On , there were unfamiliar proceedings in the police-court of the town of Woodbridge.
Two people had refused to pay their licenses.
A strange thing to do, surely, for has not the Government imposed taxation in order to carry on the business of the nation?
The result of refusal must be a fine or imprisonment, or how otherwise can money be collected?
People are not all yet such good citizens that they give joyfully.
But here were two people, following the example of many others, who deliberately refused payment because they wished to demonstrate to the Government and the local authorities that if they exact taxes they must give the equivalent of representation.
The magistrates were very sympathetic and listened patiently to the case we put before them.
“You belong to the superior sex, then, I suppose?” said the Chairman to Mrs. [Hortense] Lane.
“No,” she replied; “we look upon the sexes as equal.”
“Do you plead guilty to keeping a dog unlawfully without a license?”
I was asked.
“I do not acknowledge it was unlawful,” was the reply.
“I am not a person in the eyes of the law.”
On being asked if there was anything I wished to say, I replied: “Yes.
I wish to request the Bench to petition Mr. [Prime Minister Herbert Henry] Asquith to give facilities for the Conciliation Bill put down for to be passed into law.
If magistrates would do their part in bringing about this great justice they would not be troubled with Suffragettes in court.”
Afterwards we held a meeting outside, and Mrs. Stansfield and Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett made clear the meaning of our protest.
Up to the present no proceedings have been taken, although we, of course, refused to pay the fines imposed.
Can it be that the local authorities are not going to take proceedings?
If so, we have gained a moral victory, and it is a good augury for the future of our movement.
Constance E. Andrews.
The Vote tends to refer to people as Mr., Mrs., or Miss Lastname, without any prior reference that clarifies more specifically just who it is they’re talking about.
I have been unable to find a first name for “Mrs. Lane” for example, which also makes it difficult to find much more information about her (although she will also appear in some other Vote articles).
Thanks to reader Jenny Holmes, Hortense Lane’s great-granddaughter, for giving me the secret of her first name and allowing me to discover more about her remarkable life.
Dear Madam,— Since , when distraint was last levied at my residence on account of my refusal to submit to the tyranny of taxation without representation, I have paid no taxes, and, until quite recently, I have not been unduly pressed.
Lately, however, I received an official intimation that unless the amount outstanding for income tax be paid forthwith proceedings would be commenced in the High Court of Justice to recover the same.
A lengthy correspondence between Mr. F.M. Spencer Lewin, solicitor, acting for me, and the Secretary of the Inland Revenue Department, has ensued.
The concluding paragraphs of Mr. Lewin’s latest communication (to which as yet no answer has been received) contain points of interest to tax resisters, and are quoted below:—
…My client desires me to especially invite your reconsideration of the threat of legal proceedings in the High Court.
The whole purport of Section 86, and what I may term the affiliated sections in the Taxes Management Act, 1880, show that distraint is primarily the remedy, and that proceedings in the High Court are only resorted to in the case of a collector making a return of deficiencies.
The words of Sub-Section 1 of Section 86 are, to my mind, obligatory upon the collector to distrain in the first place: “If a person refuses to pay… such collector may, and he is thereunto authorised and required for non-payment thereof, to distrain, &c.” Surely nothing could be clearer than this.
In case there should still be in your mind the same misapprehension as existed at the time of writing me your letter of , I would take this opportunity of pointing out once again that there are goods of Miss Lawson’s upon which the distraint could be made, as it has been heretofore, and this fact most be within the knowledge of the Local Tax Authorities.
One does not like to use the word “oppression” in official correspondence, but I am bound to say that if, in face of my distinct statements in this letter, the authorities still persist in using the ponderous machinery of High Court procedure to collect this small amount, it would be as near an injustice as one would expect to get.
— Yours faithfully, Marie Lawson.
Women’s Tax Resistance League. .
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.
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.
“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.
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.
I am still locked up!
A fellow “resister” has sent the following lines to cheer me:—
Good luck, my friend, I wish to thee, In thy brave fight ’gainst tyranny. Bracken Hill Siege will bring good cheer To those who hold our Freedom dear, And fight the good fight far and near.
And when oppression is out-done, And Liberty, at last, is won, When women civic rights possess, They’ll think, I hope, with thankfulness, Of those who bore the battle’s stress.
Those women who have heard or read of the impending arrest of Mr. Mark Wilks (the husband of Dr. Elizabeth Wilks) in consequence of his inability to pay income-tax on his wife’s earnings from her profession, will doubtless be interested to know why such a situation is possible, and what is the exact legal position of the husband and wife.
Long ago in the dark ages, or to speak more precisely, in , the Income Tax Act was passed, which regulates all income-tax procedure, even to the present day.
It is a most fearsome piece of composition.
Its language is archaic and tautological, it rises wholly superior to punctuation, and proceeds breathlessly through one hundred and ninety-four clauses.
Clause No. 45 provides that the “profits” of any married woman “shall be deemed to be the profits of her husband,” and are to be charged with income-tax in his name and not in hers.
In other words, he was to pay, and she was to be exempt, a perfectly fair arrangement in the bad old times when a man acquired his wife’s revenues or earnings on their marriage and she became thereby literally a “destitute” person.
The word “profits” denotes all revenue or income derived either from the wife’s capital or her labour.
So whether she receives her income from rents, interest, dividends, &c., from the exercise of a trade or profession, or from salary or wages paid for her services or labour, a demand for payment of income-tax thereon must be made to her husband, and to him only.
If he fails to comply with such demand, he can be thrown into prison (without any trial or other formalities) until he pays.
Such is the unfortunate and wholly absurd position to which man-made law has brought Mr. Mark Wilks — as well as numerous other husbands whom the Inland Revenue authorities are mostly unable to locate.
It will be seen that his arrest might involve a husband’s being imprisoned indefinitely, or even permanently, the period of detention being only determined by payment of the sum demanded, which in the present instance is £40. Most of the Press reports have rather distorted Mr. Wilks’ case by asserting that it is Mrs. Wilks who is refusing to pay.
Legally no married woman can even be asked to pay income-tax, and therefore a refusal on her part is quite out of the question.
I can hear someone saying, “Oh, but in we obtained a Married Woman’s Property Act.”
Quite true, but according to an official letter from Somerset House in my possession, “the Crown does not recognise this Act.”
The Crown authorities claim the right to maintain the position as it existed seventy years ago, and to over-ride the later and minor Act whenever it happens to suit their own ends.
It happens — for reasons which space compels me to omit — to suit them to the tune of two and a-half million pounds a year.
Mr. Lloyd George confessed quite frankly in the House of Commons recently, when it was suggested to him that it was high time the Government set an example of compliance with the law, instead of bare-faced defiance of it, that to recognise the Married Women’s Property Act would annually deplete the Treasury to this large amount.
Mr. Stuart Wortley boldly told the Government they were an unscrupulous and dishonest lot, who juggled with the laws of the country, and shaped their policy on £ s. d., instead of on even-handed justice.
And in the course of the debate it was stated that if mercantile firms conducted their business on this principle they would speedily find themselves in the dock.
Readers will probably be in thorough agreement with this declaration.
As a tax-resister on the ground that taxation and representation must go together, Miss Marie Lawson has made the following appeal to His Majesty the King:—
To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty, etc. The Humble Petition of Marie Lawson, of 5, Westbourne-square, London, showeth:—
That your petitioner, having been proceeded against by Your Majesty’s Attorney-General in the High Court of Justice with respect to the non-payment of Income Tax, humbly prays Your Majesty to stay the said proceedings in consideration of the circumstances hereunder set forth:—
That the imposition of such tax is wrong and unjust in that it is an infringement of the principle that taxation and representation must go together, a principle which has been long recognised in that rule which prohibits the House of Lords, and an unrepresentative assembly, from initiating or amending Money Bills; and it is respectfully submitted that the same principle should operate to prevent the House of Commons, an assembly equally unrepresentative with regard to Your Majesty’s female subjects, from initiating or enforcing financial legislation affecting such subjects.
That the redress of grievances has long been recognised as a condition to supplies, and that arbitrary taxation has been persistently and successfully resisted in the past, whether the arbitrary taxation levied by the King in his own person which in the Stuart period plunged this country into Civil War, or the arbitrary taxation levied by Parliament, in the name of the Crown, which caused the American revolution.
That Your Petitioner, in common with large numbers of other women, has been driven to resistance by the goad that is furnished by the continued refusal of your Majesty’s government to grant to the women of Great Britain that measure of justice already enjoyed by their sisters in Your Majesty’s dominions beyond the seas.
Madam. — Since the outbreak of war, in accordance with the advice of the late
committee of The Women’s Tax Resistance League, and with my own ideas, I have
promptly paid any taxes for which I have been assessed. I suppose that the
majority of suffragist tax resisters — actuated by patriotic motives — have
done the same, not because they have in any way changed their views regarding
the unjustifiableness of arbitrary taxation, but for patriotic reasons — because they wished to contribute, in proportion to their incomes, to the
expenses of the war. That, at any rate, was my idea, and I notified the
authorities accordingly, leaving unpaid a small balance which represented
“pre-war” income tax. I did this because it was the only way I could think of
to show that I had not conceded the principle.
To-day I have been served with a writ, at the suit of His Majesty’s Attorney
General, for the recovery of this small pre-war balance. Not only so, but the
Government has taken steps effectually to put an end to any form of tax
resistance, on the part of salaried persons, in the future. Their Finance
(No. 3) Bill provides that—
If any person fails to pay the amount of any income tax assessed and charged
on him… within one month after a demand has been made for the tax…
commissioners may cause notice to be served on any employer by whom the
person from whom the tax is due is for the time being employed, setting out
the said facts and directing that employer to pay over to the commissioners,
as the remuneration of the person employed becomes due, such proportion of
that remuneration (not exceeding one-quarter thereof) as may be required by
the notice until the amount due is satisfied.
The employer shall pay… any amount so directed to be paid,
notwithstanding the provisions of any Act or any contract to the contrary,
and that amount, if not paid, may be recovered as a debt due to His Majesty
from the employer.
In this way has the Government taken advantage of a time of truce to deprive
salaried suffragists of their only weapon of defence. Our action since the
war, dictated by reasons of patriotism, has, as usual, been misunderstood
by the authorities, who have regarded it as an indication that we have
conceded the principle for which we have been fighting so long. Yours,
etc.,
On a sale was held at 45,
Parker Street, Kingsway, of jewellery seized in distraint for income-tax,
which Miss Marie Lawson, managing director of the Minerva Publishing Co. and
member of the National Executive Women’s Freedom League, had refused to pay.
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, and the auctioneer, on his arrival, appeared to
treat the whole affair as a joke, gently rallying the women on what he was
pleased to term “the trouble they had given him in coming there.” Mrs. How
Martyn pointed out to him that the Government through its officials had shown
itself at all times quite ready to go to an infinitude of trouble to
appropriate the women’s money, but had taken none to give them any voice in
the expenditure of that money. These protests were being made with a special
purpose to show the Government that taxes on earned income would not be paid
by women workers unless the same return was made to them as to men, i.e.,
representation by means of votes.
In refusing to pay income tax women have a strong weapon against the
Government, and the more protests of this kind and the more trouble the
authorities are put to in collecting the money, the sooner will politicians
realise the power that is behind the movement. If Suffragists would consider
for a moment that in paying income-tax they are in a measure acquiescing in
their present unfranchised condition there would be a greater number of
refusals to pay. Mr. Winston Churchill himself impressed on the passive
resisters, in a speech at Dundee, the great value of this form of protest
and what this astute man regarded as likely to be successful in the hands of
passive resisters is surely good enough for suffragists.
There are many ways to support tax resisters when they are targeted by the
police or courts, including:
Today I’ll finish off this series by mentioning some other examples of ways
sympathizers, supporters, and organized campaigns have responded to the arrest,
trial, or imprisonment of tax resisters.
Mass action in response to arrests
When elderly pensioner Sylvia Hardy was imprisoned for refusing to
continue to pay her ever-rising council tax, supporters started a daily
vigil outside Exeter Cathedral to bring attention to her plight. “Judging
from the passers-by,” one said, “most people are fully aware of what’s
happened to her and we’ve had a lot of sympathy and interest.”
When Australian miners refused to pay a license tax in
, they resolved that if any one of them
were arrested: “it should be reported to the [tax resistance] committee by
the nearest observer; they would immediately call a monster meeting, and
the whole of the people would deliver themselves into custody.”
In , Australian miners were at it again,
this time resisting the income tax. They voted on a resolution that said,
in part, that upon “any member being sent to prison for refusing to pay,
that all unionists be called on immediately to stop work, and refuse to
recommence until such member is released, or the garnished money is
refunded.”
In Beidenfleth, Germany, between the World Wars, farmers were unable to
keep up with their tax payments, and decided to strike rather than see
themselves further impoverished. When fifty-seven were indicted for
interfering with a tax seizure, hundreds of others who either had been
involved with that action (or who wished they could have been), demanded
to be tried alongside them:
[A] fever seemed to grip the countryside. From far and wide the peasants
poured into Itzehoe, where the case was to be tried, with wild cries of
self-accusation. The public prosecutor could not walk down the streets
without being at once mobbed by powerful, earnest men begging him to
lift the heavy weight of guilt from their shoulders and to restore their
inner peace of mind by issuing a writ against them.
Honor prisoners
While people were desperately trying to get themselves indicted for tax
resistance in Beidenfleth, those who succeeded were honored:
The Beidenfleth Heifer Case developed into a regular popular festival.
Maidenly hands strung garlands about the necks of those enviable
peasants who had achieved the honour of receiving a writ.
I’ve mentioned before the badges awarded by the Women’s Tax Resistance
League to those who had gone to prison in the course of the campaign, and
how those so awarded were given the place of honor at campaign events
(see The Picket
Line for ).
It was also common for the League to throw luncheons or other such events
to honor imprisoned resisters upon their release.
The annuity tax resisters in Edinburgh, Scotland, honored one imprisoned
resister with “a piece of plate for his conduct on this occasion.” Another
time, they passed the hat for contributions, which, when the money was
given to resister Thomas Russell, he said: “We shall give it to the
Annuity Tax League, to enable them to carry out their operations in the
abolishment of the tax.”
A plaque on the Cass County, Missouri courthouse building honors the five
county judges who were imprisoned for contempt for refusing to order the
county to collect taxes to pay off fraudulent railroad bonds
.
Formal shows of support
When John Brown Smith, a lone Christian anarchist tax resister who was
imprisoned for tax resistance for about a year
, a convention of
“Liberalists” in Boston passed a resolution in support of Smith’s stand,
saying: “That in suffering eight months’ imprisonment in the orthodox
Republican hell of Northampton, rather than pay his taxes, John Brown Smith
has shown discerning wisdom and invincible courage, which place him high
among the world’s benefactors, and disclose a practical way to vanquish
sanguinary forces without shedding innocent or vicious blood.”
One of the Cass County judges who went to jail for refusing to obey a
higher court order to impose taxes on the county to pay for fraudulent
railroad bonds, was elected to the state legislature by the citizens of
the county while he was in prison.
When war tax resister Zerah C. Whipple was in jail for his stand, the
Connecticut State Peace Society passed a series of resolutions in support.
For example: “Resolved: That it is a great, previous, and sanctifying
privilege of us all, to feel that in his bonds we are bound with him, and
to pour our heart’s holiest sympathies into his cup of trial.”
The Women’s Tax Resistance League and allied organizations would pass
resolutions in support of imprisoned resisters, send telegrams of
congratulation to resisters who were being jailed for the cause, and hold
meetings to especially commemorate and support their stand.
Petition the government for leniency
When a number of young Quaker men were imprisoned for failure to pay a
militia exemption tax in , David Cooper
followed them to jail, and met with the officers who were holding them
captive. He wrote:
I had much conversation with them; they appeared very moderate, but were
very earnest for me to pay the fine, and not suffer our sons to be
committed to prison. I told them they were aware that our religious
principles forbade it; the young men were in their possession, and I had
no desire to persuade them to deviate from what they believed their duty
as officers required; but only wished them to use their power in a
manner that would afford peace hereafter. It was a matter of conscience;
they ought therefore to be very tender, and not use rigor. If they were
committed I saw no end. They could never pay the fines without wounding
their own minds, nor could their friends do it for them. They appeared
friendly, and the young men being under the Sheriff’s care, he directed
them to go home, and meet him at Woodbury at an appointed day. He
afterwards sent them word they need give themselves no further trouble
till he called for them. So the matter rested.
The Women’s Tax Resistance League would write letters of inquiry to
government officials whenever one of them was imprisoned. For instance,
when Kate Harvey was jailed, Charlotte Despard wrote to her representative
in Parliament to point out the discrepancy between her cruel sentence and
the wrist-slaps given to men for similar offenses. “I cannot believe,
sir,” she wrote, “that you will permit this injustice to be done. … 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?” League member Marie
Lawson started what she called a “snowball” protest — a sort of chain
letter that sympathizers were supposed to send to their friends that
included a postcard-sized petition they could send to various government
figures.
When American war tax resister Maurice McCracken was imprisoned, supporters
sent a telegram to President Eisenbower, asking him to release the
prisoner (they got a vague, noncommittal reply).
Somewhat related to this is that when the American Revolution broke out,
one item on the agenda of the revolutionaries from North Carolina was the
legal rehabilitation of the tax rebels who had been convicted at the end
of the Regulator movement of
.
When trying to bring new tax resisters into a movement, there are lots of hopeful short-cuts, but sometimes there is no substitute for addressing potential resisters individually: whether that be through letters, petitions, or face-to-face meetings.
When the United States approved a billion-dollar military aid package to the government of Colombia in , the president of the Mennonite Church of Colombia, Peter Stucky, and Ricardo Esquivia, the director of that church’s Justapaz organization and the coordinator of the Evangelical Council of Colombia’s Human Rights and Peace Commission, wrote a letter to their sister churches in the U.S..
In that letter, they explained the disastrous consequences of fueling the civil war and the military wing of the war on drugs there, explained how the church there was trying to respond more productively to the crisis, and called on churches in the U.S. to do their part:
In reality, the government of the United States, using the tax-payers money, is supporting the Colombian government in what we consider to be a negative form.
This means that the message arriving from the North to the Colombian people becomes a message of death and destruction.
For that reason we are calling the churches in the North to redeem their taxes, on one hand by demanding that the U.S. government invests this money in life-producing projects, and on the other hand by redirecting part of their taxes toward a different project in your community or the world that promotes abundant and dignified life, as our Lord Jesus Christ has commanded us.
The American Mennonite Central Committee responded by urging taxpayers to redirect their taxes from the U.S. government to the Mennonite-run “Taxes for Peace” fund, which in turn would be dedicated that year to peace-building efforts in Colombia.
This sort of advocacy can be dangerous, as this next example will show.
In , R.W. Benner, a Mennonite minister, got worried reports from members of his congregation who were being told in no uncertain terms that they would buy so-called “Liberty Bonds” to support the U.S. war effort, or they would answer for their refusal.
Benner wrote to his bishop, L.J. Heatwole, who responded with a letter in which he reiterated the position of the church that Mennonite brethren “Do not aid or abet war in any form… [and] Contribute nothing to a fund that is used to run the war machine.”
He noted:
In a number of places where brethren have refused to contribute to the different war funds, outlandish threats have been made and in a few cases have been put into execution — such as, tar and feathering, painting houses yellow, decorating autos and buildings with flags to test them out on their principles of nonresistance.
But he urged his fellow-Mennonites to keep the faith and to embrace this sort of martyrdom like good Christians.
Benner conveyed this message to his flock.
For this, both of them were charged under the Espionage Act and convicted.
(To give you some idea of the railroading involved, Heatwole did not learn that a guilty plea had been entered on his behalf by his court-appointed attorney until after he appeared for the trial!)
Letters, or “epistles,” from war tax resisting Quakers to their fellow-Friends were an important way of spreading and maintaining the practice in the Society.
American war tax resistance can be said to have begun on , when John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, and several other Quakers addressed a letter in which they explained to other Friends why
as we cannot be concerned in wars and fightings, so neither ought we to contribute thereto by paying the tax directed by the [recent] Act, though suffering be the consequence of our refusal, which we hope to be enabled to bear with patience.
David Cooper reflected on how thoughtful letters like these helped him maintain his war tax resistance in times of doubt:
I read with singular satisfaction the piece which you lent me respecting taxes, as it was very strengthening to my mind, which before was somewhat encompassed with weakness on this account.… I have since felt much weakness, and had come to no solid conclusion of mind, until I read your little manuscript, which caused my heart to rejoice, under a feeling sense that it is the truth which leads those who walk and abide in it to hold forth this testimony unto the world.
And oh, says my soul, that I may yield faithful obedience to its monitions, let what will be the consequence.
Yearly Meetings would sometimes send letters to Quarterly or Monthly Meetings to reiterate the Quaker position on war tax resistance and give instructions as to how it should be enforced.
For instance, this is from an letter from the North Carolina Yearly Meeting:
…all our members should stand firm, and be faithful in bearing their testimony against war and military operations; taxes and fines appertaining thereunto, either directly or indirectly; or any way conniving or compromising with the specious and plausible offers of the legislature, by the tax proposed in the late act, to screen us from muster fines or military services.
And in order that all our members may be clearly informed on this subject, and be fully prepared to meet the trial likely to come upon us by this law, we have thought it best to send it down in this epistle.
An organizer of the Dublin water charge strike recalls:
…months of work had been done in local areas convincing people of the primacy of [non-payment].
This was done through local public meetings, door-to-door leaflets and even knocking on doors and talking to people… The building of the campaign in this way was crucial.
Local campaign groups were built and then came together and federated, rather than a central committee being formed first and then coming along to organise people.
…it became clear that while people might not have come out to the meeting, they had kept the information about the campaign and the campaign contact numbers had their place on a lot of fridge doors.
American women’s suffrage activist Anna Howard Shaw wrote a letter to women in the movement in , urging them to refuse to fill out income tax returns.
“In this manner we can show our loyalty to those who struggled to make this a free republic and who laid down their lives in defense of the equal rights of all free citizens to a voice in their own Government.
… Let our protest be universal, and let every believer in justice unite in this mode of passive resistance and steadfastly refuse to assist the Government in its unjust and tyrannical violation of its fundamental principle that ‘taxation and representation are one and inseparable,’ and thus prove ourselves worthy descendants of noble ancestors, who counted no price too dear to pay in defense of liberty and equality and justice.”
She told a reporter: “Since my letter was sent all over the country, I have received letters of encouragement and support from all directions,” and she soon thereafter won support for her stand from the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage.
Only some of the women’s suffrage activists in Britain were responsible for paying taxes, so although tax resistance was an important part of the campaign there, it was a part not everybody could participate in.
The movement made a special effort to find women who had taxes they could resist.
For example, at one meeting in , Margaret Kineton Parkes “asked anyone present who knew women who paid taxes to send in their names, that they might be approached by her society.”
In , Marie Lawson launched what she called a “snowball” protest: a sort of chain letter in which she sent out letters that advocated tax resistance (and protested on behalf of an imprisoned resister) and that asked the recipients to join her and to in turn send the same letter “to at least three friends.”
Public burnings of poll tax notices were good excuses for people to join in festive resistance activities.
The campaign to resist Thatcher’s Poll Tax used some creative outreach techniques (quotes from Danny Burns’s history of the movement):
“The Aberdeen Anti-Poll Tax group was formed when people from the radical bookshop came together with a community arts group:
“…The local community arts group had a theatre group called “Wise Up” and they got a show together about the Poll Tax.
They took this show around the estates with information for people about registration and how to fight it, to encourage them to set up local groups and support networks.
The plays were performed in local community centres.
Attendance for the plays varied from about 10 to 40 or more.
The meetings which followed were encouraging because people gave their names as contacts or asked people to set up future meetings.”
“In my local group… the union was built up through a door-to-door campaign.
A group of five or six people (mostly friends) formed the core.
They advertised a public meeting on the Poll Tax and about 50 people turned up.
Out of these some joined the organising group.
This small group then mass-produced a window poster which said ‘No Poll Tax Here.’
The poster was dropped through the letter-boxes of 2000 households and the group waited to see who put them up.
Posters appeared in about 100 windows.
Activists then went round and spoke to these people individually, inviting them to attend the next organising meeting; about fifteen did — enough to form the core of a group.”
“[Our] network was strengthened by a door-to-door survey of over 500 households.
The survey was not intended to be scientifically accurate.
Its purpose was to give the APTU a fairly accurate picture of what was happening on the ground, and, perhaps more significantly, it was a pretext for engaging people in conversation about the Poll Tax, informing them of the non-payment campaign and encouraging them to join their local APTU.… Over a third of the people canvassed became paid up members of the union.
By the end of the exercise Easton had over 300 members and street reps for almost every street.
The canvass was not left there.
The key to its success was the second visit.
The group compiled all the statistics on a street by street basis and many of the reps then went back, door-to-door, and told people the results of the survey in their street and the neighbouring streets.
A newsletter was delivered to everyone telling them what the overall results were for Easton.
This meant that people knew how few of their neighbours were going to pay and it gave them confidence not to pay themselves.
They had spoken to the canvassers personally, so they knew that the survey was genuine.”
“An independent television company approached the Easton group in order to work with us on a film about the Poll Tax.
The film was never shown, but the way the community was engaged in the process of making it is instructive.
The film producers wanted a shot of all the doors in the street, opening one by one as the occupants came out of their houses with banners and signs.
Charles, the local street rep, went round to people’s houses every evening for a week and explained to them what was wanted.
Out of 30 houses in the street (a cul-de-sac) 28 agreed to participate.
The street is multi-racial with a fairly wide class mix.
It was inspiring to see white working class men standing shoulder to shoulder with Asian women and their kids, holding the same banners and engrossed in conversation.
Some of them had never spoken to each other before.
The film was made, but more importantly, as [a] result of making it, virtually every one of those households joined the Union, and most still had posters in their windows a year later.
People were brought into the campaign, not through a leaflet or a canvasser, but through an interesting activity.
They didn’t have to go to the campaign, it came to them.”
