The Museum of London has in its collection this 95-year-old banner from the Women’s Tax Resistance League:
So what’s a man doing on the banner of a women’s suffrage group? And what’s the “Ship Money” legend all about?
The story of John Hampden’s tax refusal is told in the book We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.
More on John Hampden:
I’ve made note of the tax resistance campaign of the women’s suffrage movement in Great Britain on a couple of previous occasions:
John Hampden was adopted as a sort of patron saint of the Women’s Tax Resistance League and other suffragist groups who used or defended the tactic of tax resistance.
To explain why the Hampden legend had the sort of resonance it did, I’ll turn to Stephen Dowell, who tells the story in his A History of Taxation and Taxes in England ():
The famous ship writs of king Charles Ⅰ. formed an extra-parliamentary method of obtaining the result of a tax on property. They embodied the ultimate expression of the ingenuity of the king’s advisers in the invention of means to enable him to rule without a parliament.
It will be remembered that the position of the king as regards the levy of taxes on property was clear and acknowledged. Except in the case of the Jews, who had been liable to indefinite extortion at the hands of the king because they were permitted to be here solely at his will, and in the case of the tenants of royal demesne, who by reason of their relation to the king as their landlord, were liable to tallage when he was in debt — with these two exceptions, the king never had any right to take an aid or subsidy from the subject without the consent of parliament, unless it were for knighting his son, for the marriage of his eldest daughter, or to ransom his person, and then only to a reasonable amount. On any other occasion the grant was in the hands of parliament.
An acknowledgment of this right of parliament was implied in the terms used for the contributions in aid of the king, which were demanded as for “gifts” and “benevolences,” or under the specious pretext of “loans;” and these attempts at exaction and any tax of the kind had been suppressed by the Petition of Eight, to which the king had given his assent in .
There was nothing new in the use of ship writs. They formed a well-known means of getting together a navy in times of war. Before the invention of cannon there was little difference between any ship worthy to be called a merchant vessel and a ship of war; and in the times of the Plantagenets, when we had no permanent navy, when ships were wanted for war, the sea-port towns had been required to furnish their ships with men and equipment for the defence of the kingdom. A permanent navy, commenced by Henry Ⅷ., with the Regent and the Harry Grâce à Dieu, or “the Great Harry,” had been carefully increased by him and Elizabeth, who, to the “one and twenty great ships and three notable galleys, with the sight whereof and the rest of the royal navy it was incredible how much her grace was delighted,” added, after the breach with Spain, one large ship at least every year. But even after this formation of a permanent royal navy, it was from the merchant navy that two-thirds of the ships that formed the fleet against the Armada were derived; and they were the result of ship writs, issued according to precedent, to London and the other port towns, requiring them to furnish ships and their equipment for the defence of the kingdom. Thus also, in , the greater number (12 out of 18) of the vessels employed in the attack on Algiers — the only warlike operation by sea undertaken by James Ⅰ. — were ships hired from private merchants; and on this occasion the port towns had been required to provide ships, and ship money was levied for the purpose. And lastly, as late as in , when we were at war with Spain, the seaports had been required, after the dissolution of parliament, to provide and maintain a fleet of ships for three months.
But all these were war precedents, and applied only to the port towns; and Noy’s ingenuity in building upon them his famous superstructure consisted in drafting the preamble of the “new writs of an old edition,” so as to bring the case, as far as possible, within the precedents, and to prepare the way for a more extensive issue of writs throughout the kingdom, on the plan of the ship-geld of Anglo-Saxon times.
At this time, though England was at peace with other nations, a rising jealousy of the importance of the Dutch threatened at no distant date to lead to war with them upon the question of the close or open sea. War was going on between the Spaniards and French and the Dutch. While the Barbary pirates had extended their ravages upon our merchant ships even to within sight of our coasts. Such was the state of affairs. Noy made the most of them. He began by infusing a spirit of crusade into the business by stigmatizing the corsairs as “Turks, enemies of the Christian name;” grouped these “thieves, robbers, and pirates of the sea” together in bands; recited their capture of ships and men in the channel and their further preparations of ships “to molest our merchants and grieve the kingdom;” and, referring to the wars abroad and the possibility that we might be involved in them — “the dangers which in these times of war do hang over our heads;” thus presented a strong case for providing for “the defence of the kingdom, safeguard of the sea, security of the subjects, and safe conduct of ships and merchandise coming to the kingdom and passing outwards to foreign parts.” Then he went on to say — in allusion to the principle of the old ship-geld of Anglo-Saxon times, that the whole kingdom ought, it was true, to bear the burden of defence, but the maritime counties and towns were “more chiefly bound to set a helping hand, not only because they got more plentiful gain by the sea than others, but also because it was their duty of allegiance to defend the sea coast and keep up the honour of the king there,” for which reason writs were sent to them on this occasion.1
The writs were issued on .
There was no opposition to this levy, which, after all, was not an unprecedented charge, though some towns petitioned against what they regarded as an overestimate of the proportion of the whole amount to be paid by the town, and the citizens of London, who were charged with the payment of a fifth of the whole sum, remonstrated on the ground they had advanced in former times against tallage, of their peculiar privileges of exemption from such levies, by reason of their charter, their ancient liberties and acts of parliament. But a summons of the lord mayor before the council and a stormy meeting ended in the submission of the Londoners to obey the king’s orders in the matter.
The amount raised was £104,252, a sum obviously insufficient for any extensive increase of the navy, while the course of events on the continent increased the anxiety of Charles to strengthen his force at sea. He was now advised to advance in the business and carry the intention of taxing the whole kingdom into effect by means of a second set of ship writs, to extend to inland as well as maritime counties and towns; and in June, the lord keeper, Coventry, in the usual address to the judges of assize in the Star Chamber, previous to their going on circuit, informed them to that effect, and that the grounds on which the council had advised the step were that “since all the kingdom was interested both in the honour, safety and profit, it was just and reasonable that they should all put to their helping hands.”
Accordingly on , a second issue of ship writs was ordered, to extend to inland as well as maritime counties and towns.
In these writs the recital of the reasons for the issue was altered so as to suit the circumstances. They proceeded upon the old principle of the ship-geld of Anglo-Saxon times, that inasmuch as the burden of defence relates to all, it should be borne by all, according to the law and custom of England. A writ was sent to the sheriff of every county, and separate writs to a number of the principal cities and towns. The writs stated the tunnage of the ship or ships required and the place of rendezvous at a given date, and contained elaborate provisions for the apportionment of the expense between the different parts and towns in the county, the assessment of the contributories, and the collection of the rate. In substance the levy was an extra-parliamentary levy of a subsidy of a fixed amount for the purpose of increasing the navy; for it was not necessary to provide the ship itself or the men. A special commission was issued for the loan of ships and pinnaces of the king’s own to counties and towns unable to find them as required by the writs, and the arming and furnishing them in warlike manner with ordnance and munition of all sorts; and the treasurer of the navy was empowered to receive from the officers of the counties and towns, all moneys paid in for the said ships and service.
Although the whole sum to be raised was but £208,900, a sum less than the produce of three subsidies, this more extended application of the ship writs encountered opposition not only in inland counties, but also in maritime places where the previous levy had not been opposed. No doubt the new assessment involved in the levy tended to render the ship money unpopular throughout the country; for the contributories would have to expect that their assessments would be raised in the king’s subsidy books, and for all the different local levies of the period — for building houses of correction, for contributions for places stricken by the plague, rates for the poor, &c. And no doubt the people also resented the interference of the sheriff in the business. But it was not for these reasons only that ship money met with opposition. It was now opposed on principle. In Oxfordshire, in the hundred of Bloxham, where stands lord Saye and Sele’s castle of Broughton, the constables, evidently upon careful advice, refused to proceed to the assessment, on the ground that they “had no authority to assess or tax any man” and conceived the warrants sent to them did not give them any power to do so, and eventually sir Peter Wentworth, the sheriff, was ordered himself to make the necessary assessment. While troubles of the same kind occurred in Devonshire and other places.
In these circumstances the king caused a case to be submitted to the judges, in , for their opinion as to the legality of the levy and his power to enforce payment of the ship money, and the twelve judges, viz., the justices of the courts of king’s bench and common pleas and the barons of the exchequer, or ten of them according to some accounts, expressed and signed their opinion, in answer to the questions put to them, as follows:—
We are of opinion that when the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned and the whole kingdom is in danger, your Majesty may by writ under your great seal of England, command all the subjects of this your kingdom at their charge to provide and furnish such a number of ships, with men, victuals, and munition, and for such time as your majesty may think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom from such danger and peril; and that by law your majesty may compel the doing thereof in case of refusal or refractoriness.
We are also of opinion that in such case your majesty is the sole judge, both of the danger and when and how the same is to be prevented and avoided.
This opinion was, by command of the king, enrolled in the courts of chancery, king’s bench, common pleas and exchequer, and also entered among the remembrances of the court of star chamber; and thus fortified, he continued the levy of ship money. A third issue of ship writs, similar to those issued on , was ordered in , and they produced £202,240 And in there was a fourth issue of writs.
Although under the new assessments, the ship money was, certainly, more fairly assessed than any fifteenth and tenth or subsidy hitherto collected — for indeed, it was of extreme importance to the king that no fault to be found with the assessment or any detail of the tax should endanger the rapidity and ease of the collection — and although the amount levied was no more than about the annual average of the produce of the subsidies granted to the king by parliament in the earlier part of the reign, the opposition of the people to ship money increased on every occasion of a levy. Already Robert Chambers, a merchant of London, an old opponent of the imposts who had suffered imprisonment for his opposition, had endeavoured to test the legality of ship money in a court of law, but without success; for the court had refused to hear his counsel on the ground, as stated by sir Richard Berkeley, that “the question raised was one of government and not of law.” And now lord Saye and Sele, and John Hampden, a Buckinghamshire squire, determined to obtain a legal decision upon the point. The king, confident in the opinion expressed by the judges, had no reason to offer any opposition to the course proposed, and Hampden’s, made a test case, came on for hearing in the court of exchequer in .
In cases of great importance and difficulty arising in one of the three superior courts of law, it was usual to adjourn the case into the exchequer chamber, a court which, for this purpose, consisted of all the judges of the three courts. This course was taken by the barons of the exchequer in Hampden’s case. The case was argued solemnly for several days; and in the result, it was decided by a majority of the judges that Hampden should be charged with the sum assessed on him, the main grounds and reasons for the decision being those of the extrajudicial opinion of the judges in .
The story of John Hampden’s tax refusal is also told in the book We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.
At last, the king was compelled to summon a parliament, , in order to provide for the expenses of the preparations for the campaign in Scotland. But this parliament, subsequently known as the short parliament, was dissolved as soon as it appeared probable that they would refuse to proceed at once to the question of supply.
In the king summoned a great council of peers and laid before them the difficulties of his case, and on their advice, summoned in , subsequently known as the Long Parliament. This parliament, after passing the Triennial Act and the Bill of Attainder against Strafford, settled the question of tunnage and poundage by granting the subsidy for a short term, and then proceeded to pass Acts against the ship money, distraint for knighthood and illegal impositions, and for ascertaining the bounds of the royal forests.
The Act against ship money, 16 Car. I. c. 14, entitled, “An Act for declaring illegal and void the late proceedings touching ship money and for vacating all records and process concerning the same” recites:—
“The issue of the ship-writs. The necessity of enforcing payment against sundry persons by process of law. The proceedings against Hampden. The hearing of the case and the decision of the judges that Hampden should be charged with the sum assessed on him. The grounds for that decision. The extrajudicial opinion given by all the judges on the case submitted to them in , and, That other cases were then depending in the court of exchequer and in some other courts against other persons, for the like kind of charge, grounded upon the said writs commonly called ship writs, all which writs and proceedings as aforesaid were utterly against the law of the land;” and enacts:—
That the said charge imposed upon the subject for the providing and furnishing of ships, commonly called ship-money; and the said extrajudicial opinion of the said justices and barons and the said writs, and every of them and the said agreement or opinion of the greater part of the said justices and barons, and the said judgment given against the said John Hampden, were, and are, contrary to and against the laws and statutes of this realm, the right of property, the liberty of the subjects, former resolutions in Parliament, and the Petition of Eight made in the third year of the reign.
And further, that all and every the particulars prayed or desired in the said Petition of Eight, shall from henceforth be put in execution accordingly, and shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as in the same Petition they are prayed and expressed. And that all and every the records and remembrances of all and every the judgment enrolments, entry and proceedings as aforesaid, and all and every the proceedings whatsoever, upon, or by pretext or colour of any of the said writs commonly called ship writs, and all and every the dependents on any of them, shall be deemed and adjudged to all intents, constructions and purposes to be utterly void and disannulled, and that all and every the said judgment, enrolments, entries, proceedings, and dependents of what kind soever, shall be vacated and canceled in such manner and form as records use to be that are vacated.
- The attorney-general, “with his own hand” — according to Edward Hyde Clarendon — “draughted and prepared the ship writs” for the maritime towns and counties. “Noy,” writes Selden, in his Table Talk, “brought in the ship money for maritime towns, which was like putting in a little auger that afterwards you may put in a greater. He that pulls down the first brick does the main work; afterwards, it is easy to pull down the wall.”
Karl Marx, when he was on trial for his own tax resistance, referred back to Hampden, saying:
Far be it from me to deny that the English revolution, which brought Charles Ⅰ to the scaffold, began with a refusal to pay taxes or that the North American revolution, which ended with the Declaration of Independence from Britain, started with a refusal to pay taxes. The refusal to pay taxes can be the harbinger of unpleasant events in Prussia too. It was not John Hampden, however, who brought Charles Ⅰ to the scaffold, but only the latter’s own obstinacy, his dependence on the feudal estates, and his presumptuous attempt to use force to suppress the urgent demands of the emerging society. The refusal to pay taxes is merely a sign of the dissidence that exists between the Crown and the people, merely evidence that the conflict between the government and the people has reached a menacing degree of tensity. It is not the cause of the discord or the conflict, it is merely an expression of this fact. At the worst, it leads to the overthrow of the existing government, the existing political system. The foundations of society are not affected by this. In the present case, moreover, the refusal to pay taxes was a means of society’s self-defense against a government which threatened its foundations.
Benjamin Ricketson Tucker faced off in the pages of Liberty with a letter writer who contrasted Tucker’s hesitant tax resistance with that of Hampden’s. Some of Gandhi’s first writings on tax resistance also concerned Hampden:
At that time, King Charles was the ruler of England and he wanted to wage wars in foreign lands. As his treasury had become empty, he imposed Ship Money. Hampden, a rich gentleman of great prestige, saw that, if Ship Money were paid, the King’s demands would go on increasing and the people would suffer. He therefore refused to pay the tax, and many joined him in this. Though some of them agreed to pay the tax, Hampden remained firm and was prosecuted. The judges sentenced him, declaring that he had committed a crime in not paying the tax. Despite the sentence, Hampden did not pay the tax. Hampden and his companions went to jail and the people congratulated them. Like them, the people too remained firm. Many did not pay the tax and there was a great revolt. The King became nervous and the whole matter was reconsidered. It was realized that thousands of people could not be sent to jail. He therefore got the earlier judgment reversed by other judges and Hampden was set free. The seed of the struggle for freedom that he sowed grew into a mighty tree. As a result of the struggle he put up, Cromwell emerged and England acquired real power and the people were given a large share in the governance of the country. Hampden died fighting for his country; he remains immortal.
First Imprisonment for Insurance Tax Resistance.
Two Months For Mrs. [Kate] Harvey.
Undaunted, Mrs. Harvey has gone to Holloway.
The Bromley police authorities, after certain spasmodic efforts to secure payment of the sums claimed from her, have carried the sentence of the court into effect, and, by courteous arrangement, allowed Miss Harvey, Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, and Miss [Mary] Anderson to accompany her to the gates of Holloway.
A plain clothes officer and a woman warder met them at Bromley Station, and two taxi’s [sic] conveyed them to the prison from Holborn.
A great meeting of protest is to be held against the vindictive sentence on our brave comrade, for which has been fixed.
Trafalgar-square will be the place of meeting, and we hope to have a great rally of the friends of freedom.
Meetings also will be held in Bromley Market-place twice a week — Mondays and Wednesdays — at 7.30 p.m., where we hope members will rally when possible.
We venture to foretell that Mrs. Harvey will come out of prison no less resolute a resister than when she went in, and that she will stand to her principle of resisting Government without consent and taxation without representation no matter what Governments may order or police authorities execute.
We wish to call attention to another prosecution, that of four farmers in Scotland — we have republished several lately, — of men who also resisted the Act and whose servants resisted the Act by joint conspiracy, the latter not being prosecuted at all.
The penalties imposed in none of these cases have been so heavy as those imposed on Mrs. Harvey, whose chief crime is that she acts on principle and not because she desires to evade and obligation.
The Scottish farmers’ case is as follows:—
At Aberdeen on four farmers from the Turriff district pleaded guilty to having failed to pay insurance contributions in respect of farm servants in their employ.
Their agents stated that the farm servants in this district, believing that they were better off under the former conditions, when the employers provided for them during illness, than they would be under the provisions of the Act, refused to bring their cards, and declined to engage unless the master gave an understanding not only that he would not deduct the money from their wages but would not apply for an emergency card.
The Fiscal said that in such cases complaint should have been lodged with the Commissioners, who would have instituted a prosecution against the servants.
A penalty of 15s. for each offence in each case was imposed, and on the application of Mr. Gerrard, who appeared for the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, decree was given for the amount of contributions in arrears.
―Glasgow Herald, .
C. Nina Boyle.
Letter from Mrs. Harvey.
Comrades, — When you read this you will be much in my thoughts, for I shall be in Holloway Gaol.
I will not insult you by asking you to think of me, but when you do, will you remember that if my sentence be the means of bringing home to but one person the kind of justice meted out by vote-protected men to voteless women, the price will be light though the sentence is heavy, very heavy when compared with that passed on men whose only desire is to shirk responsibility when refusing to pay the Insurance Tax, iniquitously heavy when compared with the sentences passed on men who ruin the bodies of our girls, often baby-girls.
Since writing the above I have heard that, quite lately, a man was sentenced to a twenty shillings fine or seven days for criminally assaulting two children, the excuse being that his brain was weak.
The same authorities do not hesitate to label Suffragettes “mad,” but in their case it is only an added excuse for harsh treatment.
Justice!
We have almost forgotten the meaning of the word.
“No taxation without representation.”
Men made that law, men break that law, then punish women for not breaking it also!
Justice! It is conspicuous by its absence!
Another man-made law, “a man must be tried by his peers”; equally so a woman should be tried by her peers!
One thing I ask.
Will you strive by every means in your power to make “Hiawatha” [a dramatic version of Longfellow’s poem that Harvey had put together] a huge success?
It is a sore trouble to leave before arrangements are fully completed; help me by letting my absence rouse you to enthusiastic endeavour for our paper!
Many doubt as to the wisdom of the step I have taken; none can doubt as to the lack of wisdom in a Government that deliberately turns good citizens into outlaws! — Yours, in the Cause that is nearest to our hearts, the Cause of women — and children, they are inseparable,
K. Harvey.
Mrs. Despard’s Letter to Mr. McKenna
Mrs. Despard has sent the following letter to the Home Secretary:—
2, Currie-street, Nine Elms, London, S.W.
.
To the Right Honble. Reginald McKenna, M.P.
Sir,— A few months ago you granted an interview to me and several of my colleagues in the Women’s Freedom League.
I spoke to you then on what I conceive to be the maladministration of justice in this country and the unequal incidence of punishment.
I desire now to bring before you a glaring instance of that of which I complain, hoping that if your attention has not been drawn to it, you will immediately give it your serious consideration.
Thousands of British men and women are refusing to pay the Insurance Tax or to deduct the Tax from the wages of those whom they employ.
Some object to this tax on principle; others desire to shirk responsibility.
Suffragists — and I am amongst their number — are, in many cases resisting this in common with other forms of taxation because their rights of citizenship are not recognised.
There have been sundry prosecutions — mostly of men in business.
I wish to quote three cases to show you the different treatment meted out to men and women in our law courts.
Joseph Lister, of Doncaster, defaulter for thirty-one weeks, was given by Mr. Andrews, the magistrate, a fine of 50s., with payment of costs.
Mr. F. Hamblin (Eastbourne), who had conscientious objections, was summoned on twenty counts.
He was ordered to pay fines, costs and arrears to the amount of £6 14s., 8d..
Mrs. Harvey, of Brackenhill, Bromley, Kent — a Suffragist, the first who has been proceeded against for Insurance Tax resistance — was summoned, on , on ten counts in respect of her gardener.
She was fined £1 on each count, £4 10s. costs, £2 2s. special costs, and ordered to pay the arrears, 5s. 10d.; total, £16 17s. 10d.
I beg you to compare this sentence with the two previous ones.
Mrs. Harvey, deeply conscious of the injustice done to her, has refused to pay the money.
A week later a further fine of £5 was imposed upon her for refusal to pay her gardener’s license.
The alternative was a month’s imprisonment on each summons, and she went to Holloway yesterday.
I cannot believe, sir, that you will permit this injustice to be done.
Let me remind you that the woman who, in a Piccadilly flat, used for vile purposes, was drawing young girls to their ruin, had a similar sentence.
We hear, moreover, on good authority, that she was released after she had served ten days.
Mrs. Harvey is one whose time, service and money are given to the rescue of little destitute children, and to the help of those not so fortunately placed as herself.
While such injustices as these are permitted by the authorities, can you wonder that women are in revolt? ―Yours truly,
C. Despard
Women’s Freedom League Statement.
The following letter has been sent to the Press from Headquarters:—
Sir,— We write to protest against the extraordinary partial administration of justice in this country.
Thousands of persons are resisting the Insurance Act in Great Britain; many cases have been brought before the Courts and nominal fines only have been imposed on the defendants.
When, however, it is a case of a woman, and a Suffragist, resisting this Act, who from the point of view of principle, objects to paying taxes because she is not represented in the counsels of the nation, a heavy penalty is exacted.
Mrs. Harvey, of Bromley, Kent, who refused to pay her Insurance dues in respect of her gardener, William David Asquith, or the license for him, was fined as follows:—
For refusal to pay Insurance dues—
£16 17 10 £1 fine on each count £10 0 0 Arrears of Insurance amounting to 0 5 10 Court fees 4 10 0 “Special costs” asked for by the Insurance Commissioners 2 2 0
For refusal to pay the license—
£5 14 0 Fine £5 0 0 Costs 0 14 0
And since she declined to pay these fines Mrs. Harvey has to-day been conveyed to Holloway Gaol for two months’ imprisonment in the second division.
We think these facts speak for themselves.
Mrs. Harvey spends her life in working for the betterment of conditions under which our poorer children live, and has never failed to help those weaker than herself.
She believes that until women have a voice in making the laws, no satisfactory legislation will be carried through for the protection of girls and children.
For this reason she protests against the exclusion of women from full citizenship rights, and the answer of men’s representatives is two months’ imprisonment in the second division.
For keeping a Piccadilly flat for the express purpose of ruining young girls physically, mentally and morally, another woman was also sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and it is universally believed that she was released at the end of ten days!
―We are, yours faithfully,
Charlotte Despard.
Florence A. Underwood.
A “Snowball” Protest.
As evidence of the wide interest which is being aroused, Miss Marie Lawson writes from 5, Westbourne-square, London, W., to inform us that she has started a “Snowball” protest on behalf of Mrs. Harvey — a form of protest which she worked successfully in the case of Mr. Mark Wilkes.
The “Snowball” letter, which she hopes will be copied and widely distributed, is as follows:—
Dear Madam,— Mrs. K. Harvey, of Bromley, Kent, has been committed to prison for two months for non-payment of a Government tax and for non-compliances with the requirements of the National Insurance Act.
Because she refuses to submit to the tyranny of arbitrary taxation and because her conscience will not permit her to comply with conditions which she knows to be wrong and unjust, she has been given this extraordinarily severe sentence.
Passive resistance is a form of protest which has been frequently and successfully used in this country by men.
A good part of our constitutional history may be said to have been written in the terms of tax-resistance, and it is largely by such means that some of our greatest reforms have been won.
In the case of voteless women it is the only form of protest open to them, short of actual violence.
They have to choose between passive resistance and cowardly acquiescence.
Mrs. Harvey has chosen the latter [sic], and as a result now lies in Holloway Prison.
I earnestly request you to assist the agitation for her immediate release in two ways:—
- By copying the accompanying form of protest on to two postcards, adding your name and address, and directing one to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Treasury, Whitehall, S.W., and the other to the Home Secretary, Home Office, Whitehall, S.W..
- By copying this letter and the form of protest in full and forwarding it to at least three friends, inviting them to join in this “snowball” movement.
Relying on your sympathy and cooperation,
Yours sincerely,
No Taxation Without Representation.
Form of Protest
I write with reference to the case of Mrs. K. Harvey, of Bromley, Kent, who has been committed to prison for two months as a result of her refusal to submit to the tyranny of arbitrary taxation.
In seeking to impress upon a Liberal Government the necessity of putting its principles into practice, Mrs. Harvey adopted the time-honoured protest of passive resistance.
That being her only offence, I protest against this vindictive sentence, and urge you to use every effort to secure her immediate release.
At Headquarters.
We look forward to a strenuous autumn and winter campaign.
We shall begin this in London by holding a demonstration in Trafalgar-square, , to 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 comply with the regulations of the Insurance Act.
We urge our readers to make this demonstration as widely known as possible, and to bring all the friends they can to the Square to protest against this excessive sentence.
Vote sellers, literature sellers, collectors, and banner bearers will be in great demand, and we shall be glad to have names of volunteers at an early date.
“John Hampden.”
“Would 20s. have ruined Mr. Hampden’s fortune?”
“No, but the payment of half 20s. on the principle on which it was demanded would have made him a slave.”
So Burke epitomised the attitude of John Hampden towards unjust taxation, and so with equal conciseness might the position of the modern tax-resister be summed up.
Beyond the fact that he resisted Ship Money, the majority of people know little about John Hampden, and we therefore commend the new edition of a pamphlet by Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison, of the Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Herself a well-known resister, the writer has depicted with sympathy and force the struggle between Hampden and the King, and with a novelist’s skill has made the events live again.
The character of this “rebel and leader of rebels” was marked by restraint and dignity, by respect for order and good government.
Slow to take up arms against the King, he acted directly his duty became clear; he received his death-wound leading his “Green Coats” at Chalgrove Field.
Incidently it is interesting to note that the loss of his case against the Crown roused people to see how degenerate the law may become, and paved the way for the Great Rebellion.
It was not the men alone who rebelled, but the women also refused to submit to unjust laws.
Among the twenty or thirty people who signed the protest against Ship Money in Great Kimble Church in 1635 were four women — Mrs. Westall and the Widows Bampton, Goodchild and Semple.
Women also presented petitions for peace at Westminster Hall.
“It may be thought strange and unbeseeming our sex to show ourselves here… but… we are sharers in the public calamities,” so ran the first petition.
This deputation was well received by Pym.
Not so fortunate was the later one of 5,000 women.
Because they pushed their way to the doors of the House of Commons, a cavalry charge was ordered, two women were killed and several injured.
One wonders if there was not a touch of sarcasm about the meek wording of these petitions.
One can imagine the lips of these brave women slightly curling with scorn at such words, as “We need not dictate to your eagle-eyed judgment the way,” or “We do this not… as seeking to equal ourselves with men either in authority or wisdom.”
But we forbear from further extracts, and advise all who wish to realise the continuity of the struggle for freedom through the centuries to read this little book.
M.L.
* “John Hampden” (second edition, with frontispiece).
By Mrs. Darent Harrison.
(Published by the Women’s Tax Resistance League, 10, Talbot House, 98, St. Martin’s-lane, W.C.
Price 1d.)
…some of us have just accompanied to the gates of Holloway the comrade and friend whose letter will be found in the columns of this issue.
Mrs. Harvey, of Bracken Hill, whose splendid work and gracious personality are known to so many of us, having been sentenced to a month’s imprisonment in the second division for refusing to pay her Insurance Tax, and to another month, in lieu of fine, for a license for a manservant, went to prison on Monday.
Our readers will understand that no effort will be spared by the League to make this iniquity known.
We have reason to believe that the law has been strained, if not broken, in the infliction of these sentences.
That will be ascertained.
It is our fervent hope that Mrs. Harvey will soon be with us again.
Meantime we hope and believe that every member of the League will help us to the utmost limit of their powers in the battle we are waging against this gross injustice.
In particular, will every member of the League in London and the neighborhood rally round our banners on , in Trafalgar-square, where a big demonstration of protest will be held?
We hope earnestly that you will not only come yourselves, but that you will bring others with you.
Just and righteous administration of the law is a question which affects men quite as deeply as it affects women.
C. Despard.
Here is another excerpt from Helena Normanton’s series of articles on “Foundations of Freedom” that she wrote for The Vote. This one comes from the issue:
Seeing that he who pays the piper calls the tune and that political power is merely the cutting edge of economic power, this article will offer a few considerations upon how Parliament came to control our taxation.
The whole of English history might be written to centre round the subject of taxation direct and indirect.
From the time when Canute made the law:
“I command all my reeves that they justly provide on my own and maintain me therewith; and that no man need give them anything as feorm-fultum unless he himself be willing” down to Magna Carta, disputes between King and nobles constantly circled round taxation.
The question which agitated the mind of the mediæval landowner was this:
Might the King take only certain dues which were recognised and customary, or had he the power to take other taxes if he thought fit?
If necessity really arose that the King should have extra money to meet some national emergency, how was he to get it?
By obtaining the personal consent of those who were to pay it assembled in a Great Council, said Magna Carta.
Those people who drag in at this point that the barons intended that representation should precede taxation are introducing an unnecessary confusion.
In his great work on Magna Carta Prof. McKechnie has shown how unhistorical it is to assign so advanced a point of view to thirteenth century barons.
Personal consent to taxation was the point of view that interested them, not representation.
The earlier struggles of reluctant taxpayers with the Crown assumed the principle of personal consent preceding taxation.
The later struggles in Stuart days centred round the consent of Parliament to all taxation.
The American Revolution was grounded on the principle that as the Colonies were not represented in the British Parliament it was unconstitutional to tax them therein.
No Taxation without Representation was their cry, and they meant it in a national sense, not an individual one.
A long series of Charters and Statutes extending shows the intensity of the struggle made by Parliament against arbitrary taxation by the Crown.
Four national rebellions of the first magnitude have been waged to secure this right — against John, Richard Ⅱ., Charles Ⅰ. and James Ⅱ.
Individual protests have also played their part such as the cases of Reed, Bate, Darnel, and the celebrated one of John Hampden against shipmoney in the reign of Charles Ⅰ.
John Hampden is often quoted in platform speeches, and people frequently get hold of the wrong end of the stick about him.
He did not refuse shipmoney because of lack of representation, but because the King was imposing the tax without the consent of Parliament.
It is noteworthy that out of the twelve judges seven gave verdict against him and he lost his case.
But the decision was very unpopular and was undoubtedly one of the causes of the Civil War.
This trial made Hampden “the argument of all tongues, every man inquiring who and what he was that he durst of his own charge support the liberty and property of the kingdom and rescue his country from being made a prey to the court.”
Where suffragists may well take Hampden as an example is in his fearlessness in making an individual protest.
He was a lawyer and great student of the Constitution.
Those who desire to bring about political changes or help in great movements, such as the enfranchisement of women, will never find a moment wasted in studying the character and achievements of such men as Hampden.
We are told by his enemy Clarendon that “he was of an industry and vigilance not to be tired out or wearied by the most laborious, and of parts not to be imposed upon by the most subtle or sharp, and of a personal courage equal to his parts.”
How women in the Suffrage Movement need to share in that quality of “not being imposed upon by the most subtle or sharp!”
The wisdom of the serpent is as necessary now as ever!
That is why knowledge of the Constitution is invaluable in political work.
The long struggle between Parliament and the Crown over the control of taxation was practically decided by the Civil War of .
After the Restoration of the Stuarts James Ⅱ. attempted to revive illegal taxation; for this and other misdoings he lost the throne, and by the Revolution of William Ⅲ. and Mary were offered it on conditions.
One of those conditions was:—
“Levying money by pretense of prerogative without grant of Parliament is illegal.”
(Bill of Rights, )
Normanton tosses out the names “Reed, Bate, Darnel” so casually, but I have no idea who they are, and they don’t seem to have warranted a mention in Stephen Dowell’s two-volume A History of Taxation and Taxes in England from the Earliest Times to the Present Day either.
One way a tax resistance campaign can claim victory is by convincing the government to either formally rescind the tax, or to recognize the legal validity of tax resistance.
But history is also full of lessons about the foolishness of trusting the government when it responds to your tax resistance campaign by insisting that it’s on your side and wants to help. For example:
