of the law, abortive. At last the
cattle are given up to the mob, crowned with laurels, and driven home with an
escort of 10,000 men.
In a somewhat later case, a Catholic priest in Blarney by the name of Peyton refused to pay his income tax on the grounds that the law treated him in an inferior way to his Protestant counterparts.
His horse was seized and sold at auction, where “the multitude assembled hissed, hooted, hustled, and otherwise impeded the proceedings.”
There was precedent for this. During the Tithe War period and thereafter, the
authorities had to go to extraordinary lengths to auction off seized goods. As
one account put it:
In Ireland we pay — the whole people of the empire pay — troops who march up from the country to Dublin, fifty or sixty miles, as escorts of the parson-pounded pigs and cattle, which passive resistance prevents from being sold or bought at home; and we also maintain barracks in that country which not only lodge the parsons’ military guards, but afford, of late, convenient resting-places in their journey to the poor people’s cattle, whom the soldiers are driving to sale; and which would otherwise be rescued on the road.
The women’s suffrage movement in the United Kingdom
The tax resisters in the women’s suffrage movement in Britain were particularly adept in disrupting tax auctions and in making them opportunities for propaganda and protest.
Here are several examples, largely as reported in the movement newsletter called The Vote:
“On a sale was held… of
jewellery seized in distraint for income-tax… Members of the
W.F.L.
and Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn
(Hon.
Sec.) assembled to
protest against the proceedings, and the usual policeman kept a dreary
vigil at the open door. The day had been specially chosen by the
authorities, who wished to prevent a demonstration…”
“The sale of Mrs. Cleeves’ dog-cart took place at the Bush Hotel, Sketty,
on afternoon. The
W.F.L.
held their protest meeting outside — much to the discomfort of the
auctioneer, who declared the impossibility of ‘drowning the voice
outside.’ ”
“Notwithstanding the mud and odoriferous atmosphere of the back streets
off Drury-lane, quite a large number of members of the Tax Resisters’
League, the Women’s Freedom League, and the Women’s Social and Political
Union, met outside Bulloch’s Sale Rooms shortly after
to protest against the sale of Miss Bertha Brewster’s goods, which had
been seized because of her refusal to pay her Imperial taxes. Before the
sale took place, Mrs. Gatty, as chairman, explained to at least a hundred
people the reasons of Miss Brewster’s refusal to pay her taxes and the
importance of the constitutional principle that taxation without
representation is tyranny, which this refusal stood for. Miss Leonora
Tyson proposed the resolution protesting against the injustice of this
sale, and it was seconded by Miss F[lorence]. A. Underwood, and supported
by Miss Brackenbury. The resolution was carried with only two
dissentients, and these dissentients were women!”
“The goods seized were sold at the public auction room. Before selling
them the auctioneer allowed Mrs. How Martyn to make a short explanatory
speech, and he himself added that it was an unpleasant duty he had to
perform.”
“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.’ ”
“[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.”
“One of the most successful and effective Suffrage demonstrations ever
held in St. Leonards was that arranged jointly by the Women’s Tax
Resistance League and the Hastings and St. Leonards Women’s Suffrage
Propaganda League, on ,
on the occasion of the sale of some family silver which had been seized at
the residence of Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison for non-payment of
Inhabited House Duty. Certainly the most striking feature of this protest
was the fact that members of all societies in Hastings,
St. Leonards, Bexhill and
Winchelsea united in their effort to render the protest representative of
all shades of Suffrage opinion. Flags, banners, pennons and regalia of
many societies were seen in the procession.… The hearty response from the
men to Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes’s call for ‘three cheers for Mrs.
Darent Harrison’ at the close of the proceedings in the auction room, came
as a surprise to the Suffragists themselves.”
“On , the last item on
the catalogue of Messrs. Whiteley’s weekly sale in Westbourne-grove was
household silver seized in distraint for King’s taxes from Miss Gertrude
Eaton, of Kensington. Miss Eaton is a lady very well known in the musical
world and interested in social reforms, and
hon. secretary of the
Prison Reform Committee. Miss Eaton said a few dignified words of protest
in the auction room, and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Saunderson explained to the
large crowd of bidders the reason why tax-paying women, believing as they
do that taxation without representation is tyranny, feel that they cannot,
by remaining inactive, any longer subscribe to it. A procession then
formed up and a protest meeting was held…”
“At the offices of the collector of Government taxes, Westborough, on
a silver cream jug and sugar
basin were sold. These were the property of
Dr. Marion McKenzie, who
had refused payment of taxes to support her claim on behalf of women’s
suffrage. A party of suffragettes marched to the collector’s office, which
proved far too small to accommodate them all. Mr. Parnell said he regretted
personally having the duty to perform. He believed that ultimately the
women would get the vote. They had the municipal vote and he maintained
that women who paid rates and taxes should be allowed to vote. (Applause.)
But that was his own personal view. He would have been delighted not to
have had that process, but he had endeavoured to keep the costs down.
Dr. Marion McKenzie thanked
Mr. Parnell for the courtesy shown them. A protest meeting was afterwards
held on St. Nicholas
Cliff.”
“Mrs. [Anne] Cobden-Sanderson, representing the Women’s Tax Resistance
League, was, by courtesy of the auctioneer, allowed to explain the reason
of the protest. Judging by the applause with which her remarks were
received, most of those present were in sympathy.”
“The auctioneer was entirely in sympathy with the protest, and explained
the circumstances under which the sale took place. He courteously allowed
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr to put clearly
the women’s point of view; Miss Raleigh made a warm appeal for true
freedom. A procession was formed and an open-air meeting subsequently
held.”
“The auctioneer, who is in sympathy with the suffragists, refused to take
commission.”
“[A] crowd of Suffragists of all shades of opinion assembled at Hawking’s
Sale Rooms, Lisson-grove, Marylebone, to support Dr. Frances Ede and Dr.
Amy Sheppard, whose goods were to be sold by public auction for tax
resistance. By the courtesy of the auctioneer, Mr. Hawking, speeches were
allowed, and Dr. Ede
emphasized her conscientious objection to supporting taxation without
representation; she said that women like herself and her partner felt that
they must make this logical and dignified protest, but as it caused very
considerable inconvenience and sacrifice to professional women, she
trusted that the grave injustice would speedily be remedied. Three cheers
were given for the doctors, and a procession with banners marched to
Marble Arch, where a brief meeting was held in Hyde Park, at which the
usual resolution was passed unanimously.”
“An interesting sequel to the seizure of Mrs. Tollemache’s goods last
week, and the ejection of the bailiff from her residence, Batheaston
Villa, Bath, was the sale held , at the White Hart Hotel. To cover a tax of only £15 and
costs, goods were seized to the value of about £80, and it was at once
decided by the Women’s Tax Resistance League and Mrs. Tollemache’s friends
that such conduct on the part of the authorities must be circumvented and
exposed. The goods were on view the morning of the sale, and as there was
much valuable old china, silver, and furniture, the dealers were early on
the spot, and buzzing like flies around the articles they greatly desired
to possess. The first two pieces put up were, fortunately, quite
inviting; £19 being bid for a chest of drawers worth about
50s. and £3 for an
ordinary leather-top table, the requisite amount was realised, and the
auctioneer was obliged to withdraw the remaining lots much to the disgust
of the assembled dealers. Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, in her speech at
the protest meeting, which followed the sale, explained to these irate
gentlemen that women never took such steps unless compelled to do so, and
that if the tax collector had seized a legitimate amount of goods to
satisfy his claim, Mrs. Tollemache would willingly have allowed them to
go.”
“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.”
“At the sale of a silver salver belonging to
Dr. Winifred Patch, of
Highbury, Steen’s Auction Rooms, Drayton Park, were crowded on
by members of the Women’s Freedom
League, the Women’s Tax Resistance League, and other Suffrage societies.
The auctioneer refused to allow the usual five minutes for explanation
before the sale, but Miss Alison Neilans, of the Women’s Freedom League,
was well supported and cheered when she insisted on making clear the
reasons why Dr. Patch for
several years has refused to pay taxes while deprived of a vote. A
procession was then formed, and marched to Highbury Corner, where a large
open-air meeting was presided over by Mrs. [Marianne] Clarendon Hyde, of
the Women’s Freedom League, and addressed by Mrs. Merrivale Mayer.”
“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.”
“The sale was conducted, laughably enough, under the auspices of the
Women’s Freedom League and the Women’s Tax Resistance League; for, on
obtaining entrance to the hall, Miss Anderson and Mrs. Fisher bedecked it
with all the insignia of suffrage protest. The rostrum was spread with our
flag proclaiming the inauguration of Tax Resistance by the W.F.L.;
above the auctioneer’s head hung Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard’s embroidered
silk banner, with its challenge “Dare to be Free”; on every side the
green, white and gold of the
W.F.L.
was accompanied by the brown and black of the Women’s Tax Resistance
League, with its cheery ‘No Vote, no Tax’ injunctions and its John Hampden
maxims; while in the front rows, besides Miss Anderson, the heroine of the
day, Mrs. Snow and Mrs. Fisher, were seen the inspiring figures of our
President and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, vice-president of the
W.T.R.L.”
“…all Women’s Freedom League members who know anything of the way in which
the sister society organises these matters should attend the sale in the
certainty of enjoying a really telling demonstration…”
“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.”
“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.… 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.… Miss Trott and Miss Bobby helped to advertise the meeting
by carrying placards round the crowded market.”
“There was a crowded audience, and the auctioneer opened the proceedings
by declaring himself a convinced Suffragist, which attitude of mind he
attributed largely to a constant contact with women householders in his
capacity as tax collector. After the sale a public meeting was held… At
the close of the meeting many questions were asked, new members joined the
League…”
The authorities tried to auction off Kate Harvey’s goods on-site, at her
home, rather than in a public hall, so that they might avoid
demonstrations of that sort. “On
morning a band of Suffragist
men carried placards through the streets of Bromley, on which was the
device, ‘I personally protest against the sale of a woman’s goods to pay
taxes over which she has no control,’ and long before
, the time fixed for the
sale, from North, South, East and West, people came streaming into the
little town of Bromley, and made their way towards ‘Brackenhill.’
Punctually at the
tax-collector and his deputy mounted the table in the dining-room, and the
former, more in sorrow than in anger, began to explain to the crowd
assembled that this was a genuine sale! Mrs. Harvey at once protested
against the sale taking place. Simply and solely because she was a woman,
although she was a mother, a business woman, and a tax-payer, she had no
voice in saying how the taxes collected from her should be spent. The tax
collector suffered this speech in silence, but he could judge by the
cheers it received that there were many ardent sympathisers with Mrs.
Harvey in her protest. He tried to proceed, but one after another the men
present loudly urged that no one there should bid for the goods. The
tax-collector feebly said this wasn’t a political meeting, but a genuine
sale! ‘One penny for your goods then!’ was the derisive answer. ‘One
penny — one penny!’ was the continued cry from both inside and outside
‘Brackenhill.’ Then men protested that the tax-collector was not a genuine
auctioneer; he had no hammer, no list of goods to be sold was hung up in
the room. There was no catalogue, nothing to show bidders what was to be
sold and what wasn’t. The men also objected to the presence of the
tax-collector’s deputy. ‘Tell him to get down!’ they shouted. ‘The sale
shan’t proceed till he does,’ they yelled. ‘Get down! Get down:’ they
sang. But the tax-collector felt safer by the support of this deputy.
‘He’s afraid of his own clerk,’ they jeered. Again the tax-collector asked
for bids. ‘One penny! One penny!’ was the deafening response. The din
increased every moment and pandemonium reigned supreme. During a temporary
lull the tax-collector said a sideboard had been sold for nine guineas.
Angry cries from angry men greeted this announcement. ‘Illegal sale!’ ‘He
shan’t take it home!’ ‘The whole thing’s illegal!’ ‘You shan’t sell
anything else!’ and The Daily Herald Leaguers,
members of the Men’s Political Union, and of other men’s societies,
proceeded to make more noise than twenty brass bands. Darkness was quickly
settling in; the tax-collector looked helpless, and his deputy smiled
wearily. ‘Talk about a comic opera — it’s better than Gilbert and Sullivan
could manage,’ roared an enthusiast. ‘My word, you look sick, guv’nor!
Give it up, man!’ Then everyone shouted against the other until the
tax-collector said he closed the sale, remarking plaintively that he had
lost £7 over the job! Ironical cheers greeted this news, with ‘Serve you
right for stealing a woman’s goods!’ He turned his back on his tormentors,
and sat down in a chair on the table to think things over. The protesters
sat on the sideboard informing all and sundry that if anyone wanted to
take away the sideboard he should take them with it! With the exit of the
tax-collector, his deputy and the bailiff, things gradually grew quieter,
and later on Mrs. Harvey entertained her supporters to tea at the Bell
Hotel. But the curious thing is, a man paid nine guineas for the sideboard
to the tax-collector. Mrs. Harvey owed him more than £17, and Mrs. Harvey
is still in possession of the sideboard!”
“The assistant auctioneer, to whom it fell to conduct the sale, was most
unfriendly, and refused to allow any speaking during the sale; but Miss
Boyle was able to shout through a window at his back, just over his
shoulder, an announcement that the goods were seized because Miss Cummins
refused to submit to taxation without representation, after which quite a
number of people who were attending the sale came out to listen to the
speeches.”
“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.”
“A joint demonstration of the Tax Resisters’ League and militant
suffragettes, held here [Hastings]
as a protest against the sale of
the belongings of those who refused to pay taxes, was broken up by a mob.
The women were roughly handled and half smothered with soot. Their banners
were smashed. The police finally succeeded in getting the women into a
blacksmith’s shop, where they held the mob at bay until the arrival of
reinforcements. The women were then escorted to a railway station.”
“The auction sale of the Duchess of Bedford’s silver cup proved, perhaps,
the best advertisement the Women’s Tax Resistance League ever had. It was
made the occasion for widespread propaganda. The newspapers gave columns
of space to the event, while at the big mass meeting, held outside the
auction room…”
“When a member is to be sold up a number of her comrades accompany her to
the auction-room. The auctioneer is usually friendly and stays the
proceedings until some one of the league has mounted the table and
explained to the crowd what it all means. Here are the banners, and the
room full of women carrying them, and it does not take long to impress
upon the mind of the people who have come to attend the sale that here is
a body of women willing to sacrifice their property for the principle for
which John Hampden went to prison — that taxation without representation
is tyranny. … The women remain at these auctions until the property of the
offender is disposed of. The kindly auctioneer puts the property seized
from the suffragists early on his list, or lets them know when it will be
called.”
American war tax resisters
There have been a few celebrated auction sales in the American war tax resistance movement.
Some of them have been met with protests or used as occasions for outreach and propaganda, but others have been more actively interfered with.
When Ernest and Marion Bromley’s home was seized, for example, there were
“months of continuous picketing and leafletting” before the sale. Then:
The day began with a silent vigil initiated by the local Quaker group.
While the bids were being read inside the building, guerrilla theatre took place out on the sidewalk.
At one point the Federal building was auctioned (offers ranging from 25¢ to 2 bottle caps).
Several supporters present at the proceedings inside made brief statements about the unjust nature of the whole ordeal.
Waldo the Clown was also there, face painted sadly, opening envelopes along with the IRS person.
As the official read the bids and the names of the bidders, Waldo searched his envelopes and revealed their contents: a flower, a unicorn, some toilet paper, which he handed to different office people.
Marion Bromley also spoke as the bids were opened, reiterating that the seizure was based on fraudulent assumptions, and that therefore the property could not be rightfully sold.
The protests, odd as they were, eventually paid off, as the IRS had in the interim been caught improperly pursuing political dissidents, and as a result it decided to reverse the sale of the Bromley home and give up on that particular fight.
When Paul and Addie Snyder’s home was auctioned off for back taxes, it was
reported that “many bids of $1 or less were made.”
Making a bid of pennies for farm property being foreclosed for failure to meet mortgages was a common tactic among angry farmers during the Depression.
If their bids succeeded, the property was returned to its owner and the mortgage torn up.
In some such cases, entire farms plus their livestock, equipment and home furnishings sold for as little as $2.
When George Willoughby’s car was seized and sold by the IRS,
Friends, brandishing balloons, party horns, cookies and lemonade, invaded the IRS office in Chester and bought the car back for $900.
The Rebecca rioters
On a couple of occasions the Rebeccaites prevented auctions, though not of goods seized for tax debts but for ordinary debts.
Here are two examples from Henry Tobit Evans’s book on the Rebecca phenomenon:
A distress for rent was levied on the goods of a man named Lloyd… and a bailiff of the name of Rees kept possession of the goods.
Previous to the day of sale, Rebecca and a great number of her daughters paid him a visit, horsewhipped him well, and kept him in safe custody until the furniture was entirely cleared from the house.
When Rees was freed, he found nothing but an empty house, Rebecca and her followers having departed.
Two bailiffs were there in possession of the goods and chattels under execution… Having entered the house by bursting open the door, Rebecca ran upstairs, followed by some of her daughters.
She ordered the bailiffs, who were in bed at the time, to be up and going in five minutes, or to prepare for a good drubbing.
The bailiffs promptly obeyed, but were driven forth by a bodyguard of the rioters, who escorted them some distance, pushing and driving the poor men in front of them.
At last they were allowed to depart to their homes on a sincere promise of not returning.
Reform Act agitation
During the tax resistance that accompanied the drive to pass the Reform Act in the in the United Kingdom, hundreds of people signed pledges in which they declared that “they will not purchase the goods of their townsmen not represented in Parliament which may be seized for the non-payment of taxes, imposed by any House of Commons as at present constituted.”
The True Sun asserted that
The tax-gatherer… might seize for them, but the brokers assured the inhabitants that they would neither seize any goods for such taxes, nor would they purchase goods so seized.
Yesterday afternoon, Mr Philips, a broker, in the Broadway, Westminster, exhibited the following placard at the door of his shop:— “Take notice, that the proprietor of this shop will not distrain for the house and window duties, nor will he purchase any goods that are seized for the said taxes; neither will any of those oppressive taxes be paid for this house in future.” A similar notice was also exhibited at a broker’s shop in York Street, Westminster.
Another newspaper account said:
A sale by auction of goods taken in distress for assessed taxes was announced to take place at Ashton Tavern on , at Birmingham.
From forty to fifty persons attended, including some brokers, but no one could be found except the poor woman from whose husband the goods had been seized, and the auctioneer himself.
A man came when the sale was nearly over, who was perfectly ignorant of the circumstances under which it took place, and bid for one of the last lots; he soon received an intimation, however, from the company that he had better desist, which be accordingly did.
After the sale was over nearly the whole of the persons present surrounded this man, and lectured him severely upon his conduct, and it was only by his solemnly declaring to them that he had bid in perfect ignorance of the nature of the sale that he was suffered to escape without some more substantial proof of their displeasure.
Railroad bond shenanigans
There was an epidemic of fraud in the United States in in which citizens of local jurisdictions were convinced to vote to sell bonds to pay for the Railroad to come to town.
The railroad never arrived, but the citizens then were on the hook to tax themselves to pay off the bonds.
Many said “hell no,” but by then the bonds had been sold to people who were not necessarily involved in the original swindle but had just bought them as investments.
In the course of the tax resistance campaigns associated with these railroad
bond boondoggles, auction disruption was resorted to on some occasions. Here
are some examples:
St. Clair [Missouri]’s taxpayers joined the movement in to repudiate the debts, but the county’s new leaders wanted to repay the investors.
Afraid to try taxing the residents, they decided to raise the interest by staging a huge livestock auction in , the proceeds to pay off the railroad bond interest.
On auction day, however, “no one seemed to want to buy” any animals.
To bondholders the “great shock” of the auction’s failure proved the depth of local resistance to railroad taxes.
Another attempt was made the other day to sell farm property in the town of Greenwood, Steuben county [New York], on account of a tax levied for the town bonding in aid of railroads, and another failure has followed.
The scene was upon the farm of William Atkins, where 200 of the solid yeomanry of the town had assembled to resist the sale… A Mr. Updyke, with broader hint, made these remarks: “I want to tell you folks that Mr. Atkins has paid all of his tax except this railroad tax; and we consider any man who will buy our property to help John Davis and Sam Alley as contemptible sharks.
We shall remember him for years, and will know where he lives.” The tax collector finally rose and remarked that in view of the situation he would not attempt to proceed with the sale.
The White League in Louisiana
In Reconstruction-era Louisiana, white supremacist tax resisters disrupted a tax auction.
There was a mob of fifty or sixty armed men came to prevent the deputy tax-collector effecting a sale, armed with revolvers nearly all.
Mr. Fournet came and threatened the deputy and tax-collector.
The deputy and tax-collector ran into their offices.
I came down and called upon the citizens to clear the court-house, but could not succeed.
I then called upon the military, but they had no orders at that time to give me assistance to carry out the law.
Mr. [Valsin A.?] Fournet came with eight or ten.
When the deputy tax-collector attempted to make a sale Mr. Fournet raised his hand and struck him.
The deputy then shoved him down.
As soon as this was done forty, fifty, or sixty men came with their revolvers in hand.
…very few people attended tax-sales [typically], because the white people were organized to prevent tax-collection, and pledged themselves not to buy any property at tax-sales, and the property was generally bought by the State.
Miscellaneous
The First Boer War broke out in the aftermath of the successfully resisted
auction of a tax resister’s waggon. Paul Kruger wrote of the incident:
The first sign of the approaching storm was the incident that happened at the forced sale of Field Cornet Bezuidenhout’s waggon, on which a distress had been levied.
The British Government had begun to collect taxes and to take proceedings against those who refused to pay them.
Among these was Piet Bezuidenhout, who lived in the Potchefstroom District.
This refusal to pay taxes was one of the methods of passive resistance which were now employed towards the British Government.
Hitherto, many of the burghers had paid their taxes, declaring that they were only yielding to force.
But, when this was explained by the English politicians as though the population were contented and peacefully paying their taxes, some asked for a receipt showing that they were only paying under protest and others refused to pay at all.
The Government then levied a distress on Bezuidenhout’s waggon and sent it to public action at Potchefstroom.
Piet Cronjé, who became so well known in the last war, appeared at the auction with a number of armed Boers, who flung the bailiff from the waggon and drew the waggon itself back in triumph to Bezuidenhout’s farm.
When the U.S.
government seized Valentine Byler’s horse because of the Amish man’s
conscientious objection to paying into the social security system, no
other Amish would bid at the auction.
Between the Wars in Germany, the government had a hard time conducting
auctions of the goods of tax resisters. Ernst von Salomon writes:
Everywhere bailiff’s orders were being disobeyed.… Compulsory sales could not be held: when the young peasants of the riding club appeared at the scene of the auction on their horses and with music, nobody seemed willing to make a bid.
The carters refused, even with police protection, to carry off the distrained cattle, for they knew that if they did they would never again be able to do business with the peasants.
One day three peasants even appeared in the slaughter yards at Hamburg and announced that unless the distrained cattle disappeared at once from the yard’s stalls the gentlemen in charge of the slaughterhouse could find somewhere else to buy their beasts in the future — they wouldn’t be getting any more from Schleswig-Holstein.
Environmental activist Tim DeChristopher disrupted a Bureau of Land
Management auction by making winning bids on everything that he
had no intention of honoring.
During the Poujadist disruptions in France, “They also took to spiking
forced tax sales by refusing to bid until the auctioneer had lowered the
price of whatever was up for sale to a laughably small figure. Thus a tax
delinquent might buy back his own shop for, say 10 cents. At an auction
the other day, a brand-new car went for one franc, or less than one-third
of a cent.”
in roughly the same region
of France:
It was in the south where the wine growers refuse to pay taxes to the government.
A farmer had had half a dozen rabbits sent him by a friend; he refused to pay duty on them, whereupon they control or local customs tried to sell the six “original” rabbits and their offspring at auction.
The inhabitants have now boycotted the auction sales so that the local officials must feed the rabbits till the case is settled by the courts.
In York, Pennsylvania in , a group
“surrounded the crier and forbid any person purchasing when the property
which had been seized was offered for sale. A cow which had been in the
hands of the collector was driven away by the rioters.”
In the Dutch West Indies in “The
household effects of a physician who refused to pay the tax were offered
for sale at auction today by the Government. Although the building in
which the sale was held was crowded, there were no bids and the articles
were not sold.”
In Tasmania, in , “Large quantities of
goods were seized, and lodged in the Commissariat Store [but] Lawless mobs
paraded the streets, tore down fences, and, arming themselves with rails
and batons, smashed windows and doors.… The fence round the Commissariat
Store was torn down…”
During the Bardoli tax strike, “There were meetings in talukas contiguous
to Bardoli, not only in British territory, but also in the Baroda
territory, for expression of sympathy with the Satyagrahis and calling
upon people in their respective parts not to cooperate with the
authorities engaged in putting down the Satyagraha… by bidding for any
forfeited property that may be put to auction by the authorities.”
