Some historical and global examples of tax resistance → women’s suffrage movements → British women’s suffrage movement → Myra Eleanor Sadd Brown

From the 6 July 1912 issue of The Vote:

Poster Campaign

…Income tax resisters will find “Twentieth Century Robbery,” “No Vote No Tax,” and “The Paid Piper,” especially applicable to their case.…

Also from the 6 July 1912 issue of The Vote:

John Hampden Statue at Aylesbury.

The statue of John Hampden, presented to the county of Buckinghamshire by Mr. James Griffiths, of Long Marston, in commemoration of the Coronation, was unveiled at Aylesbury on June 27 by Lord Rothschild. There was a large gathering, representative of Buckinghamshire generally. After some difficulty the Women’s Tax Resistance League received the assurance that they would be able to pay their last tribute to the great Tax Resister.

At the close of the unveiling ceremony a procession of members of the League crossed the market square to the statue, the crowd readily making way, while police lined the short route. On behalf of the League, two delegates, Miss Gertrude Eaton and Miss Clemence Housman, laid a beautiful wreath at the foot of the statue. It was made of white flowers, on which, in black letters, were the words, “From Women Tax Resisters.” Within the circle of flowers was a ship in full sail with the name of John Hampden in gold letters on the streamers. The ship was made of brown beech leaves (the beech is the tree most famous in Buckinghamshire) and white flowers. Emblems were also laid at the base of the statue from the Irishwomen’s Franchise League [this was corrected in a later issue; it was actually from the Irish League for Women’s Suffrage] (a harp in Maréchal Niel roses), the Gymnastic Teachers’ S.S. (blue immortelles and silver leaves), and the London Graduates Union (a laurel wreath). Among those present were Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown, Mrs. [Mary] Sergeant Florence, Dr. Kate Haslam, Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Miss [Minnie?] Turner, M.A., Miss [Maud?] Roll, Mr. Lee and Mr. Sergeant.

Tax Resistance: The Situation at Bromley.

“My goods are not yet seized for non-payment of taxes. I am still barricaded.

“Outside the gate!

“A most uncomfortable position for the tax collector! But, while offering sympathy, I feel the experience will be beneficial. There is nothing so enlightening as a little ‘fellow-feeling.’ Nothing like going ‘there’ to learn the discomforts of being where the woman is, and should be, according to the gospel of the man at Westminster. Bolts and bars are never pleasant things to deal with — from outside! They are terribly, cruelly hard to remove when fixed by men driven by fear to protect an unjust wall of separation. But walls must yield to pressure, and the women gather, intent on ‘breaking down’; content, if need be, to ‘be broken.’ While men, relying on their fastenings, ignore the trembling of foundations, women know the wall is doomed, and when it falls they will flock in to do the bidding of the “Anti” — to scrub and clean, to mind the babies, to stay in the home — the National Home.”

K[ate]. Harvey.

Meetings in the Market-square, Bromley.

Meetings are now being held every evening in the Market-square, Bromley, and are exciting wide interest. Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard was the speaker at the first, and told the crowd why Mrs. Harvey was making this emphatic protest against taxation without representation. Mrs. Despard’s own experiences aroused much interest. The following evening Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett spoke, and still larger crowds gathered to hear her. By Saturday news of these regular meetings had spread, and the audience was ready to receive the speakers. The “Antis” are showing themselves — a sure sign of our success — but the chief argument they bring forward, in the form of questions, is that of physical force: because women do not fight they should not vote. Mrs. Merivale Mayer, the speaker on Saturday, was able to show how beneficial the women’s vote had proved in Australia, and told of the surprise of Australian politicians that the Mother Country still refuses to give the women the chance to stand side by side with men in the fight against evil. The police are exceedingly kind — and evidently interested.

More Tax Resisters.

On June 28, at Redding, goods belonging to Professor Edith Morley were sold. Speakers: Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Miss Gertrude Eaton. Also goods belonging to Miss Manuelle, at Harding’s Auction Rooms, Victoria Station, W. Speakers: Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Dr. [C.V.] Drysdale; and at Working, silver, the property of Mrs. Skipwith, was sold. Speakers: Mrs. [Barbara] Ayrton Gould, Mrs. Kineton Parkes. On Saturday, June 29, at Southend, silver belonging to Mrs. Douglas Hameton and Mrs. [Rosina] Sky was sold. There was a procession with brass band prior to sale, and also a very successful protest meeting. Speakers: Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Mr. Warren.

Also from the 6 July 1912 issue of The Vote:

Watch the Authorities!

The need for women to be on the watch is strikingly shown in the news of her experiences which has been sent us by Miss Clara Lee, of Thistledown, Letchworth, who points out how she forced an admission of error from the Inland Revenue Authorities. She writes thus:—

As a tax resister, the following experiences prove the carelessness of Government officials. Having refused to pay Inhabited House Duty (8s. 9d.) to the local collector, I was reported by him to the surveyor for this district, who sent a demand containing two inaccuracies. I wrote to point that one ought not to have occurred, seeing that we had had compulsory education since 1868; the other, he would see did not agree with the original:—

Local Demand.

	s.	d.
Schedule A	5	0
House Duty	8	9

Surveyor’s Demand.

	£	s.	d.
Schedule A	0	5	0
Schedule B	1	1	5
House Duty	0	8	9

Schedule B, I found, applied to nurseries and market gardens. So I wrote pointing out that the nearest connection I had to either, was that under the Lloyd George Insurance Act I was classed with agricultural labourers. To this I received the following letter:—

4, Cardiff-road, Luton, March 11, 1912.

Inland Revenue — Surveyor of Taxes.

Madam, — Referring to your letter of the 9^th inst., I much regret that £1 1s. 5d. was included upon your demand note in error — the entry relating to the next person upon the collector’s return. — Yours faithfully,

(Signed) G.R. Simpson.

Is this the exactness of the work for which women, as well as men, pay so heavily? How long would a commercial firm exist, if it allowed such errors? How long would the public tolerate such mistakes by women workers in our hospitals and elsewhere? The title of idiot, lunatic and criminal must revert to the people responsible for such a condition of things. The 8s. 9d. Inhabited House Duty has now been deducted from my claim of return Income-tax; this seems an unusual proceeding.

From the 7 November 1913 issue of The Vote:

The Worship of Athene. — Miss Katherine Raleigh’s lecture on this subject will be of unusual interest, and affords a welcome opportunity for hearing a gifted lecturer on Greek art and mythology. The proceeds will be given to the Women’s Tax Resistance League, of which Miss Raleigh is a member. Remember the date, Monday, November 10, Caxton Hall; chair to be taken by Dr. Marie Stopes at 5.15 p.m.

Also from the same issue:

Women’s Tax Resistance League

On October 29 Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes gave an address on the subject of taxation at the Putney and Fulham Branch of the W.S.P.U., and on the following day Mrs. Diplock gave a drawing-room meeting at Putney-park-avenue. The Rev. Eliza Wilkes, of California, was in the chair; the speakers were Mrs. Sadd Brown and Mrs. Parkes. On both occasions great interest was manifested and new tax resisters were enrolled as members of the League.

From the 16 November 1912 issue of The Vote:

A Red-Tape Comedy.

[Our readers will be specially interested in the following account by Mrs. Ayers Purdie of her successful appeal against the Inland Revenue authorities.]

I desire it to be clearly understood that the following narrative is not an extract from Alice in Wonderland, neither is it a scene out of a Gilbert and Sullivan comic opera. It is a simple and faithful account of a successful Income-Tax appeal which was heard at Durham on October 31. The appellant was a Suffragist, belonging to the Women’s Tax-Resistance League and the Women’s Social and Political Union. I was conducting the case for the appellant, which I am legally entitled to do under Section 13 of the Revenue Act, 1903.

Dramatis Personæ

The dramatis personæ are as follows: Two Commissioners of Taxes, elderly gentlemen, inclining, like all their kind, to baldness; spectacled of course; one of them wearing his spectacles high on his forehead, and looking out at me from under his eyebrows with a pair of piercing eyes. These gentlemen hear appeals under the Income-Tax Acts, and are the judges therein. Their decision is absolutely final, except on a point of law, in which case a further appeal may be made to the High Court. To continue the list, there is also the Clerk to the Commissioners, who is a solicitor, member of a well-known North-country firm. His business is to record everything, and to help the Commissioners on knotty legal questions; and, finally, the Surveyor of Taxes, who conducts the case for the Crown. Opposed to all these learned gentlemen are my client and myself.

Unlike all other cases, in which the plaintiff or appellant has the opening and closing of the case, the procedure in these appeals is reversed; the Crown has the first and the last word, which puts a handicap on the appellant.

Accordingly the Surveyor of Taxes is invited to open the proceedings with a statement of his case; and he sets forth that Dr. Alice Burn, of Sunderland, Assistant Medical Inspector for the County of Durham, is receiving an official salary of so much per annum, and, though she has a husband, he lives in New Zealand, according to her own admission, so an assessment has been made on her salary and the Surveyor claims that he is fully entitled to do so.

Then it is my turn to put my case, and I freely admit all the facts as stated by the Surveyor, but challenge the conclusion he has drawn from them; my case being that by Section 45 of the Income-Tax Act of 1842 Dr. Burn cannot be held liable for the tax. The solicitor reads this section aloud to the Commissioners. Most women are familiar, since the famous [Elizabeth & Mark] Wilks episode, with the words on which I am relying. They are, “the profits (i.e., income) of any married woman living with her husband shall be deemed the profits of the husband, and shall be charged in the name of the husband, and not in her name.” One of the Commissioners asks in whose name was Dr. Burn’s salary assessed, and is told that it has been charged in her own name.

Geographical Separation.

The Surveyor, invited to offer any arguments or evidence to support his case, says that as Dr. Burn is here and Mr. Burn is in New Zealand, she cannot be living with him.

I argue, as against this, that the case really involves a point of law as to what is meant or implied by the words “living with her husband;” that these words must be interpreted strictly in accordance with their legal signification, and therefore I shall contend that my client lives with her husband in the legal sense, though I fully admit the geographical separation.

This term, “geographical separation,” seems to strike one of the Commissioners very forcibly; he repeats it with much relish, adding, “Yes, I can see what you mean, and I suppose you will say that the Crown cannot take any cognisance of a mere geographical separation. Quite so.” Apparently he thinks this is a good point, and he glances towards the solicitor, as if wondering how in the world they will get over it. By this time both Commissioners, who started with the expression of men about to be frightfully bored, have become thoroughly alert and impressed; and the Surveyor appears to realise that his task will nt be such an easy one as he anticipated. He becomes slightly nervous and confused, a little inclined to bluster, and to take the matter personally, which causes him sometimes to contradict himself and to refute his own arguments. Being now invited to consider the point about “the geographical separation,” he declines to have anything to do with it, and strenuously denies that any point of law is involved. He absolutely refuses to consider the matter from this standpoint, and declares that the Commissioners do not take the legal aspect into account in forming their decision. According to him, this case is purely one of fact, and what the Commissioners have to do is to consider the actual fact, and nothing else. He knows that if a woman’s husband is at the other side of the world she is not living with him in actual fact, and therefore cannot be said to be living with him at all.

Impertinent Questions

Asked by me to state on what authority he bases this last assertion, he says that he bases it on his own authority; and on his own common-sense. This leads me to inquire how it happened that, being so fully convinced that my client was not living with her husband, he yet had written to her asking her to furnish him with her husband’s name, address, occupation, the amount of his income, &c. He begs this question by complaining that her reply had been that she could not tell him her husband’s address; and, of course, if a woman could not give her husband’s address it was perfectly plain that she could not be living with him.

I point out that this does not follow, and one of the Commissioners mildly suggests that my client shall explain why she made this reply. She readily answers that her primary reason was indignation at his questions. The Commissioner, who seems to be rather human, and quick at grasping things, remarks, “Ah, I see. You thought he had asked you a lot of impertinent questions, and that was your method of showing your resentment. Very natural, I’m sure.”

The Surveyor being apparently unprepared with any further argument or evidence beyond the assertion of his own common-sense, it is again my innings. I take up the tale by reference to the decision in Shrewsbury v. Shrewsbury, which showed that the Crown can only claim to levy tax on spinsters, widows, or femes soles, and my client does not correspond to any one of these descriptions. I quote precedents set by the Inland Revenue Department on other occasions; as witness the successful objection made to taxation by Miss Decima Moore, Miss Constance Collier, and sundry other ladies, whose circumstances were precisely the same as those of my client. The Surveyor pretends to be too dense to understand how those ladies whose names I have mentioned could have husbands, and has to have it all minutely explained to him before he is convinced. A Commissioner asks if I can give any other instances, and I reply, “I am an instance myself, if that will do. My husband’s business compels him to live in Hampshire, while my own business equally compels me to live in London; but no Surveyor of Taxes has ever ventured to assess me, or to insinuate that I am a feme-sole. Perhaps you will tell me that I do not live with my husband,” I gently suggest to the present Surveyor of Taxes, who looks as if nothing would give him greater satisfaction if he only dared, but he does not offer to accept this invitation, and the Commissioner hastily says, “I think we are now quite satisfied on the question of precedents.”

I am then proceeding to state that the Crown has itself embodied the correct attitude towards married women in one of the forms issues from Somerset House, in which reference is made to the treatment of “a married woman permanently separated from her husband,” when the Surveyor interrupts — “Are you giving that as evidence?” “Yes, I am,” I reply. “Then I shall object to it,” he says. “I deny that there is any Revenue form having such words upon it, and I object to that statement being received as evidence.”

“As he repudiates the existence of this form, I fear we must uphold his objection,” says the Commissioner apologetically to me.

“Oh,” I exclaim, affecting to be greatly dismayed, “this really was my strongest point. Do you mean to say you will not admit it because you have not this form before you?”

“I am afraid we cannot, if the Surveyor persists in his objection. As you see, he is also making avery strong point of it,” is the reply. The Surveyor intimates that he will persist.

“Very well,” I say, in a tone of resignation to the inevitable; and then there is a short and uncomfortable pause. The Surveyor looks pleased, as though he fancies he has scored at last. The other three appear to sympathise with me; even my client begins to look apprehensive, as if she fears I am done for. Because (as she tells me subsequently) she also thinks I cannot produce this thing, and that I have only been bluffing.

Piece de Resistance

But I make a sudden dive down to my satchel, which lies open on the floor at my feet, and where, unseen by anybody else, the disputed form (No. 44A) has been lying in wait; my last act, before I left London, having been to equip myself with this most important document. It is laid in front of the Commissioners, and they and the solicitor stare very hard at it, shake their heads over it, and murmur to one another, “Yes, it says so, right enough,” and “This settles it, don’t you think?” When they have quite done with it, the Surveyor has his turn, and he pounces upon it, examines it intently, up and down, and all round, as if to convince himself that there is no deception, and that it is not a conjuring trick. (I must do him the justice to say that I honesty believe he has never seen or heard of this form before, as it is very little used.)

It is now fairly evident that my pièce de résistance, No. 44A, has clinched the business, as I knew it must, and that my case is as good as won. But the Surveyor starts off desperately on a fresh tack. “Even if those words are on this form,” he says, in portentious tones, “it does not follow that what is stated on official forms is necessarily in accordance with law.” “I quite agree with you there,” is my cordial reply. “If everything that is contrary to law were to be eliminated from the form, there would be very little left. But you may take it that the part I am relying on is perfectly good law,” and I glance toward the solicitor, who nods his assent.

“Then I shall maintain that you cannot reply upon what any form says, because the Board of Inland Revenue can at any moment alter the wording of a form,” says the Surveyor. “Yes, the Board always have the power to vary the forms when they think fit,” echo the Commissioners.

“But they have not yet altered this one,” I object, “and you cannot raise a valid argument against it by simply saying that it might be something different if it did not happen to be what it is. The Board have put these words on this form to serve some particular purpose of their own; and it so happens that it equally suits my purpose to make use of them here and now. It is ‘up to you’ to decide this case in one way or the other; but the Crown is not going, as hitherto, to claim to have things both ways.”

“Both ways, indeed,” laughs one of the Commissioners. “Why, the Crown will have it three ways, if it is possible.”

“And I am here to show the Crown that it is not possible,” I retort.

The Surveyor is disinclined further to contest the validity of Form No. 44A; but the solicitor seems to be uneasy, as if he feels that the Crown is losing prestige, and that somebody must make the running for it. So he starts to read an obscure and wearisome section of the Income-Tax Act relating to “foreigners” coming to reside in this country!

Ethel Ayers Purdie.

(To be continued.)

I’ll post the second part of the above article on the 23^rd.

Also from the same issue:

Tax Resistance.

Women’s Freedom League.

After inexplicable delays, the representatives of the Law have finally made up their minds to wrestle with the case of Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight. On Saturday, the Hon. Treasurer of the League received a call from a gentleman who embodied in his person the might, majesty and power of the London County Council, and the Court of Petty Sessions, and showed a desire to annex Dr. Knight’s property in lieu of the £2 5s. which she declines to pay. It is hardly necessary to tell readers of The Vote that he got very little satisfaction out of his visit, seeing that no fine was forthcoming, no property could be seized, and no information was vouchsafed. After some slight altercation, and an almost pathetic attempt at persuasion, in neither of which was any advantage gained, the Law retired, to return at some future period (unstated) with a warrant for the arrest of the smiling culprit, who declined, in accordance with the attitude taken up by the Women’s Freedom League, to furnish any information or facilities to the agents of the Government.

Miss Janet Bunten, whose goods were seized in Glasgow at twenty-four hours’ notice, was absent from home with the women marchers at the time that the Government executed its mandate for the distraint. We are glad to be able to say that a staunch friend of Miss Bunten’s, who belongs to the Women’s Social and Political Union — some of whose members were in the same plight — bought in the goods for her.

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

Last week Mrs. Kineton Parkes spoke at Manchester and Leeds, and on Tuesday Mrs. [Caroline] Fagan spoke at Woking on the subject of Tax Resistance. New members joined the League at each place. On Saturday, November 9, a Tax Resistance meeting was held under the auspices of the Hampstead W.S.P.U., and was presided over by Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown. Mrs. Kineton Parkes and Mr. Mark Wilks were the speakers. Particulars appear in another column [sic] of the Caxton Hall Reception, on November 11, to Mr. Mark Wilks. Great interest will also be attached to the account of the case of Dr. Alice Burn, Medical Officer of Health for the County of Durham. Mrs. Ayers Purdie appeared for her in Durham, and won our case against the Inland Revenue — a notable triumph for the Cause. The Women’s Tax Resistance will join the Marchers at Camden-town on Saturday next and proceed with the John Hampden Banner to Trafalgar-square.

Also from the same issue:

Enthusiastic Reception to Mr. Mark Wilks.

“If anyone fears that he has not courage to go to prison he will soon find, when he is inside, that one of its peculiar characteristics is to produce a determination and courage undreamed of to resist, not its discipline, which is a farce, but its tyranny, which oppresses the weak, and vanishes like the mist before the strong.”

— Mark Wilks

Two meetings; the same hall; the same man as the centre of interest; yet what a difference! In September, Mr. Mark Wilks was in prison, and the Caxton Hall rang with the indignant demand for his release. In November Mr. Mark Wilks was on the platform, and the Caxton Hall rang with enthusiastic appreciation of his service to the Woman’s Cause. “It is fitting that on this memorable day, when the Government has been defeated in the House of Commons, that we should meet to celebrate the defeat of the Government by Mr. Mark Wilks,” said Mr. Pethick Lawrence. One had only to scan the platform and glance round the hall on November 11 to note that the Women’s Tax Resistance League has the power to call together men and women determined to do and to suffer in order to win the legal badge of citizenship for women and the amending of unjust laws. Mr. Wilks and his brave wife, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, had a fine reception, and their speeches were clear, straight challenges to all to carry on the fight. “We must never tire,” said Dr. Wilks, as she showed the injustice of the working of the income tax methods of collection, and told heartrending stories of the betrayal of young girls, “until we have won sex equality.” “If anyone fears that he has not courage to go to prison he will soon find, when he is inside, that one of its peculiar characteristics is to produce a determination and courage undreamed of to resist, not its discipline, which is a farce, but its tyranny, which oppresses the weak, and vanishes like the mist before the strong.” Thus, Mr. Mark Wilks; and, having been inside himself, he declared that he was most anxious that Captain Gonne should enjoy a similar experience, because he is resisting taxation, largely on account of the White Slave Traffic. “They seized an obscure man; let the important ones be seized. They did not know you were behind me; we will show the one or two men who really stand for the great scheme we call ‘Government,’ that we are behind Captain Gonne. I have been inside and know how to do it. Play the band and cheer. The effect is electric!”

Mr. Robert Cholmely, M.P., from the chair, blessed the Tax Resistance movement; Mr. Pethick Lawrence acclaimed it as part of a militant policy against a Government which abandons its Liberal principles and finds itself defeated; Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard rejoiced that the best men were standing by the women; Mrs. Cobden Sanderson pleaded for more recruits for the League to help it to find more Mark Wilks; Miss Bensusan and Miss Decima Moore delighted and amused everyone by their recitations of imaginary Antis and real tax collectors. A notable gathering on a notable day.

So, if you remember from a week or so ago, the tax authorities used a battering ram to break Kate Harvey’s barricade and seize her goods for taxes. A hell of a lot of good that did them. Look what happened when they tried to auction off the seized goods! From the 5 December 1913 issue of The Vote:

The Sale That Was Not a Sale.

After many months of barricade, “Brackenhill” was broken into by the tax-collecting authorities, and “in the King’s name” the doors were battered in and Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s goods were seized to cover the amount of taxes which she refuses to pay so long as no woman in the land has a voice in controlling the expenditure of the country. The tax-collector wanted these goods to be disposed of peacefully, and therefore insisted that they should be sold on the premises and not in a public hall, as on a previous occasion. On Saturday 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 3.30, 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 3.30 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!

In the Market-square in the evening Miss Boyle presided at a large and orderly meeting at which Mr. Mark Wilkes, Mr. Bell, Mr. Webber, Mr. Steer, and Mr. Jouning spoke. The Tax Resistance banners mingled with those of the Women’s Freedom League, and the meeting was the event of Saturday evening at Bromley.

At the instigation of Mr. Webber enthusiastic cheers were given for Mrs. Harvey and the Cause, and Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, responding to an insistent call, wound up the meeting with a short speech.

Also from the same issue:

Women’s Tax Resistance League

Excellent Meeting at Hastings.

At the Grand Concert Hall, Hastings, on Monday night a public meeting was held under the auspices of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, which created immense interest in the town owing to the recent decision by Judge Mackarness in favour of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies against the Mayor and Corporation of Hastings. It will be remembered that owing to the Anti-Suffrage riots on May 24, the authorities prohibited the protest meeting to be held that night, and it was the same mob which attacked the members of the National Union a few days later.

The postponed meeting of the Women’s Tax Resistance League was held last Monday night, and in the unavoidable absence of the Countess Brassey the chair was taken by Lady Isabel Hampden Margesson, a direct ascendant of John Hampden.

Lady Isabel, in her opening speech, fully vindicated the action of her historic ancestor, and illustrated by her well-chosen words and clearly expressed sentiments, that she is equally prepared to resist injustice and expose bad government.

Mr Laurence Housman, in a brilliant political speech, traced the constitutional history of Tax Resistance from Magna Charta to the present day, proving that only through refusing to submit to imposition have all great reforms been won.

Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, who was the other speaker, accused the Government of unconstitutional action in demanding taxation from a large section of the community from whom they withheld representation. She also gave the moral reasons why women should demand the vote, and why they should also unite in protesting by the time honoured way of Tax Resistance against its continual denial.

At the close of the meeting the following resolution was carried with one dissentient:—

That this meeting is of opinion that women are justified in refusing to pay all Imperial taxes until they are granted the same control over national expenditure as male taxpayers possess.

It is satisfactory to know that there was adequate police protection. It is stated on good authority that the Chief Constable was himself in attendance at this meeting, together with seventy members of the Force, and as many of these men were taken from night duty it caused the authorities a good deal of extra expense. This police protection would have been more to the point if it had been in evidence in the streets of Hastings on May 24.

On Tuesday, November 25, Mrs. Kineton Parkes spoke at Bristol under the auspices of the New Constitutional Society, and on Wednesday, at Cardiff, under the Women’s Social and Political Union.

No Vote, No Dog License.

At the Assize Court, Kingston-on-Thames, on Wednesday, November 26, Miss Isabelle Stewart, B.Sc., was summoned for non-payment of her dog license. Defendant did not appear, but it was explained that she had declined to pay the tax on conscientious grounds. As a suffragist she believed that it was unjust to tax women while they were unrepresented in Parliament. She was accordingly fined £2 inclusive, and [as] it was stated that she would not pay a fine she considered unjust, distraint was ordered to be levied.

A number of sympathisers were in the Court, including Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, who is refusing to pay the licences on her eight dogs. A meeting was held by the Coronation Stone in the Market Square. Miss M. Lawrence presided, pointing out that had Miss Stewart been a man she would have had two votes; as a woman she had none. Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown then addressed the crowd. She commented on the treachery of a Government that had gone back on its principle of no taxation without representation and on the different forms of treatment meted out to Sir Edward Carson, Jim Larkin, and the Suffragists respectively. The crowd throughout was sympathetic, and at the end of the meeting swarmed round the speaker and argued in an amicable way with her.

Mrs. Harvey’s Thanks.

The Women’s Tax Resistance League has received a very charming letter of thanks from Mrs. Harvey for the bouquet presented to her by Miss Clemence Housman on behalf of the League at the Caxton Hall Meeting on Sunday, November 16.

From the 7 December 1912 issue of The Vote:

Rally in Force!

After eight months of masterly inactivity, during which time Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s locked gates, bolted doors, and defiant posters, “No Vote — No Tax!” have preached at Brackenhill, Bromley, their practical lesson to all passers-by of the injustice of taxation without representation suffered by women at the hands of a Liberal Government, the authorities at Bromley evidently endeavoured to give Mrs. Harvey a birthday surprise. That they were just one day too soon was a mere masculine blunder. On November 29, after she had left Brackenhill for town, the attack on the barricades was successfully made with files and crowbars, and the “Dauntless Three,” the tax-collector, the bailiff, and a policeman found themselves in possession, representing the majesty of the law of the land, which takes women’s money without consent, and thinks that all is well. We congratulate our good friend on the long fight she has made, and especially that, in the midst of the inconveniences of barricades, she carried on her magnus opus of the organisation of the International Suffrage Fair. Members — particularly those who live in or near London — have now an opportunity of showing their gratitude to Mrs. Harvey in a way which she will deeply appreciate. Let them rally in force at Brackenhill on the day of the sale and demonstrate the strong support which is behind our brave tax-resister. It is injustice which turns women into rebels; for such earnest workers as Mrs. Harvey and Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett, who made a spirited protest at Stowmarket on Dec. 2, recognised by the State as citizens, are ready to render the help of which the State stands so badly in need, but is too prejudiced to make possible. We trust that Mrs. Harvey’s eight months’ protest will be the last that she will be required to make, but we know that she, with the great army of rebel women, will resist until votes for women become a reality, and, as citizens, women taxpayers have a right to call the tune for which they have long paid the piper. Information will be obtainable at Headquarters as soon as the date of the sale is fixed.

Also from the same issue:

Tax Resistance.

The Bromley Barricade Broken.

After being barricaded since last May, an entrance was forced into Mrs. Harvey’s home, Brackenhill, Bromley, on Friday, November 29, by Mr. Croome, a bailiff, bearing a distress warrant, and accompanied by a tax-collector and a policeman. Mrs. Harvey had left home for town shortly before the arrival of the three men, who filed the chain on the garden gate and used a crowbar to force the back door, as the servants, acting on Mrs. Harvey’s instructions, refused to open it. Distraint was levied on the dining-room furniture. The date of the sale is not yet known, but later in the week Headquarters will be able to supply information. London members, and others in London on a visit, are urged to make a special effort to attend in force to support Mrs. Harvey in her splendid protest against taxation without representation.

Mrs. Tippett’s Protest at Stowmarket.

The Court, police, and general inhabitants of Stowmarket, on December 2, had an exciting and vigorous incident of an unusual character. The principal case in the police court was the summons against our esteemed fellow member of the N.E.C., Mrs. Isabel Tippett, for non-payment of a dog tax. The Court was crowded with men and women, including Mrs. [Lila] Pratt, secretary of the Ipswich Branch, and Mrs. Foster, secretary of the Woolpit Group of the W.F.L. When the other cases had been disposed of, Mrs. Tippett was called. The gentlemen on the bench appeared much more nervous than the defendant, who promptly pleaded “Not guilty.”

After asking permission from the magistrates, who were too perturbed to offer any opposition save an occasional feeble interjection, Mrs. Tippett proceeded to call their attention to the delay in any action being taken, and that the whole case was grossly illegal, as women were not persons in the legal interpretation of the term. On this legal point, she called Miss Anna Munro as witness for the defence. Miss Munro cited the Scottish Graduates’ Test case, carried eventually to the House of Lords, where, with all the might of the greatest judicial court in Great Britain, it was upheld that women were not persons.

The clerk replied that sometimes women were persons and sometimes not, but in the matter of default of payment of a dog tax, magistrates and clerk unanimously decided, after due consultation, that Mrs. Tippett was a person. Mrs. Tippett then made a few further remarks, but was interrupted by the chairman, who said that women’s suffrage must not be dragged into it; whereupon Miss Munro reminded him that he had transgressed, and not the suffragettes, on this occasion. The Bench then retired to consider their verdict. The chairman, Mr. Prettyman, announced that the defendant had been found guilty, the penalty 10s. and costs. Mrs. Tippett thereupon, announced that she would not pay, and had no goods which could be distrained, and mildly suggested that they should commit her to prison in default. This plan, however, they refused to entertain, and proclaimed the court closed.

A protest meeting, with banners and placards, “No Vote, No Tax,” was held shortly afterwards in the Market Square. Miss Munro presided over an increasing and interested audience, which received Mrs. Tippett most cordially as she gave an eloquent and forceful explanation of the protest, the necessity for such action and of the policy of the Women’s Freedom League. Miss Munro followed, and replied to a considerable fire of questions at the close of the meeting. There is no doubt that protests such as this up and down the country create a deep impression, and bring home our message to the average elector in a truly forcible fashion.

Anna Munro.

Also from the same issue:

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

On Friday, December 6, Mrs. [Adeline] Cecil Chapman will have goods sold for tax resistance at the Broadway Auction Rooms, Walham green Station, at 6.45 p.m. A joint meeting of protest of the Women’s Tax Resistance League and the New Constitutional Society for Woman’s Suffrage will be held at Kelveden Hall, Fulham-road, opposite Parson’s-green-lane, at 7.30 p.m. Speakers: Mrs. Cecil Chapman, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown, Mr. J. Malcolm Mitchell, and others. Friends are invited to join the procession, which forms up at 6.15 p.m., at Kelveden Hall, and marches to the Auction Rooms.

From the 11 April 1913 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

The Unsold Waggon at Ipswich.

There is a waggon on the Cowslip Farm at Witnesham, Suffolk, which has become quite celebrated. It has been sold twice annually for the last three years and still remains on the same farm.

It was drawn into Bond’s Sale Yard at Ipswich on Tuesday, April 1, and the plate on it disclosed it as the property of Dr. Elizabeth Knight and Mrs. [Hortense] Lane. A placard described it as Lot 21, and when the other lots had been sold the auctioneer approached the waggon, followed by a large crowd who were curious to see what was the meaning of three women being seated inside, apparently with a set purpose. Just as the crowd assembled Dr. Knight came into the sale yard to look after the welfare of her property.

Miss Andrews asked the auctioneer if she might explain the reason for the sale of the waggon, and, having received the necessary permission was able to give an address on tax resistance, and to show how it is one of the weapons employed by the Freedom League to secure the enfranchisement of women. Then came the sale — but beforehand the auctioneer said he had not been aware he was to sell “distressed” goods, and he very much objected to doing so. He declared that he regarded Dr. Knight and Mrs. Lane as persons, and thereby showed himself to be in advance of the law of the country. The meeting and the auctioneer together made the assembly chary of bidding, and the waggon was not sold, which was a great triumph for the tax-resisters. Further developments are eagerly awaited, for it is assumed that the Government will not thus easily give up its claim to tax unrepresented women, and will endeavour to find a less scrupulous auctioneer. Miss Trott and Miss Bobby helped to advertise the meeting by carrying placards round the crowded market.

C[onstance].E.A[ndrews].

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

At a Members’ Meeting at the offices of the League on April 3, with Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson in the chair, speeches were given on the following subjects:— “The Recent Sales and Protests,” by Mrs. Kineton Parkes; “Married Women’s Dividends” — test case, by Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie; “Married Women and Income Tax,” by Miss Amy Hicks, M.A.; an interesting discussion followed.

Sales of the Week.

On April 3, Mrs. Skipwith, 13, Montagu-square, W., and Gorse Cottage, Woking, had a silver dish sold at Woking for refusal to pay Property Tax. A good protest meeting was held, the speaker being Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown. On April 5, a clock, belonging to Miss Bertha Brewster was sold by auction at Wilson’s Repository, Chenies-mews, Gower-street, because of non-payment of Inhabited House Duty. At the subsequent protest meeting at the corner of Grafton-street, and Tottenham Court-road, the speakers were Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Miss Sarah Bennet, and others. On the same day at Eastchurch, Kent, Miss [Kate] Raleigh’s goods were sold for refusal to pay Imperial Taxes. The speakers were Mrs. Sadd Brown, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, and Miss Raleigh.