Imprisonment of Miss [Constance E.] Andrews at Ipswich.
Our Hon. District Organizer for East Anglia has been sent to prison for one week in the second division as a consequence of her plucky and conscientious fight against taxation without representation.
Miss Andrews was sentenced a month ago, but was only arrested morning.
Our prisoner will be released on from Ipswich Prison, and every member in the district should be there to welcome her.
A public meeting will be held in the evening, and will be addressed by Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard and Miss [Marguerite A.] Sidley.
Sale at Woodbridge.
Our report is taken from The East Anglian Daily Times:—
“Do you want a waggon?” seemed to be a sort of catch phrase at Woodbridge yesterday, and the explanation was a huge farm waggon, to be seen in the centre of Market Hill.
It bore the names of Knight and Lane, of Cowslip Dairy, Witnesham, and stood there a silent witness to the enthusiasm of two ladies, Dr. Elizabeth Knight and Mrs. [Hortense] Lane, in the cause of “Votes for Women.” The preliminary stages, leading to the seizure of the waggon by the police, have previously been related in our columns.
The two ladies named are joint occupiers of a farm, but each separately owns a dog and a governess-car.
The law requires “persons” who own such luxuries shall pay a tax for the privilege, and the ladies say, “No, we are not persons in the eyes of the law when the law says certain persons shall have a Parliamentary vote, and therefore if the State won’t have our vote it shall not have our money.”
There was many a sharp contest of wits over the subject of Women’s Suffrage,
and from these it was quite evident that there was no real hostile feeling
amongst the men present. On the other hand, there were many admissions of
belief in the principle that a woman owning property should have a vote for
a Parliamentary candidate, but there seemed to be a consensus of opinion
against women entering Parliament.
Miss Alison Neilans, the chief star in the local Suffragette firmament on Thursday, stood with her back to one of the waggon wheels and “held her own” with all the half-serious, half-chaffing comment from farmers and merchants’ representatives on the cause of women’s rights.
At length the time for the sale arrived, and the business was very quickly
over. Miss Neilans obtained the auctioneer’s permission to give a
two-minutes’ speech in explanation of the proceedings, and she occupied
59½ seconds. Then Mr. Arnott mounted the waggon for the purpose of selling
it. The bidding started at £3, and mounted quickly to £8, when by slower
degrees it reached £9
10s., at which figure the
waggon was knocked down to Mr. Rush.
Thereafter the Suffragettes again took possession of the waggon, and Miss Neilans led off in a very capable speech dealing with the well-known arguments about representation and taxation going together, in a bright and original manner.
The happy and successful home, she said, was where the man and the woman each took a share in its affairs, and not where one had the upper hand.
She disapproved of the nagging woman as much as of the man who beat his wife.
The politics of the State was the housekeeping of the nation, and women should have their share in the work.
Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett also addressed the meeting.
The waggon was then decorated and driven to Ipswich, where a demonstration had been well advertised for 8 p.m. Miss Andrews took the chair and was well received, but the crowd of rowdy youths had considerably increased their forces before Mrs. Tippett, who was the next speaker, had finished, and when Miss Neilans had been speaking a few minutes, the singing and shouting made it quite impossible for the audience to hear a word.
As, however, the noisy element were quite few in proportion to those genuinely interested and anxious to hear, Miss Neilans turned her back on the rowdies, and for over half an hour held the serious attention of quite a large section of those around, in spite of the din behind.
A collection could not be taken, but many men and women came near and pressed money into the speaker’s hand, and when the meeting ended, it was felt that much sympathy had been gained.
Mrs. Tippett and Miss Andrews gave great help with speaking, and an
excellent sale of The Vote was made, both at
Woodbridge and Ipswitch.
Mrs. Despard, who was in the chair, spoke in cheerful, anticipatory vein of the trend of events.
A sense of hope, a sense of expansion, a sense of exhilaration, she said, was in the air; yet, in spite of our confidence, we must not relax our efforts, for it was sometimes in the last stages of work, just before reforms were accomplished, that obstruction became strongest.
She spoke of the activity of the Women’s Freedom League at the present time in the direction of Tax Resistance.
During the past week she had attended several auction sales of goods of members of the Women’s Freedom League, who were following the example of John Hampden and fighting for a great principle — the right to exercise the duties of citizens and to resist the payment of taxation while their citizenship was unrecognised.
Her own goods were to be sold on the morrow, and she would not allow them to be bought in.
When they had taken everything she possessed they would have to again imprison her; but she ventured to think that before that day arrived the Conciliation Bill would have passed, and women would begin to come into their own.
A scene which was probably never equalled in the whole of its history took place at the Oxenham Auction Rooms, Oxford-street, on .
About a fortnight before the bailiffs had entered Mrs. Despard’s residence in Nine Elms and seized goods which they valued at £15.
Our President, for some years past, as is well known, has refused to pay her income-tax and inhabited house duty on the grounds that taxation and representation should go together; and this is the third time her goods have been seized for distraint.
It was not until the day before — — that Mrs. Despard was informed of the time and place where her furniture was to be sold.
In spite of this short notice — which we learn on good authority to be illegal — a large crowd composed not only of our own members but also of women and men from various Suffrage societies gathered together at the place specified in the notice.
When “Lot 325” was called Mrs. Despard mounted a chair, and said, “I rise to
protest, in the strongest, in the most emphatic way of which I am capable,
against these iniquities, which are perpetually being perpetrated in the name
of the law. I should like to say I have served my country in various
capacities, but I am shut out altogether from citizenship. I think special
obloquy has been put upon me in this matter. It was well known that I should
not run away and that I should not take my goods away, but the authorities
sent a man in possession. He remained in the house — a household of women — at night. I only heard of this
sale, and from a man who knows that of which he is speaking, I know that this
sale is illegal. I now claim the law — the law that is supposed to be for
women as well as men.”
The whole assembly listened in respectful silence to our President’s dignified protest, upon the conclusion of which all Suffragists present, and many other sympathisers left for the Gardenia where a very successful meeting was held.
On , Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes addressed a meeting of the members of the Fleet National Union on the principles of tax resistance, and a ballot was taken in order to instruct delegate how to vote at July Conference.
On , a drawing room meeting was given by Mrs. [Louisa] Jopling Rowe in her large studio, and she herself presided.
Speeches were made by Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Mrs. Kineton Parkes and Mr. Laurence Housman, the latter dealing in a most interesting and exhaustive way with the tax resistance movement from an historical point of view.
A very successful protest was made at Finchley on in connection with the seizure of property belonging to Miss [Sarah] Benett, late hon. treasurer of the W.F.L.
By courtesy of the auctioneer, Miss Bennet, was allowed to explain her reason for resisting payment of taxes.
A very successful open-air meeting was held afterwards.
Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn announced that Mrs. [Emma] Sproson, a member of the National Executive of the Women’s Freedom League, was serving a term of seven days’ imprisonment in the third division for refusing to pay her dog license.
This was the third time Mrs. Sproson had suffered imprisonment in connection with the militant suffrage agitation.
The Women’s Freedom League had taken up tax-resistance as a part of their propaganda three years ago.
Mr. Keir Hardie had stated in the House of Commons that twenty-five million pounds flowed yearly into the coffers of the national exchequer as a result of the indirect taxation of women.
If that money could be withheld, or if all women who were directly taxed would refuse to pay until they were enfranchised, they would not long have to wait for their political emancipation.
The speaker then dealt with the political situation as regards the Women’s Bill.
On , Miss Constance Andrews — our honorary organizer for the East Anglian district — was arrested and taken to Ipswich gaol, there to spend a week because she refused to pay her dog tax.
Here was a chance for the local branch, and they seized it.
I went down on , and we soon got all the preliminary arrangements made for a welcome to Miss Andrews.
The little town has been buzzing with suffragettes and their doings.
Everyone has been talking of Miss Andrews and our preparations to receive her.
Open-air meetings, bill-distributing, the carrying of trimmed posters, pushing the decorated coster’s barrow (covered with The Vote and posters) through the town, — all have served to draw the attention of the townsfolk to the fact that something unusual was astir.
Our two meetings on Cornhill were well attended, and the behaviour of the crowds was remarkably good.
On morning a very large crowd — described in the local press as “an immense gathering” — collected outside the prison to cheer Miss Andrews on her release.
Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard — “the grand old lady of the Women’s movement,” to quote again from the East Anglian Daily Times — drove up in an open cab, with Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett and Mrs. Bastian.
Shortly after her arrival Miss Andrews was released, a photographer standing on a wall opposite the prison gate being the first to give the news.
The outer gate opened, and as our ex-prisoner came out a lusty chorus of “hurrahs!” showed the sympathy of the crowd.
Mrs. Despard said a few words of welcome, and then we formed up in a little procession behind the Ipswich “Dare to be Free” banner, and walked to our rooms in Arcade-street, the cab with Miss Andrews in Mrs. Tippett’s place bringing up the rear.
The large crowd followed us all the way, and enquiring heads were thrust through open windows all along the route.
On our arrival at the rooms, we found a dainty breakfast set out for us at long tables, placed at right-angles to each other.
Japanese table napkins, floral decorations, placards on the walls, all were in the green, white and gold.
After breakfast Mrs. Hossack, from the chair, paid a warm tribute to Miss Andrew’s work.
Mrs. Despard, in her own inspiring way addressed the gathering after the enthusiastic singing of “For she’s a jolly good fellow,” and Miss Andrews gave us a vivid account of her life in prison.
Among other things, she said there were only four other women besides herself in prison.…
…Altogether we feel that Miss Andrews has done a great service to the local work by her protest and imprisonment, and made possible a splendid week’s work, which we hope will leave a lasting impression.
The position in Wolverhampton in regard to tax resistance is certainly of
interest to the supporters of militancy.
We do meet occasionally in the Suffrage movement, the woman with the pitiful
tale: I should like to help you, but I dare not; my husband is against me.
But it is, indeed, a revelation to meet an enthusiastic supporter with an
equally sympathetic husband, who finds herself hampered, through the
decisions of magistrates who hold the husband liable for the deeds of his
wife.
Ever since I began to take a serious interest in politics I have believed in
sex equality, and have never denied my wife the freedom that I myself claim,
and, as I shall endeavour to show, it [is] because of this that I was
convicted.
The humiliating position of the married woman, especially the working woman,
is admitted by all Suffragists; but I never realised that she was such an
abject slave so clearly as when I stood in the Wolverhampton Police Court,
side by side with my wife, charged with aiding and abetting her to keep a dog
without a license. The only evidence submitted by the prosecution (the
police) that I actually did anything was that I presided at two meetings in
support of the “No Vote, No Tax” policy of the Women’s Freedom League. That I
said anything that was not fair comment on the general policy of militancy
there was no evidence to show; if, then, on this point I was liable, then all
supporters of militancy are equally so. But I do not believe it was on this
evidence that I was convicted. No. The dog was at my house, and cared
for by my children during my wife’s absence. In the eyes of
the law, I was lord and master, so that my offence, therefore, was
not that I did anything, but rather that I did not do anything.
I did not assert my authority, I did not force my wife into subjection, and
however legal the magistrate’s decision may have been, it certainly was not
just.
Emma Sproson
It was the spirit of rebellion against injustice displayed by Mrs. [Emma]
Sproson that first won for her my admiration. This admiration is far too deep
rooted to be suppressed by the decision of magistrates.
I admire the rebel against injustice, man or woman, because I know that it
is to them that all real progress is due. A friend once said to me, when
criticising my wife, “But what would happen if all other women did as she is
doing?” I replied: “They would get the vote to-morrow”; and he saw it. The
pity is that others do not.
As no answer was received to our letter addressed to Mr. Churchill, steps
were taken to get the matter raised in the House of Commons, and Mr. H[enry].
G[eorge]. Chancellor very kindly undertook to draft and put the questions. As
originally drafted they were as follows:—
.
Mr. Chancellor: To ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that after
serving in Stafford Gaol a sentence of one week’s imprisonment in the third
division passed upon her on last
for refusing to pay a dog license, as a protest against her political
disenfranchisement, Mrs. Sproson was on tried a second time for the same offence and sentenced to one
month’s imprisonment in the first division; whether two trials and two
sentences for one offence are lawful, and what steps he proposes to take in
the matter.
.
Mr. Chancellor: To ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in
addition to a sentence of one month’s imprisonment passed upon Mrs. Sproson
for passive resistance to taxation her husband was sentenced to one week’s
imprisonment for aiding and abetting her, and leave to appeal refused to
him, and whether, as his wife was held by the court to be sufficiently
responsible to suffer the punishment named, he can see his way to prevent
such manufacture of criminals and multiplication of punishments for single
offences of a political character.
All questions have to be passed by the Speaker, and the first one was
modified to read: “And whether he can see his way to take steps to avoid, in
future, the infliction of two sentences for one offence.” The second one was
censored. In doing this the Clerk at the Table was merely upholding the
traditions followed in all Government Departments in their treatment of
married women. Married women are treated as individuals so long as there are
penalties to be inflicted, but to curtail their liberty or hamper their
activities the Law of Coverture is brought into force.
Mrs. Sproson may be treated as the owner of a dog, be liable for the fine,
and for non-payment of it serve first a week and then a month’s imprisonment.
But Mrs. Sproson is a married woman under coverture, so the law secures a
second victim in proceeding against her husband. If Mrs. Sproson happened to
possess an income of her own she would not be treated as the owner of that,
the amount must be added to her husband’s and he is held liable for
income-tax.
This provides only another illustration that the whole Law of Coverture must
be abolished in order to make it possible to improve the legal position of
married women.
To the first question Mr. Churchill replied:—
The offence of which Mrs. Sproson was convicted on
was not the same as that of which
she was convicted on . It is an
offence against the law to keep a dog without a license, and after her
conviction of Mrs. Sproson
continued deliberately to break the law. The punishment was a fine which she
was well able to pay if she had wished.
I may add that the dog she kept was a dangerous one and had bitten three
children, and that in spite of a friendly warning from a neighbor, whose
little girl had been bitten by it, she allowed him to run at large. As the
law stands no person can be punished twice for the same offence, but where
an offence is repeated the penalty is usually increased, and in this
particular case the law imposes an increased penalty for the second offence.
As usual, the Home Secretary entirely overlooks the political motive for Mrs.
Sproson’s action. He repeats the charge brought at the trial which was by no
means proved, and omits altogether to say that the dog was dead before the
trial came on. As the dog for which the tax was refused was the same dog, it
is difficult to see where the one offence ended and the other began. In reply
to our letter the following has at last been received:—
Whitehall, .
Madam,— The Secretary of State, having carefully considered your application
on behalf of Emma Sproson, who is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment,
I am directed to express to you his regret that he can find no sufficient
ground to justify him, consistently with his public duty, in advising His
Majesty to interfere in this case.
I am, madam, your obedient servant,
E. Blackwell.
We are now making efforts to get the sentences made to run concurrently. All
friends who approach Members of Parliament should urge them to put this
request before Mr. Churchill, as in this way Mrs. Sproson would have one
week’s remission of her excessive sentence of five weeks.
Edith How Martyn.
N.B.—
Mr. Sproson writes on Monday, :— “I
have just left Mrs. Sproson. I am glad to say she seems well, and is
determined to do the full time which expires on
. I was only allowed to see her
through a grating for fifteen minutes.” — E.H.M.
On Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton
Parkes addressed the members of the Brighton and Hove Suffrage Society, and
also delegates from Worthing and Shoreham, on the subject of “Tax Resistance”
in the Hove Town Hall. Miss [Maria?] Merrifield presided, and there was a
long and animated debate at the conclusion of the lecture, led by Colonel
Kensington, as to whether the National Union should or should not adopt the
policy of tax resistance. A meeting was held on
evening in the drawing-room at
Warren House, Guildford, by the kind invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Baker, and
Mrs. Kineton Parkes
spoke at a garden party at Farnham.
The last of these meetings was held on
at Tunbridge Wells at the rooms
of the Suffrage Society and presided over by Mrs. [Edith Kate] Lelacheur.
Mrs. Kineton Parkes’ address was followed by a most animated and instructive
discussion led by Madame Sarah Grand.
The council meetings to decide this question will be held at Edinburgh next
week.
On , also, a most
successful protest against taxation without representation was made by Mrs.
Muir, of Broadstairs, whose goods were sold at the Auction Rooms, 120,
High-street, Margate. The protest was conducted by Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr;
and Miss Ethel Fennings, of the
W.F.L.,
went down to speak. The auctioneer, Mr. Holness, was most courteous, and not
only allowed Mrs. Muir to explain in a few words why she resisted taxation,
but also gave permission to hold meeting in his rooms after the sale was
over. Prior to the sale a well-attended meeting was held in the Cecil-square,
and Miss Fennings sold some copies of The Vote.
…On we had the pleasure of a visit
from Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn, who spoke upon Tax Resistance, and explained
Mrs. Sproson’s refusal to pay her dog tax, and the undue and seemingly
vindictive sentence of five weeks’ imprisonment that she is now undergoing.…
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.
Refusal to pay Imperial taxes, which has been described as the best of all
protests, was the subject of an interesting address given by Mrs. [Margaret]
Kineton Parkes at the Caxton Hall on , when Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn presided and Mr. Bart Kennedy was
also amongst the speakers. Mrs. Parkes introduced her subject by explaining
that as one of the planks of the Suffrage platform was “Taxation without
representation is tyranny” it was inconsistent for any Suffragist to pay
Imperial taxes. They should not refuse to pay rates, for they had the
municipal vote, but they should, if they wanted to be consistent to their
principle, decline to pay Imperial taxes, such as inhabited house duty, taxes
on armorial bearings, income-tax,
&c. The
society she represented, which was organising this refusal to pay Imperial
taxes, had been in existence , and included Suffragists from every camp, Conservative,
Liberal, Socialist, as well as non-party, and was making every effort to get
a large number of influential women to refuse to pay taxes, and thus cause a
block at Somerset House. The isolated refusal to pay was ineffective and only
caused trouble to the refuser; but a large and unexpected number would cause
considerable trouble to the Government and would bring the question at issue
home to them. Even now it had been found that the Government rather than go
to the trouble of selling up the recalcitrant “debtor,” and attracting
attention to the principle involved, had quietly dropped the matter in
several instances. Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard had had no application for taxes
since she had been sold up .
This principle of taxation and representation she had found appealed to
women who had not given the subject any previous consideration, and it always
had an immediate influence on a male audience. A working woman was not asked
to pay less taxes because she was a woman, though she was usually asked to
receive less by her employer.
To married women with incomes she suggested that they should ask their
husbands not to fill in the amount in the space left on the income-tax
paper for details of wife’s income. Then, if they sent her a separate paper,
she could refuse to pay. In the past they had not given the Government half
enough work, and they should make it as difficult as possible for them to
recover money from women. She asked anyone present who knew women who paid
taxes to send in their names, that they might be approached by her society.
The Women’s Freedom League had been the pioneers in this method of Government
resistance.
Miss [Muriel] Matters, who spoke subsequently, observed that, while the
Government gave the male taxpayer a vote as receipt for his money, they said
to the woman, “Pay up and shut up.” Mrs. [Dora] Montefiore gave a brief
account of how to make it difficult for the Government to recover taxes from
women.…
The hon. treasurer of our Brighton branch (Mrs. Jones-Williams) is the first person in Brighton to refuse to pay taxes as a protest against the unenfranchised condition of women.
The local authorities, apparently not knowing the usual procedure, took the unusual course of sending a bailiff to take possession.
Thanks to the activity of some members of the men’s league, the authorities consented to the man being in “walking possession.”
Once before this course has been taken, when a bailiff was put in possession at Mrs. Rose Hyland’s in Manchester.
Not even this unnecessary piece of annoyance will make us pause in our efforts to refuse our consent to taxation without representation.
Sale on .
We congratulate the Brighton branch and Mrs. Jones-Williams on the firm stand they have made in the matter, and urge all Suffragists in the town to rally to the protest meeting .
Mrs. [Edith] How-Martyn will be one of the speakers.
Another Passive Resister,
and a member of the N.E.C., Mrs. Francis, the hon. secretary of the branch, writes:— “ ‘With this ring I thee wed’ — that’s sorcery; ‘with my body I thee worship’ — that’s idolatry; and ‘with my worldly goods I thee endow’ — that’s a lie,” says old Sir J. Bowring.
“Wishing to test the validity or otherwise of the vow which, according to the forms of the Established Church, my husband made at the altar at the time of our marriage, and also with an ever-increasing sense that tax-resistance is not only morally justifiable, but morally imperative, I have refused consent, as joint controller of our mutual finances, to the payment of my half of the year’s taxes.
My husband has therefore retained this amount while paying his own share, and explaining the reasons for taking this action.
An entreating letter has followed from the tax-collector, but the threat of distraint has not yet been received.
“We hope that if and when these protests have to be pushed to extremity our friends will do their utmost to help make them widely known and effective.”
Notwithstanding the mud and odoriferous atmosphere of the back streets off Drury-lane, quite a large number of members of the Tax Resisters’ League, the Women’s Freedom League, and the Women’s Social and Political Union, met outside Bulloch’s Sale Rooms shortly after to protest against the sale of Miss Bertha Brewster’s goods, which had been seized because of her refusal to pay her Imperial taxes.
Before the sale took place, Mrs. Gatty, as chairman, explained to at least a hundred people the reasons of Miss Brewster’s refusal to pay her taxes and the importance of the constitutional principle that taxation without representation is tyranny, which this refusal stood for.
Miss Leonora Tyson proposed the resolution protesting against the injustice of this sale, and it was seconded by Miss F[lorence].
A. Underwood, and supported by Miss Brackenbury.
The resolution was carried with only two dissentients, and these dissentients were women!
On , a drawing-room meeting was held at 30, Hyde Park Gate, by kind permission of Mrs. [Adela] Stanton Coit.
Mrs. [Edith] Zangwill was in the chair, and gave an opening address which was full of charm and subtle truth.
Her delightful personality always serves to emphasise the depth of thought contained in her remarks.
Miss [Alice] Abadam was the principal speaker, and her address was a masterpiece of oratory directed to emphasise the grave responsibility of the taxpaying women of this country towards the moral, spiritual and political emancipation of woman.
Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes gave a short account of the work of the society, formed to put into practice the principles of tax resistance, which was followed by a good discussion, opened by Dr. Stanton Coit.
The secretary of the league also addressed a crowded audience in the Public Hall, Croydon, on the subject of tax resistance, , and the chair was taken by Miss Green, treasurer for the local branch of the W.S.P.U.
Mrs. [Mary McLeod] Cleeves, who made such a determined stand last autumn
against being taxed and unrepresented, and whose dogcart was seized and
sold, is again defying the authorities.
Mrs. Cleeves, as a married woman, is not liable to pay income-tax, but,
regardless of the Act of Parliament which clearly states this position, the
local tax-collector has put in a bailiff in an endeavour to make Mrs. Cleeves
pay taxes which she is not legally bound to do. Mrs. Cleeves handed the
following statement to the official:—
I protest against your being here in possession, and I protest against any
of the goods in this house being seized. Everything here belongs to me, and
as a married woman I am not responsible for the payment of income-tax.
(When I offered to give the tax-collector Mr. Cleeves’s address, he
refused to take it.)
M. McLeod Cleeves.
The Tax Resistance League, as well as ourselves, is going to support Mrs.
Cleeves in any action which it is deemed wise to take, and in the meantime
both Leagues have written to the authorities at Somerset House and Mr. Lloyd
George. The following letter was sent from the League:—
To Inland Revenue Office.
.
Sir,— I have to request your immediate attention to the serious irregularity
in the case of Mrs. Mary McLeod Cleeves, a member of this League. An
assessment was made on Mr. Ed. A.
Cleeves, but in defiance of the assessment Mrs. Cleeves has been receiving
threatening demands, in her own name, for payment of the assessment. She
has, of course, refused to pay it as she is not liable, and no assessment or
charge may legally be made on her.
The local officials, however, have now proceeded to trespass on her
premises, commit damages, and take possession of her goods to recover a sum
which they are forbidden to charge on her, and which will be paid by the
person assessed as soon as he returns to this country, which may be at any
time now. This person has always paid it, and never refused to discharge his
legal obligations.
I may remind you that your department has said, in reply to a question asked
on behalf of Dr. Elizabeth
Wilks, that the Crown cannot seize the property of a married woman in order
to satisfy the husband’s debt to the Crown. The case of Mrs. Cleeves is
absolutely identical with that of
Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, of
Clapton, London, who informed the persons who were sent to levy a distress
on her property that she was not the person charged or liable, and that her
goods could not be seized. On hearing this the persons immediately withdrew,
and declined to proceed with the distraint. She has not been molested since,
but you will recall that after this incident you addressed a letter to her
husband, Mr. Mark Wilks, in which you call his attention to the fact that he
is the only person liable for all taxes, and that if he fails to pay, the
Board’s solicitor will take proceedings against him to make him pay.
You have now been asking him to pay this money for upwards of a year.
I must ask that, as the above is clearly the proper legal procedure, it shall
be adhered to in the case of Mrs. Cleeves also. Will you be good enough to
instruct the local officials that the distraint must be withdrawn, and that
they must refrain from molesting Mrs. Cleeves or trespassing on her property?
I would add that when the assessment was increased last year, Mrs. Cleeves
wished to raise an objection, but was quite properly informed that she could
not be heard, as she had no locus standi in the matter, as
she was not a person who could be charged under any circumstances, and
therefore could have no grievance, but that Mr. Cleeves was the only person
who could be recognised or listened to. It seems inexplicable that the
officials should seize the property of a person whom they have declared to
have no locus standi in the matter.
Requesting your immediate attention to the above facts, I am, yours
faithfully,
Edith How Martyn. Women’s Freedom League, 1,
Robert-street, Adelphi, London, W.C.
We are determined to do our best to make the authorities abide by their own
Acts of Parliament.
Dividends of Married Women.
All deductions from dividends paid on stock held by married women are illegal,
and married women should write to the secretaries of the companies and request
them to follow the procedure laid down by Parliament and to recover the
income-tax from the husbands, and in future to send the dividend in full.
Steady persistence along the lines afforded by the inconsistencies in the
law must end in drawing the attention of Parliament. Once that attention is
gained, it will be comparatively easy to insist that the first alteration in
the law must be to give representation where taxation is imposed.
Also from the same issue:
Protest at Brighton.
Owing to the enormous pressure put upon our space we are unable to give
details of the final stage of the proceedings taken against Mrs. Jones
Williams for her refusal to pay taxes. The goods seized were sold at the
public auction room. Before selling them the auctioneer allowed Mrs. How
Martyn to make a short explanatory speech, and he himself added that it was
an unpleasant duty he had to perform.
There was also much material about the related campaign of census resistance
in this issue.
One brief note on a meeting of the Great Marlow, Buckinghamshire branch,
mentioned that “Mrs. Scott, of High Wycombe, took the chair, and gave a short
speech on the necessity for tax resistance, which some in the district are
much in favour of.”
On Thursday evening, , a good
public meeting was held in the Town Hall, Uxbridge. The chair was taken by the
Hon. Mrs. [Evelina]
Haverfield, who gave a most earnest and spirited address upon the fundamental
basis of the Suffrage movement. Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes spoke on the
principles of tax resistance, and gave a short resumé of the work being done
by the society formed to put these principles into practice. Mrs. [Anne]
Cobden Sanderson made an urgent plea to the women of Uxbridge to boycott the
Census, and gave most lucid and logical reasons why the women should refuse
to be counted, and endeavoured to show the serious results which follow to
women from legislation without their consent. This meeting was entirely
given and arranged by Miss [Kate] Raleigh, who is a member of the New
Constitutional Society for Women’s Suffrage, and also the “Women’s Tax
Resistance League.”
A tactic that I’ve encountered on many occasions in my research into tax resistance campaigns is that of disrupting government auctions of goods, particularly those of seized from tax resisters.
Here are several examples that show the variety of ways campaigns have accomplished this:
Religious nonconformists in the United Kingdom
Education Act-related resistance
Some disruption of auctions took place during the tax resistance in protest of the provisions of the Education Act that provided taxpayer money for sectarian education .
The Westminster Gazette reported:
There was some feeling displayed at a sale of the goods of Passive Resisters at Colchester yesterday, the Rev. T. Batty, a Baptist minister, and the Rev. Pierrepont Edwards, locally, known as “the fighting parson,” entering into discussion in the auction room, but being stopped by the auctioneer, who said he did his work during the week and he hoped they did theirs on Sundays.
At Long Eaton the goods of twenty-three Passive Resisters were sold amid demonstrations of hostility to the auctioneer.
A boy was arrested for throwing a bag of flour.
The New York Times reported that “Auctioneers frequently decline to sell goods upon which distraints have been levied.” And the San Francisco Chronicle noted:
Difficulty is experienced everywhere in getting auctioneers to sell the property confiscated.
In Leominster, a ram and some ewe lambs, the property of a resistant named Charles Grundy, were seized and put up at auction, as follows: Ram, Joe Chamberlain; ewes, Lady Balfour, Mrs. Bishop, Lady Cecil, Mrs. Canterbury and so on through the list of those who made themselves conspicuous in forcing the bill through Parliament.
The auctioneer was entitled to a fee under the law of 10 shillings and 6 pence, which he promptly turned over to Mr. Grundy, having during the sale expressed the strongest sympathy for the tax-resisters.
Most of the auction sales are converted into political meetings in which the tax and those responsible for it are roundly denounced.
Edinburgh Annuity Tax resistance
Auction disruptions were commonplace in the Annuity Tax resistance campaign in Edinburgh.
By law the distraint auctions (“roupings”) had to be held at the Mercat Cross — the town square, essentially — which made it easy to gather a crowd; or sometimes in the homes of the resisters. Tait’s Edinburgh Magazine reported of one of the Mercat Cross roupings:
If any of our readers know that scene, let them imagine, after the resistance was tolerably well organized, an unfortunate auctioneer arriving at the Cross about noon, with a cart loaded with furniture for sale.
Latterly the passive hubbub rose as if by magic.
Bells sounded, bagpipes brayed, the Fiery Cross passed down the closses, and through the High Street and Cowgate; and men, women, and children, rushed from all points towards the scene of Passive Resistance.
The tax had grinded the faces of the poor, and the poor were, no doubt, the bitterest in indignation.
Irish, Highlanders, Lowlanders, were united by the bond of a common suffering.
Respectable shopkeepers might be seen coming in haste from the Bridges; Irish traders flew from St. Mary’s Wynd; brokers from the Cowgate; all pressing round the miserable auctioneer; yelling, hooting, perhaps cursing, certainly saying anything but what was affectionate or respectful of the clergy.
And here were the black placards tossing above the heads of the angry multitude — ROUPING FOR STIPEND!
This notice was of itself enough to deter any one from purchasing; though we will say it for the good spirit of the people, that both the Scotch and Irish brokers disdained to take bargains of their suffering neighbours’ goods.
Of late months, no auctioneer would venture to the Cross to roup for stipend.
What human being has nerve enough to bear up against the scorn, hatred, and execration of his fellow-creatures, expressed in a cause he himself must feel just?
The people lodged the placards and flags in shops about the Cross, so that not a moment was lost in having their machinery in full operation, and scouts were ever ready to spread the intelligence if any symptoms of a sale were discovered.
Sheriff Clerk Kenmure Maitland appeared before a committee that was investigating the resistance campaign.
He mentioned that “Mr. Whitten, the auctioneer for sheriff’s sales, was so much inconvenienced and intimidated that he refused to take any more of those sales.”
Q: What was Mr. Whitten’s express reason for declining to act as auctioneer?
A: He was very much inconvenienced on that
occasion, and he believed that his general business connection would suffer
by undertaking these sales, and that he would lose the support of any
customer who was of that party.
Q: It was not from any fear of personal violence?
A: That might have had a good deal to do with it.
Q: Was Mr. Whitten the only auctioneer who declined?
A: No. After Mr. Whitten’s refusal I applied to
Mr. Hogg, whose services I should have been glad to have obtained, and he
said he would let me know the next day if he would undertake to act as
auctioneer; he wrote to me the next day saying, that, after consideration
with his friends, he declined to act.
Q: Any other?
A: I do not remember asking any others. The rates
of remuneration for acting as auctioneer at sheriffs’ sales are so low that
men having a better class of business will not act. I had to look about among
not first-class auctioneers, and I found that I would have some difficulty in
getting a man whom I could depend upon, for I had reason to believe that
influence would be used to induce the auctioneer to fail me at the last
moment.
It was difficult for the authorities to get any help at all, either from auctioneers, furniture dealers, or carters.
The government had to purchase (and fortify) their own cart because they were unable to rent one for such use.
Here is an example of an auction of a resister’s goods held at the resister’s
home, as described in the testimony of Thomas Menzies:
A: I saw a large number of the most respectable citizens assembled in the house, and a large number outside awaiting the arrival of the officers who came in a cab, and the indignation was very strong when they got into the house, so much so that a feeling was entertained by some that there was danger to the life of Mr. Whitten, the auctioneer, and that he might be thrown out of the window, because there were such threats, but others soothed down the feeling.
Q: There was no overt act or breach of the peace?
A: No.
The cabman who brought the officers, seeing they were engaged in such a disagreeable duty, took his cab away, and they had some difficulty in procuring another, and they went away round by a back street, rather than go by the direct way.
Q: Did Mr. Whitten, from his experience on that occasion, refuse ever to come to another sale as auctioneer?
A: He refused to act again, he gave up his
position.
He then described a second such auction:
A: The house was densely packed; it was impossible for me to get entrance; the stair was densely packed to the third and second flats; when the policemen came with the officers, they could not force their way up, except with great difficulty.
The consequence was, that nearly the whole of the rail of the upper storey gave way to the great danger both of the officers and the public, and one young man I saw thrown over the heads of the crowd to the great danger of being precipitated three storeys down.
Then the parties came out of the house, with their clothes dishevelled and severely handled; and the officer on that occasion will tell you that he was very severely dealt with indeed, and Mr. Sheriff Gordon was sent for, so much alarm being felt; but by the time the Sheriff arrived things were considerably subdued.
Sheriff Clerk Maitland also described this auction:
I found a considerable crowd outside; and on going up to the premises on the top flat, I found that I could not get entrance to the house; the house was packed with people, who on our approach kept hooting and shouting out, and jeering us; and, as far as I could see, the shutters were shut and the windows draped in black, and all the rooms crowded with people.
I said that it was necessary to carry out the sale, and they told me to come in, if I dare.
On another occasion, as he tells it, the auction seemed to go smoothly at first, but the buyers didn’t get what they hoped for:
At Mr. McLaren’s sale everything was conducted in an orderly way as far as the sale was concerned.
We got in, and only a limited number were allowed to go in; but after the officials and the police had gone, there was a certain amount of disturbance.
Certain goods were knocked down to the poinding creditors, consisting of an old sofa and an old sideboard, and Mr. McLaren said, “Let those things go to the clergy.” Those were the only things which had to be taken away.
There was no vehicle ready to carry them away.
Mr. McLaren said that he would not keep them.
After the police departed, he turned them out in the street, when they were taken possession of by the crowd of idlers, and made a bonfire of.
A summary of the effect of all of this disruption reads:
So strong was the feeling of hostility, that the town council were unable to procure the services of any auctioneer to sell the effects of those who conscientiously objected to pay the clerical portion of the police taxes, and they were consequently forced to make a special arrangement with a sheriff’s officer, by which, to induce him to undertake the disagreeable task, they provided him for two years with an auctioneer’s license from the police funds.
In , it was found necessary to enter into another arrangement with the officer, by which the council had to pay him 12½ percent, on all arrears, including the police, prison, and registration rates, as well as the clerical tax; and he receives this per-centage whether the sums are recovered by himself or paid direct to the police collector, and that over and above all the expenses he recovers from the recusants.
But this is not all; the council were unable to hire a cart or vehicle from any of the citizens, and it was found necessary to purchase a lorry, and to provide all the necessary apparatus and assistance for enforcing payment of the arrears.
All this machinery, which owes its existence entirely to the Clerico-Police Act, involves a wasteful expenditure of city funds, induces a chronic state of irritation in the minds of the citizens, and is felt to be a gross violation of the principles of civil and religious liberty.
The Tithe War
William John Fitzpatrick wrote of the auctions during the Tithe War:
[T]he parson’s first step was to put the cattle up to auction in the presence of a regiment of English soldiery; but it almost invariably happened that either the assembled spectators were afraid to bid, lest they should incur the vengeance of the peasantry, or else they stammered out such a low offer, that, when knocked down, the expenses of the sale would be found to exceed it.
The same observation applies to the crops.
Not one man in a hundred had the hardihood to declare himself the purchaser.
Sometimes the parson, disgusted at the backwardness of bidders, and trying to remove it, would order the cattle twelve or twenty miles away in order to their being a second time put up for auction.
But the locomotive progress of the beasts was always closely tracked, and means were taken to prevent either driver or beast receiving shelter or sustenance throughout the march.
The Sentinel wrote of one auction:
Yesterday being the day on which the sheriff announced that, if no bidders could be obtained for the cattle, he would have the property returned to Mr. Germain, immense crowds were collected from the neighbouring counties — upwards of 20,000 men.
The County Kildare men, amounting to about 7000, entered, led by Jonas Duckett, Esq., in the most regular and orderly manner.
This body was preceded by a band of music, and had several banners on which were “Kilkea and Moone, Independence for ever,” “No Church Tax,” “No Tithe,” “Liberty,” &c. The whole body followed six carts, which were prepared in the English style — each drawn by two horses.
The rear was brought up by several respectable landholders of Kildare.
The barrack-gates were thrown open, and different detachments of infantry took their stations right and left, while the cavalry, after performing sundry evolutions, occupied the passes leading to the place of sale.
The cattle were ordered out, when the sheriff, as on the former day, put them up for sale; but no one could be found to bid for the cattle, upon which he announced his intention of returning them to Mr. Germain.
The news was instantly conveyed, like electricity, throughout the entire meeting, when the huzzas of the people surpassed anything we ever witnessed.
The cattle were instantly liberated and given up to Mr. Germain.
At this period a company of grenadiers arrived, in double-quick time, after travelling from Castlecomer, both officers and men fatigued and covered with dust.
Thus terminated this extraordinary contest between the Church and the people, the latter having obtained, by their steadiness, a complete victory.
The cattle will be given to the poor of the sundry districts.
Similar examples were reported in the foreign press:
Cork. — A most extraordinary scene has been exhibited in this city.
Some cows seized for tithes were brought to a public place for sale, escorted by a squadron of lancers, and followed by thousands of infuriated people.
All the garrison, cavalry and infantry, under the command of Sir George Bingham, were called out.
The cattle were set up at three pounds for each, no bidder; two pounds, no bidder; one pound, no bidder; in short, the auctioneer descended to three shillings for each cow, but no purchaser appeared.
This scene lasted for above an hour, when there being no chance of making sale of the cattle, it was proposed to adjourn the auction; but, as we are informed, the General in command of the military expressed an unwillingness to have the troops subjected to a repetition of the harassing duty thus imposed on them.
After a short delay, it was, at the interference and remonstrance of several gentlemen, both of town and country, agreed upon that the cattle should be given up to the people, subject to certain private arrangements.
We never witnessed such a scene; thousands of country people jumping with exulted feelings at the result, wielding their shillelaghs, and exhibiting all the other symptoms of exuberant joy characteristic of the buoyancy of Irish feeling.
At Carlow a triumphant resistance to the laws, similar to that which occurred
at Cork, has been exhibited in the presence of the authorities and the
military. Some cattle had been seized for tithe, and a public sale announced,
when a large body of men, stated at 50,000, marched to the place appointed,
and, of course, under the influence of such terror, none were found to bid
for the cattle. The sale was adjourned from day to day, for seven days, and
upon each day the same organised bands entered the town, and rendered the
attempt to sell the cattle, in pursuance of the law, abortive. At last the
cattle are given up to the mob, crowned with laurels, and driven home with an
escort of 10,000 men.
In a somewhat later case, a Catholic priest in Blarney by the name of Peyton refused to pay his income tax on the grounds that the law treated him in an inferior way to his Protestant counterparts.
His horse was seized and sold at auction, where “the multitude assembled hissed, hooted, hustled, and otherwise impeded the proceedings.”
There was precedent for this. During the Tithe War period and thereafter, the
authorities had to go to extraordinary lengths to auction off seized goods. As
one account put it:
In Ireland we pay — the whole people of the empire pay — troops who march up from the country to Dublin, fifty or sixty miles, as escorts of the parson-pounded pigs and cattle, which passive resistance prevents from being sold or bought at home; and we also maintain barracks in that country which not only lodge the parsons’ military guards, but afford, of late, convenient resting-places in their journey to the poor people’s cattle, whom the soldiers are driving to sale; and which would otherwise be rescued on the road.
The women’s suffrage movement in the United Kingdom
The tax resisters in the women’s suffrage movement in Britain were particularly adept in disrupting tax auctions and in making them opportunities for propaganda and protest.
Here are several examples, largely as reported in the movement newsletter called The Vote:
“On a sale was held… of
jewellery seized in distraint for income-tax… Members of the
W.F.L.
and Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn
(Hon.
Sec.) assembled to
protest against the proceedings, and the usual policeman kept a dreary
vigil at the open door. The day had been specially chosen by the
authorities, who wished to prevent a demonstration…”
“The sale of Mrs. Cleeves’ dog-cart took place at the Bush Hotel, Sketty,
on afternoon. The
W.F.L.
held their protest meeting outside — much to the discomfort of the
auctioneer, who declared the impossibility of ‘drowning the voice
outside.’ ”
“Notwithstanding the mud and odoriferous atmosphere of the back streets
off Drury-lane, quite a large number of members of the Tax Resisters’
League, the Women’s Freedom League, and the Women’s Social and Political
Union, met outside Bulloch’s Sale Rooms shortly after
to protest against the sale of Miss Bertha Brewster’s goods, which had
been seized because of her refusal to pay her Imperial taxes. Before the
sale took place, Mrs. Gatty, as chairman, explained to at least a hundred
people the reasons of Miss Brewster’s refusal to pay her taxes and the
importance of the constitutional principle that taxation without
representation is tyranny, which this refusal stood for. Miss Leonora
Tyson proposed the resolution protesting against the injustice of this
sale, and it was seconded by Miss F[lorence]. A. Underwood, and supported
by Miss Brackenbury. The resolution was carried with only two
dissentients, and these dissentients were women!”
“The goods seized were sold at the public auction room. Before selling
them the auctioneer allowed Mrs. How Martyn to make a short explanatory
speech, and he himself added that it was an unpleasant duty he had to
perform.”
“A scene which was probably never equalled in the whole of its history
took place at the Oxenham Auction Rooms, Oxford-street, on
. About a fortnight before
the bailiffs had entered Mrs. Despard’s residence in Nine Elms and seized
goods which they valued at £15. Our President, for some years past, as is
well known, has refused to pay her income-tax and inhabited house duty on
the grounds that taxation and representation should go together; and this
is the third time her goods have been seized for distraint. It was not
until the day before — — that Mrs. Despard was informed of the time and place where
her furniture was to be sold. In spite of this short notice — which we
learn on good authority to be illegal — a large crowd composed not only of
our own members but also of women and men from various Suffrage societies
gathered together at the place specified in the notice. ¶ When ‘Lot
325’ was called Mrs. Despard mounted a chair, and said, ‘I rise to
protest, in the strongest, in the most emphatic way of which I am capable,
against these iniquities, which are perpetually being perpetrated in the
name of the law. I should like to say I have served my country in various
capacities, but I am shut out altogether from citizenship. I think special
obloquy has been put upon me in this matter. It was well known that I
should not run away and that I should not take my goods away, but the
authorities sent a man in possession. He remained in the house — a
household of women — at night. I only heard
of this sale, and from a man
who knows that of which he is speaking, I know that this sale is illegal.
I now claim the law — the law that is supposed to be for women as well as
men.’ ”
“[A] most successful protest against taxation without representation was
made by Mrs. Muir, of Broadstairs, whose goods were sold at the Auction
Rooms, 120, High-street, Margate. The protest was conducted by Mrs.
[Emily] Juson Kerr; and Miss Ethel Fennings, of the W.F.L.,
went down to speak. The auctioneer, Mr. Holness, was most courteous, and
not only allowed Mrs. Muir to explain in a few words why she resisted
taxation, but also gave permission to hold meeting in his rooms after the
sale was over.”
“One of the most successful and effective Suffrage demonstrations ever
held in St. Leonards was that arranged jointly by the Women’s Tax
Resistance League and the Hastings and St. Leonards Women’s Suffrage
Propaganda League, on ,
on the occasion of the sale of some family silver which had been seized at
the residence of Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison for non-payment of
Inhabited House Duty. Certainly the most striking feature of this protest
was the fact that members of all societies in Hastings,
St. Leonards, Bexhill and
Winchelsea united in their effort to render the protest representative of
all shades of Suffrage opinion. Flags, banners, pennons and regalia of
many societies were seen in the procession.… The hearty response from the
men to Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes’s call for ‘three cheers for Mrs.
Darent Harrison’ at the close of the proceedings in the auction room, came
as a surprise to the Suffragists themselves.”
“On , the last item on
the catalogue of Messrs. Whiteley’s weekly sale in Westbourne-grove was
household silver seized in distraint for King’s taxes from Miss Gertrude
Eaton, of Kensington. Miss Eaton is a lady very well known in the musical
world and interested in social reforms, and
hon. secretary of the
Prison Reform Committee. Miss Eaton said a few dignified words of protest
in the auction room, and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Saunderson explained to the
large crowd of bidders the reason why tax-paying women, believing as they
do that taxation without representation is tyranny, feel that they cannot,
by remaining inactive, any longer subscribe to it. A procession then
formed up and a protest meeting was held…”
“At the offices of the collector of Government taxes, Westborough, on
a silver cream jug and sugar
basin were sold. These were the property of
Dr. Marion McKenzie, who
had refused payment of taxes to support her claim on behalf of women’s
suffrage. A party of suffragettes marched to the collector’s office, which
proved far too small to accommodate them all. Mr. Parnell said he regretted
personally having the duty to perform. He believed that ultimately the
women would get the vote. They had the municipal vote and he maintained
that women who paid rates and taxes should be allowed to vote. (Applause.)
But that was his own personal view. He would have been delighted not to
have had that process, but he had endeavoured to keep the costs down.
Dr. Marion McKenzie thanked
Mr. Parnell for the courtesy shown them. A protest meeting was afterwards
held on St. Nicholas
Cliff.”
“Mrs. [Anne] Cobden-Sanderson, representing the Women’s Tax Resistance
League, was, by courtesy of the auctioneer, allowed to explain the reason
of the protest. Judging by the applause with which her remarks were
received, most of those present were in sympathy.”
“The auctioneer was entirely in sympathy with the protest, and explained
the circumstances under which the sale took place. He courteously allowed
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr to put clearly
the women’s point of view; Miss Raleigh made a warm appeal for true
freedom. A procession was formed and an open-air meeting subsequently
held.”
“The auctioneer, who is in sympathy with the suffragists, refused to take
commission.”
“[A] crowd of Suffragists of all shades of opinion assembled at Hawking’s
Sale Rooms, Lisson-grove, Marylebone, to support Dr. Frances Ede and Dr.
Amy Sheppard, whose goods were to be sold by public auction for tax
resistance. By the courtesy of the auctioneer, Mr. Hawking, speeches were
allowed, and Dr. Ede
emphasized her conscientious objection to supporting taxation without
representation; she said that women like herself and her partner felt that
they must make this logical and dignified protest, but as it caused very
considerable inconvenience and sacrifice to professional women, she
trusted that the grave injustice would speedily be remedied. Three cheers
were given for the doctors, and a procession with banners marched to
Marble Arch, where a brief meeting was held in Hyde Park, at which the
usual resolution was passed unanimously.”
“An interesting sequel to the seizure of Mrs. Tollemache’s goods last
week, and the ejection of the bailiff from her residence, Batheaston
Villa, Bath, was the sale held , at the White Hart Hotel. To cover a tax of only £15 and
costs, goods were seized to the value of about £80, and it was at once
decided by the Women’s Tax Resistance League and Mrs. Tollemache’s friends
that such conduct on the part of the authorities must be circumvented and
exposed. The goods were on view the morning of the sale, and as there was
much valuable old china, silver, and furniture, the dealers were early on
the spot, and buzzing like flies around the articles they greatly desired
to possess. The first two pieces put up were, fortunately, quite
inviting; £19 being bid for a chest of drawers worth about
50s. and £3 for an
ordinary leather-top table, the requisite amount was realised, and the
auctioneer was obliged to withdraw the remaining lots much to the disgust
of the assembled dealers. Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, in her speech at
the protest meeting, which followed the sale, explained to these irate
gentlemen that women never took such steps unless compelled to do so, and
that if the tax collector had seized a legitimate amount of goods to
satisfy his claim, Mrs. Tollemache would willingly have allowed them to
go.”
“Under the auspices of the Tax Resistance League and the Women’s Freedom
League a protest meeting was held at Great Marlow on
, on the occasion of the sale
of plate and jewellery belonging to Mrs. [Mary] Sargent Florence, the
well-known artist, and to Miss Hayes, daughter of Admiral Hayes. Their
property had been seized for the non-payment of Imperial taxes, and
through the courtesy of the tax-collector every facility was afforded to
the protesters to explain their action.”
“At the sale of a silver salver belonging to
Dr. Winifred Patch, of
Highbury, Steen’s Auction Rooms, Drayton Park, were crowded on
by members of the Women’s Freedom
League, the Women’s Tax Resistance League, and other Suffrage societies.
The auctioneer refused to allow the usual five minutes for explanation
before the sale, but Miss Alison Neilans, of the Women’s Freedom League,
was well supported and cheered when she insisted on making clear the
reasons why Dr. Patch for
several years has refused to pay taxes while deprived of a vote. A
procession was then formed, and marched to Highbury Corner, where a large
open-air meeting was presided over by Mrs. [Marianne] Clarendon Hyde, of
the Women’s Freedom League, and addressed by Mrs. Merrivale Mayer.”
“Practically every day sees a sale and protest somewhere, and the banners
of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, frequently supported by Suffrage
Societies, are becoming familiar in town and country. At the protest
meetings which follow all sales the reason why is explained to large
numbers of people who would not attend a suffrage meeting. Auctioneers are
becoming sympathetic even so far as to speak in support of the women’s
protest against a law which demands their money, but gives them no voice
in the way in which it is spent.”
“The sale was conducted, laughably enough, under the auspices of the
Women’s Freedom League and the Women’s Tax Resistance League; for, on
obtaining entrance to the hall, Miss Anderson and Mrs. Fisher bedecked it
with all the insignia of suffrage protest. The rostrum was spread with our
flag proclaiming the inauguration of Tax Resistance by the W.F.L.;
above the auctioneer’s head hung Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard’s embroidered
silk banner, with its challenge “Dare to be Free”; on every side the
green, white and gold of the
W.F.L.
was accompanied by the brown and black of the Women’s Tax Resistance
League, with its cheery ‘No Vote, no Tax’ injunctions and its John Hampden
maxims; while in the front rows, besides Miss Anderson, the heroine of the
day, Mrs. Snow and Mrs. Fisher, were seen the inspiring figures of our
President and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, vice-president of the
W.T.R.L.”
“…all Women’s Freedom League members who know anything of the way in which
the sister society organises these matters should attend the sale in the
certainty of enjoying a really telling demonstration…”
“From early in the day Mrs. Huntsman and a noble band of sandwich-women
had paraded the town announcing the sale and distributing leaflets. In the
afternoon a contingent of the Tax Resistance League arrived with the John
Hampden banner and the brown and black pennons and flags. These marched
through the town and market square before entering the hall in which the
sale and meeting were to be held, and which was decorated with the flags
and colours of the Women’s Freedom League. Mr. Croome, the King’s officer,
conducted the sale in person, the goods sold being a quantity of table
silver, a silver toilette set, and one or two other articles. The prices
fetched were trifling, Mrs. Harvey desiring that no one should buy the
goods in for her.”
“Miss Andrews asked the auctioneer if she might explain the reason for the
sale of the waggon, and, having received the necessary permission was able
to give an address on tax resistance, and to show how it is one of the
weapons employed by the Freedom League to secure the enfranchisement of
women. Then came the sale — but beforehand the auctioneer said he had not
been aware he was to sell ‘distressed’ goods, and he very much objected to
doing so.… The meeting and the auctioneer together made the assembly chary
of bidding, and the waggon was not sold, which was a great triumph for the
tax-resisters.… Miss Trott and Miss Bobby helped to advertise the meeting
by carrying placards round the crowded market.”
“There was a crowded audience, and the auctioneer opened the proceedings
by declaring himself a convinced Suffragist, which attitude of mind he
attributed largely to a constant contact with women householders in his
capacity as tax collector. After the sale a public meeting was held… At
the close of the meeting many questions were asked, new members joined the
League…”
The authorities tried to auction off Kate Harvey’s goods on-site, at her
home, rather than in a public hall, so that they might avoid
demonstrations of that sort. “On
morning a band of Suffragist
men carried placards through the streets of Bromley, on which was the
device, ‘I personally protest against the sale of a woman’s goods to pay
taxes over which she has no control,’ and long before
, the time fixed for the
sale, from North, South, East and West, people came streaming into the
little town of Bromley, and made their way towards ‘Brackenhill.’
Punctually at the
tax-collector and his deputy mounted the table in the dining-room, and the
former, more in sorrow than in anger, began to explain to the crowd
assembled that this was a genuine sale! Mrs. Harvey at once protested
against the sale taking place. Simply and solely because she was a woman,
although she was a mother, a business woman, and a tax-payer, she had no
voice in saying how the taxes collected from her should be spent. The tax
collector suffered this speech in silence, but he could judge by the
cheers it received that there were many ardent sympathisers with Mrs.
Harvey in her protest. He tried to proceed, but one after another the men
present loudly urged that no one there should bid for the goods. The
tax-collector feebly said this wasn’t a political meeting, but a genuine
sale! ‘One penny for your goods then!’ was the derisive answer. ‘One
penny — one penny!’ was the continued cry from both inside and outside
‘Brackenhill.’ Then men protested that the tax-collector was not a genuine
auctioneer; he had no hammer, no list of goods to be sold was hung up in
the room. There was no catalogue, nothing to show bidders what was to be
sold and what wasn’t. The men also objected to the presence of the
tax-collector’s deputy. ‘Tell him to get down!’ they shouted. ‘The sale
shan’t proceed till he does,’ they yelled. ‘Get down! Get down:’ they
sang. But the tax-collector felt safer by the support of this deputy.
‘He’s afraid of his own clerk,’ they jeered. Again the tax-collector asked
for bids. ‘One penny! One penny!’ was the deafening response. The din
increased every moment and pandemonium reigned supreme. During a temporary
lull the tax-collector said a sideboard had been sold for nine guineas.
Angry cries from angry men greeted this announcement. ‘Illegal sale!’ ‘He
shan’t take it home!’ ‘The whole thing’s illegal!’ ‘You shan’t sell
anything else!’ and The Daily Herald Leaguers,
members of the Men’s Political Union, and of other men’s societies,
proceeded to make more noise than twenty brass bands. Darkness was quickly
settling in; the tax-collector looked helpless, and his deputy smiled
wearily. ‘Talk about a comic opera — it’s better than Gilbert and Sullivan
could manage,’ roared an enthusiast. ‘My word, you look sick, guv’nor!
Give it up, man!’ Then everyone shouted against the other until the
tax-collector said he closed the sale, remarking plaintively that he had
lost £7 over the job! Ironical cheers greeted this news, with ‘Serve you
right for stealing a woman’s goods!’ He turned his back on his tormentors,
and sat down in a chair on the table to think things over. The protesters
sat on the sideboard informing all and sundry that if anyone wanted to
take away the sideboard he should take them with it! With the exit of the
tax-collector, his deputy and the bailiff, things gradually grew quieter,
and later on Mrs. Harvey entertained her supporters to tea at the Bell
Hotel. But the curious thing is, a man paid nine guineas for the sideboard
to the tax-collector. Mrs. Harvey owed him more than £17, and Mrs. Harvey
is still in possession of the sideboard!”
“The assistant auctioneer, to whom it fell to conduct the sale, was most
unfriendly, and refused to allow any speaking during the sale; but Miss
Boyle was able to shout through a window at his back, just over his
shoulder, an announcement that the goods were seized because Miss Cummins
refused to submit to taxation without representation, after which quite a
number of people who were attending the sale came out to listen to the
speeches.”
“The auctioneer was very sympathetic, and allowed Miss [Anna] Munro to
make a short speech before the waggon was sold. He then spoke a few
friendly words for the Woman’s Movement. After the sale a meeting was
held, and Mrs. Tippett and Miss Munro were listened to with evident
interest by a large number of men. The Vote and
other Suffrage literature was sold.”
“A joint demonstration of the Tax Resisters’ League and militant
suffragettes, held here [Hastings]
as a protest against the sale of
the belongings of those who refused to pay taxes, was broken up by a mob.
The women were roughly handled and half smothered with soot. Their banners
were smashed. The police finally succeeded in getting the women into a
blacksmith’s shop, where they held the mob at bay until the arrival of
reinforcements. The women were then escorted to a railway station.”
“The auction sale of the Duchess of Bedford’s silver cup proved, perhaps,
the best advertisement the Women’s Tax Resistance League ever had. It was
made the occasion for widespread propaganda. The newspapers gave columns
of space to the event, while at the big mass meeting, held outside the
auction room…”
“When a member is to be sold up a number of her comrades accompany her to
the auction-room. The auctioneer is usually friendly and stays the
proceedings until some one of the league has mounted the table and
explained to the crowd what it all means. Here are the banners, and the
room full of women carrying them, and it does not take long to impress
upon the mind of the people who have come to attend the sale that here is
a body of women willing to sacrifice their property for the principle for
which John Hampden went to prison — that taxation without representation
is tyranny. … The women remain at these auctions until the property of the
offender is disposed of. The kindly auctioneer puts the property seized
from the suffragists early on his list, or lets them know when it will be
called.”
American war tax resisters
There have been a few celebrated auction sales in the American war tax resistance movement.
Some of them have been met with protests or used as occasions for outreach and propaganda, but others have been more actively interfered with.
When Ernest and Marion Bromley’s home was seized, for example, there were
“months of continuous picketing and leafletting” before the sale. Then:
The day began with a silent vigil initiated by the local Quaker group.
While the bids were being read inside the building, guerrilla theatre took place out on the sidewalk.
At one point the Federal building was auctioned (offers ranging from 25¢ to 2 bottle caps).
Several supporters present at the proceedings inside made brief statements about the unjust nature of the whole ordeal.
Waldo the Clown was also there, face painted sadly, opening envelopes along with the IRS person.
As the official read the bids and the names of the bidders, Waldo searched his envelopes and revealed their contents: a flower, a unicorn, some toilet paper, which he handed to different office people.
Marion Bromley also spoke as the bids were opened, reiterating that the seizure was based on fraudulent assumptions, and that therefore the property could not be rightfully sold.
The protests, odd as they were, eventually paid off, as the IRS had in the interim been caught improperly pursuing political dissidents, and as a result it decided to reverse the sale of the Bromley home and give up on that particular fight.
When Paul and Addie Snyder’s home was auctioned off for back taxes, it was
reported that “many bids of $1 or less were made.”
Making a bid of pennies for farm property being foreclosed for failure to meet mortgages was a common tactic among angry farmers during the Depression.
If their bids succeeded, the property was returned to its owner and the mortgage torn up.
In some such cases, entire farms plus their livestock, equipment and home furnishings sold for as little as $2.
When George Willoughby’s car was seized and sold by the IRS,
Friends, brandishing balloons, party horns, cookies and lemonade, invaded the IRS office in Chester and bought the car back for $900.
The Rebecca rioters
On a couple of occasions the Rebeccaites prevented auctions, though not of goods seized for tax debts but for ordinary debts.
Here are two examples from Henry Tobit Evans’s book on the Rebecca phenomenon:
A distress for rent was levied on the goods of a man named Lloyd… and a bailiff of the name of Rees kept possession of the goods.
Previous to the day of sale, Rebecca and a great number of her daughters paid him a visit, horsewhipped him well, and kept him in safe custody until the furniture was entirely cleared from the house.
When Rees was freed, he found nothing but an empty house, Rebecca and her followers having departed.
Two bailiffs were there in possession of the goods and chattels under execution… Having entered the house by bursting open the door, Rebecca ran upstairs, followed by some of her daughters.
She ordered the bailiffs, who were in bed at the time, to be up and going in five minutes, or to prepare for a good drubbing.
The bailiffs promptly obeyed, but were driven forth by a bodyguard of the rioters, who escorted them some distance, pushing and driving the poor men in front of them.
At last they were allowed to depart to their homes on a sincere promise of not returning.
Reform Act agitation
During the tax resistance that accompanied the drive to pass the Reform Act in the in the United Kingdom, hundreds of people signed pledges in which they declared that “they will not purchase the goods of their townsmen not represented in Parliament which may be seized for the non-payment of taxes, imposed by any House of Commons as at present constituted.”
The True Sun asserted that
The tax-gatherer… might seize for them, but the brokers assured the inhabitants that they would neither seize any goods for such taxes, nor would they purchase goods so seized.
Yesterday afternoon, Mr Philips, a broker, in the Broadway, Westminster, exhibited the following placard at the door of his shop:— “Take notice, that the proprietor of this shop will not distrain for the house and window duties, nor will he purchase any goods that are seized for the said taxes; neither will any of those oppressive taxes be paid for this house in future.” A similar notice was also exhibited at a broker’s shop in York Street, Westminster.
Another newspaper account said:
A sale by auction of goods taken in distress for assessed taxes was announced to take place at Ashton Tavern on , at Birmingham.
From forty to fifty persons attended, including some brokers, but no one could be found except the poor woman from whose husband the goods had been seized, and the auctioneer himself.
A man came when the sale was nearly over, who was perfectly ignorant of the circumstances under which it took place, and bid for one of the last lots; he soon received an intimation, however, from the company that he had better desist, which be accordingly did.
After the sale was over nearly the whole of the persons present surrounded this man, and lectured him severely upon his conduct, and it was only by his solemnly declaring to them that he had bid in perfect ignorance of the nature of the sale that he was suffered to escape without some more substantial proof of their displeasure.
Railroad bond shenanigans
There was an epidemic of fraud in the United States in in which citizens of local jurisdictions were convinced to vote to sell bonds to pay for the Railroad to come to town.
The railroad never arrived, but the citizens then were on the hook to tax themselves to pay off the bonds.
Many said “hell no,” but by then the bonds had been sold to people who were not necessarily involved in the original swindle but had just bought them as investments.
In the course of the tax resistance campaigns associated with these railroad
bond boondoggles, auction disruption was resorted to on some occasions. Here
are some examples:
St. Clair [Missouri]’s taxpayers joined the movement in to repudiate the debts, but the county’s new leaders wanted to repay the investors.
Afraid to try taxing the residents, they decided to raise the interest by staging a huge livestock auction in , the proceeds to pay off the railroad bond interest.
On auction day, however, “no one seemed to want to buy” any animals.
To bondholders the “great shock” of the auction’s failure proved the depth of local resistance to railroad taxes.
Another attempt was made the other day to sell farm property in the town of Greenwood, Steuben county [New York], on account of a tax levied for the town bonding in aid of railroads, and another failure has followed.
The scene was upon the farm of William Atkins, where 200 of the solid yeomanry of the town had assembled to resist the sale… A Mr. Updyke, with broader hint, made these remarks: “I want to tell you folks that Mr. Atkins has paid all of his tax except this railroad tax; and we consider any man who will buy our property to help John Davis and Sam Alley as contemptible sharks.
We shall remember him for years, and will know where he lives.” The tax collector finally rose and remarked that in view of the situation he would not attempt to proceed with the sale.
The White League in Louisiana
In Reconstruction-era Louisiana, white supremacist tax resisters disrupted a tax auction.
There was a mob of fifty or sixty armed men came to prevent the deputy tax-collector effecting a sale, armed with revolvers nearly all.
Mr. Fournet came and threatened the deputy and tax-collector.
The deputy and tax-collector ran into their offices.
I came down and called upon the citizens to clear the court-house, but could not succeed.
I then called upon the military, but they had no orders at that time to give me assistance to carry out the law.
Mr. [Valsin A.?] Fournet came with eight or ten.
When the deputy tax-collector attempted to make a sale Mr. Fournet raised his hand and struck him.
The deputy then shoved him down.
As soon as this was done forty, fifty, or sixty men came with their revolvers in hand.
…very few people attended tax-sales [typically], because the white people were organized to prevent tax-collection, and pledged themselves not to buy any property at tax-sales, and the property was generally bought by the State.
Miscellaneous
The First Boer War broke out in the aftermath of the successfully resisted
auction of a tax resister’s waggon. Paul Kruger wrote of the incident:
The first sign of the approaching storm was the incident that happened at the forced sale of Field Cornet Bezuidenhout’s waggon, on which a distress had been levied.
The British Government had begun to collect taxes and to take proceedings against those who refused to pay them.
Among these was Piet Bezuidenhout, who lived in the Potchefstroom District.
This refusal to pay taxes was one of the methods of passive resistance which were now employed towards the British Government.
Hitherto, many of the burghers had paid their taxes, declaring that they were only yielding to force.
But, when this was explained by the English politicians as though the population were contented and peacefully paying their taxes, some asked for a receipt showing that they were only paying under protest and others refused to pay at all.
The Government then levied a distress on Bezuidenhout’s waggon and sent it to public action at Potchefstroom.
Piet Cronjé, who became so well known in the last war, appeared at the auction with a number of armed Boers, who flung the bailiff from the waggon and drew the waggon itself back in triumph to Bezuidenhout’s farm.
When the U.S.
government seized Valentine Byler’s horse because of the Amish man’s
conscientious objection to paying into the social security system, no
other Amish would bid at the auction.
Between the Wars in Germany, the government had a hard time conducting
auctions of the goods of tax resisters. Ernst von Salomon writes:
Everywhere bailiff’s orders were being disobeyed.… Compulsory sales could not be held: when the young peasants of the riding club appeared at the scene of the auction on their horses and with music, nobody seemed willing to make a bid.
The carters refused, even with police protection, to carry off the distrained cattle, for they knew that if they did they would never again be able to do business with the peasants.
One day three peasants even appeared in the slaughter yards at Hamburg and announced that unless the distrained cattle disappeared at once from the yard’s stalls the gentlemen in charge of the slaughterhouse could find somewhere else to buy their beasts in the future — they wouldn’t be getting any more from Schleswig-Holstein.
Environmental activist Tim DeChristopher disrupted a Bureau of Land
Management auction by making winning bids on everything that he
had no intention of honoring.
During the Poujadist disruptions in France, “They also took to spiking
forced tax sales by refusing to bid until the auctioneer had lowered the
price of whatever was up for sale to a laughably small figure. Thus a tax
delinquent might buy back his own shop for, say 10 cents. At an auction
the other day, a brand-new car went for one franc, or less than one-third
of a cent.”
in roughly the same region
of France:
It was in the south where the wine growers refuse to pay taxes to the government.
A farmer had had half a dozen rabbits sent him by a friend; he refused to pay duty on them, whereupon they control or local customs tried to sell the six “original” rabbits and their offspring at auction.
The inhabitants have now boycotted the auction sales so that the local officials must feed the rabbits till the case is settled by the courts.
In York, Pennsylvania in , a group
“surrounded the crier and forbid any person purchasing when the property
which had been seized was offered for sale. A cow which had been in the
hands of the collector was driven away by the rioters.”
In the Dutch West Indies in “The
household effects of a physician who refused to pay the tax were offered
for sale at auction today by the Government. Although the building in
which the sale was held was crowded, there were no bids and the articles
were not sold.”
In Tasmania, in , “Large quantities of
goods were seized, and lodged in the Commissariat Store [but] Lawless mobs
paraded the streets, tore down fences, and, arming themselves with rails
and batons, smashed windows and doors.… The fence round the Commissariat
Store was torn down…”
During the Bardoli tax strike, “There were meetings in talukas contiguous
to Bardoli, not only in British territory, but also in the Baroda
territory, for expression of sympathy with the Satyagrahis and calling
upon people in their respective parts not to cooperate with the
authorities engaged in putting down the Satyagraha… by bidding for any
forfeited property that may be put to auction by the authorities.”
