Some historical and global examples of tax resistance → women’s suffrage movements → British women’s suffrage movement → Margaret Wynne Nevinson

The Vote

From the issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

Tax Resistance protests are multiplying throughout the land, and signs are not wanting that the seedling planted by the Women’s Freedom League is developing into a stalwart tree. This form of militancy appeals even to constitutionally-minded women; and the ramifications of tax resistance now reach far beyond the parent society and the other militant organisations, necessitating the expenditure of great energy on the part of the officials who work under the banner of John Hampden — the Women’s Tax Resistance League.

Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard is no longer even asked to pay her taxes; the Edinburgh Branch of the W.F.L. is in almost the same happy position; Mrs. [Kate] Harvey has once more heroically barricaded Brackenhill against the King’s officers, and Miss [Mary] Anderson has again raised the flag of revolt in Woldingham. Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight, with praiseworthy regularity, refuses to pay her dog license and other taxes in respect of a country residence; and these protests never fail to carry to some mind, hitherto heedless, a new sense of the unconstitutional position women are forced to occupy in a country that prides itself on being the home of constitutional Government.

Activities of the Tax Resistance League.

Last week we had five sales in different parts of the country.

On three Tax Resisters at West Drayton and two at Rotherfield, made their protest. Miss [Kate] Raleigh, Miss Weir, and Miss [Margory?] Lees had a gold watch and jewellery sold on the village green, West Drayton; speakers at the protest meeting were Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Mrs. Hicks, and Miss Raleigh. Miss Koll and Miss Hon[n]or Morten, of Rotherfield, had a silver salver and gold ring sold from a wagonette in the village street; speakers at the protest meeting were Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mr. Reginald Pott. Miss Maud Roll presided. On Mrs. [Myra Eleanor] Sadd Brown gave an at home at her house when short speeches were made by the Hampstead Tax Resisters who were to have their goods sold on , and by Mrs. [Louisa] Thompson Price, whose case is being further looked into by Somerset House. There was a very good attendance and many new members were gained for the League. On , sales took place at Hampstead and at Croydon. Misses Collier, Mrs. Hartley, Mrs. Hicks, and Dr. Adeline Roberts had their goods sold at the Hampstead Drill Hall and at the protest meeting the speakers were Miss Hicks and Mrs. [Margarete Wynne] Nevinson. The goods of Miss [Dorinda] Neligan and Miss James were sold at Messrs. King and Everall’s Auction Rooms, Croydon; the protest meeting was addressed by Mrs. Kineton Parkes.

On the sale took place of a ring, the property of Mrs. [Adeline] Cecil Chapman, President of the New Constitutional Society, and wife of Mr. Cecil Chapman, the well-known magistrate, at Messrs. Roche and Roche’s Auction Rooms, 68A, Battersea-rise. Mrs. Chapman made an excellent protest in the auction room, and afterwards presided at the protest meeting, when the speakers were Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, and Mrs. Teresa Gough.

Sequel to Hastings Riot.

As a result of the disgraceful scenes at Hastings on , Mrs. Darent Harrison appealed to the magistrate on Tuesday. A large number of sympathisers were present and Mrs. [Jane?] Strickland, president of the local National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, spoke, and Mrs. Darent Harrison. The magistrate said the matter was not within his province and the Watch Committee must be referred to. We hope that the result may be adequate police protection when the resisters hold the postponed protest meeting.


The Vote

From the issue of The Vote:

Mrs. [Emma] Sproson said she had only been a week out of Stafford County Prison, where she had served seven days in the third division for refusing to pay her dog-license. Since then, three other summonses had also been served for the same reason — one upon her husband for “aiding and abetting.” This was very serious indeed. If the decision went against Mr. Sproson it would establish the principle that a wife could not keep even a cat without the consent of her husband. Whatever happened the speaker was determined not to let either the police or the Government get the better of her. There were times when militancy was absolutely necessary. Tax resistance was a splendid form of protest when the person who resisted had no goods that could be distrained upon. There was nothing for it but to put that person into prison. This placed the Government in a very awkward position. Public sympathy was always with the person who refused to pay taxes as a matter of principle, and the Government, in sending that person to prison, was regarded as an aggressor. There were those who considered that suffragists were prepared to go too far in their determination to obtain that for which they were fighting. But true reformers were willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of a principle; it was the false reformer who considered that there were limits to sacrifice.

Mrs. [Margaret] Nevinson said when they were at school they were taught that freedom had been won for England by such men as Hampden, who had resisted the payment of ship-money. There was, however, no freedom for women.…

From elsewhere in the same issue:

Tax Resistance in Wolverhampton

“Love me, love my dog,” is an adage which we are not sure a wife is entitled to use. When the authorities — the Wolverhampton police — first enquired into the ownership of my dog, my husband repudiated all claim; consequently, in default of taking out a license, I was committed to prison and served seven days in the third division. On my release I made known my intention of continuing to refuse to take out a license. The police are trying to assert their authority, and on Friday last served me with three summonses — one for keeping a dog without a license, a second for keeping a ferocious dog, and a third for keeping a ferocious dog without proper control; and a fourth was served on Mr. Sproson “for aiding, abetting and procuring one Emma Sproson to keep a dog without a license.”

The first charge is the same as the one for which I have already served seven days, thereby causing the authorities to assert that I was the responsible individual; the second and third are the grossest possible libel on poor “Gip,” and are brought forward as a means of hampering my protest.

The fourth is one which we as suffragists need to enquire into with the most careful consideration. The police see that nothing can be got from me except such suffering as they shall impose on my person. The public support I have received has evidently only had the effect of making the police determined to stop me somehow. So the musty old law of coverture has been brought into action. Under this law they say the husband can be coerced against his will into responsibility for the action of his wife. He has distrainable goods, and these can be seized until he cannot resist the power of the law any longer. Whether the authorities know quite well where they stand remains to be seen.

Their position may be made more clear to my readers than it is to themselves by the following questions which were put to me by Mr. Sproson:— If I took out a license without any regard to your opinions, what would you do? I replied that I should get another dog. If I killed your dog, what then? I replied that I should get another dog. If I told you you must discontinue keeping a dog or leave my roof, what should you do? I replied — I should leave your roof, and I should cease to regard you as a husband and consider you a tyrant.

So the wise men of Wolverhampton have to decide whether a husband has the right to turn his wife from his house or to act as though she is a responsible human being who ought to have the same human rights as himself. Many of my critics will say — it is pushing a protest to extremes to appear to think more of a dog than of a husband, home and children. But I reply it is a principle that is at stake. I once learnt a lesson which struck root right down into my nature, as Ibsen puts it, and this is that the worship of one fragment of the golden calf is as much idolatry as the worship of the whole calf. There are many reformers — too many, perhaps — and what differentiates the true reformer from the false is the true sacrifices — all if need be not caring for consequences — the false always have their limit.

Emma Sproson.


The Vote

From the issue of The Vote:

At Headquarters.

Our Trafalgar-square Demonstration on , is to be a great success. It is being advertised by the Caravan, which, covered with great banners, is parading some of the principal thoroughfares all this week; it is accompanied by a little band of chalkers and bill-distributers. The meeting is one of protest against the biased administration of the law and its treatment of women, as instanced in the two months’ imprisonment in the second division which Mrs. Kate Harvey is now undergoing at Holloway because of her refusal to pay her Insurance Tax and license for her manservant. We have a fine list of speakers: Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Miss Nina Boyle, Miss Amy Hicks, M.A., Miss Anna Munro, Mrs. M[argaret].W. Nevinson, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Emma] Sproson, Mrs. Tanner, Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett, Mr. Harry de Pass, Mr. George Lansbury, Mr. H.W. Nevinson, Mr. John Scurr and Mr. Mark Wilks. Vote-sellers, literature-sellers, collectors, and banner-bearers please be at the office We hope every London member will attend the demonstration and bring as many friends as possible.

More from the same issue:

Mrs. Harvey’s Imprisonment.

The meeting outside Holloway Gaol, held from the Women’s Freedom League Caravan, was small and not particularly sympathetic. The speakers — Mrs. Hyde, Mrs. Despard, and Miss Boyle — were heard without very much interruption, but with little enthusiasm. The meetings at Bromley, on the other hand, held by the Women’s Tax Resistance and Freedom Leagues alternately, have been more than satisfactory. Miss Hicks and Miss Boyle, on and nights, secured excellent crowds on the Market-square, and were listened to with deep attention and quiet courtesy. These meetings will continue throughout Mrs. Harvey’s imprisonment. The caravan will continue its advertising campaign through London and the suburbs until ’s meeting is over; and the list of speakers for the demonstration is more than satisfactory.

The following resolution will be put to the meeting:—

That this meeting protests with indignation against the vindictive sentences passed on Voteless Women, and especially that on Mrs. Harvey; and demands that the Government accord equal treatment to men and women under the law and under the Constitution.

The arrangements are as follows:—

Platform 1. — Facing National Gallery.
Chair:Miss Anna Munro.
.— Mrs. Despard.
.— Mr. George Lansbury.
.— Mrs. Cobden Sanderson.
.— Mr. Harry de Pass.
.— Miss Nina Boyle.
.— Resolution.
.— Collection and Questions.
Platform 2. — Facing Strand.
Chair:Miss Amy Hicks, M.A..
.— Mr. John Scurr.
.— Miss Nina Boyle.
.— Mr. George Lansbury.
.— Mrs. Nevinson.
.— Mr. Mark Wilks.
.— Resolution.
.— Collection and Questions.
Platform 3. — Facing Pall Mall.
Chair:Mrs. Tanner.
.— Mr. H.W. Nevinson.
.— Mrs. Tippett.
.— Mrs. Sproson.
.— Mr. John Scurr.
.— Mrs. Despard.
.— Resolution.
.— Collection and Questions.

The Chair to be taken at .

Mrs. Despard’s letter to the Home Office asking for Mrs. Harvey’s release has elicited the reply that the Home Secretary can see no reason to intervene, and that he does not admit that “Queenie Gerald” is not still serving her sentence.

Mr. Harben has addressed the following letter to the Home Office:—

Newland-park, Chalfont St. Giles, Bucks.
.

Dear Sir,— May I be permitted to appeal to you to use your power to secure a reduction of the sentence on Mrs. Harvey, who as a matter of principle has refused to pay the contribution due under the Insurance Act.

Justice can always afford to be merciful; unfairness is bound to fall back on cruelty for its support. While women are voteless in the hands of men, the sense of injustice is bound to arise among them; and that is all the more reason why a Government, which does not propose to remove that grievance, should be doubly careful to be fare in all other respects. Yet more persons have been imprisoned for political offences in the last four or five years than at any recent period in our history; and while the administration of the law is thus openly prostituted for political purposes, there is growing up in the public mind a contempt for the law so widespread that it has already had a damaging effect on public order, and will certainly lead to more serious consequences still.

I would ask you, Sir, what good purpose can possibly be served by such a sentence as this? Two months in the Second Division will cause considerable suffering to Mrs. Harvey herself; but so far from being a deterrent to her or anyone else, its effect will be exactly the reverse. The fact that the offences of Mrs. Harvey and Queenie Gerald are on the same level before the law will ring as a challenge to all decent men and women throughout the country to remove the poison from the springs of justice at all costs, and with the utmost speed. Were it not that cruelty to women has now become a Government pastime, and that the terrors of Holloway are so obviously the panem et circenses thrown to the creatures of Llanystumdwy, it would be impossible to suppose that in England such a sentence could be allowed to stand. ―I remain, yours faithfully,

(Signed) Henry D. Harben.

The Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, M.P.

Also from the same issue:

“No Taxation Without Representation.”

Miss Marie Lawson asks us to publish the following abridged account of her “snowball” protest, and to correct one or two errors in our last issue. “Latter” was printed for “former” in the second paragraph, and an impression was conveyed that the “snowball” letter was to be anonymous, which is not the case.

Mrs. K. Harvey, of Bromley, has been committed for two months in the second division for non-payment of a Government Tax and for non-compliance with the requirements of the National Insurance Act.

As a declaration against the tyranny of arbitrary taxation, Mrs. Harvey adopted the time-honoured protest of passive resistance — the only form of protest, short of actual violence, that is open to the women of this country. She had to choose between passive resistance and cowardly acquiescence. She chose the former and, as a result, now lies in Holloway Gaol.

You are urgently requested to assist the agitation for her release in two ways:—

  1. By sending a postcard to the Home Secretary, The Home Office, Whitehall, S.W., protesting against the severity of the sentence and demanding her immediate release.
  2. By copying this statement in full and forwarding it to at least three of your friends.

Printed postcards for collecting signatures in support of the protest can be obtained from Miss Lawson on receipt of a stamped envelope.


The Vote

From the issue of The Vote:

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

The Women’s Tax Resistance League has decided to hold a protest meeting in Hyde-park at , to express indignation at the imprisonment of Mrs. Kate Harvey, who has for conscientious reasons refused to subscribe to the tyranny of unrepresentative government. The speakers will be Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Mr. H.W. Nevinson, and others.

Also from the same issue:

At Headquarters.

we are holding an Indignation meeting at Caxton Hall, the indignation expressed to be generally against the Government, non-representation, mis-representation and imprisonment of voteless women, and particularly against the sentence of two months’ imprisonment in the second division, which Mrs. Harvey is now serving in Holloway because of her refusal to comply with the regulations of the Insurance Act passed over the heads of women without consulting women. The speakers will be Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Mrs. Kineton Parkes (of the Women’s Tax Resistance League), Mrs. Mustard, and Mr. John Scurr. The chair will be taken by Miss Nina Boyle at . Admission is free, and there will be no reserved seats. This is the first of a series of political meetings to be held by the Women’s Freedom League during the Parliamentary recess.…

At a public meeting held in Market-place, Bromley, Kent, on , the following resolution was put and carried with one dissentient:— “This meeting expresses deep indignation at the imprisonment of Mrs. Harvey for non-payment of Imperial taxes, demands her immediate release, and further demands that the Government act in accordance with its own principles, and introduce a measure for Votes for Women without delay.”

Also from the same issue:

What We Omitted To Say.

Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Secretary of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, reminds us that Miss [Ethel] Sargant, the first woman to be appointed president of a section of the British Association, is a keen Suffragist, and has worked for the National Union for many years, being president of their Tunbridge Wells Branch. She is also a tax-resister, and had goods seized and sold by public auction in Cambridge this spring, and is sister to Mrs. [Mary] Sargant Florence, the well-known decorative artist, one of the founders of the Women’s Tax Resistance League.

Elsewhere in the same issue:

Edinburgh.

A splendid open-air meeting, to protest against Mrs. Harvey’s imprisonment, was held on at the Mound. We were fortunate in having in the chair Dr. Grace Cadell, who is herself at this moment a “concrete example” of the form of militancy for which Mrs. Harvey is suffering. Dr. Cadell’s inability to “appear personally” in court, as she is not a person, has been greatly appreciated locally, but fortunately it does not extend to Suffrage platforms!…


The Vote

From the issue of The Vote come these reports of speeches given at a mass meeting in Trafalgar Square:

Mrs. Cobden Sanderson.

In the course of a well-reasoned speech, Mrs. Cobden-Sanderson said: We live in revolutionary times. The will of the people must prevail. The Portuguese Royal Family fell because it did not consider this. Berlin has also revolted, and the revolt there would have been more sanguinary had it not been for women, who placed themselves in the front — themselves and their children — and it takes much self-sacrifice to sacrifice your child. Here the women are also in revolt against the social and economical condition of things, for similar grievances prevail here to those which prevail in Tariff Reform Germany.

Mr. Lloyd George will be attacked more severely. Hitherto he has had some unpleasant moments; now we are going to attack his pocket. We are going to have our say in the spending of twelve millions on Dreadnoughts, and also on the reform of Poor Law system. I am a Poor Law guardian, but I am almost ashamed to own it, for I find the whole system of Poor Law administration is rotten to the core, and I work harder as such than in presenting petitions at Downing Street.

Our next move is to pay no taxes. It is the most direct and unanswerable method. If we are not good enough to vote, we are not good enough to pay. No vote, no tax. Those little income-tax forms, Form Ⅳ. or Ⅵ., or some other number, will be just thrown into the basket and not returned. Everyone who perhaps has not an income to be taxed can have a dog, and then refuse to pay tax.

We all at the bottom of our souls know that we want a betterment of affairs, and we women are going to try to alter things and improve conditions of men and women, and then the exports and imports will go up by leaps and bounds. There are starving women in this richest country in the world, and therefore we are going to revolt and make a revolution among the women, and the revolution is sure to succeed if we give our lives and time and money to bring it about.

Are you sure you are not paying too much tax to John Bull? We have recovered or saved large sums for women taxpayers. Why not consult us? It will cost you nothing. Women Taxpayer’s Agency (Mrs. E. Ayres Purdie), Hampden House, Kingsway, W.C. Tel 6049 Central.

Mrs. Ayres Purdie A.L.A.A.

Mrs. Purdie spoke about the disabilities and handicap of women in professions due to their lack of status. She was once the object of a Bill which, if it passed, would have made her liable to a fine of £10 and £1 per day thereafter so long as she continued practising her profession. It was absurd to suppose women were going to pay M.P.’s to pass Bills such as these. Women would never break down the barriers which kept them from advancing in the professions while they were denied representation.

Mrs. [Margarete Wynne] Nevinson.

Mrs. Nevinson… in the course of her speech said: The Conciliation Bill is a first instalment of justice, the first righteous thing that we accept and that we are willing to take. If anybody owed you £1,000, and said, “I cannot give the whole amount to you now, but will pay you £100 on account and the rest later on,” every wise person having anything to do with finance would say, “All right, I will take the £100 now and the rest as soon as you can let me have it.” Women are naturally becoming very indignant with the Budget, which has put Women’s Income Tax up to 1s. 2d. in the £. Before the war we only paid 6d. Women had nothing to do with the causes involving increased taxation, and yet we now have to pay 1s. 2d.

Income-Tax Courtesy.

Here I have one of Mr. Lloyd George’s wonderful forms, with its numerous questions, to answer which intelligently I should require, apparently, the training of a lawyer and surveyor, and a fund of universal knowledge which I do not possess. I am asked to answer those questions, but am not considered fit to vote for a member of Parliament. This Form is addressed to me because I have a little freehold property, but it starts off with “Sir.” I am sending it back, pointing our that I must be addressed as “Madam,” and not “Sir,” and that as I have not vote, I do not see what this matter has to do with me. If you think of it, it is rather an insult to all women property holders to be addressed as “Sir,” and not by their proper title of courtesy. The State seems to take for granted that there can be no free women or women freeholders in the country, but that all the land must be owned by men.

No Vote! No Tax! Women’s Tax Resistance League. Will those who can help with time, money, or resistance, kindly send in their names to the Secretary, Mrs. Kineton Parkes.

Also from the same issue:

No Vote, No Taxes.

The Women’s Freedom League for the last three years has preached and practised tax resistance as a protest against unenfranchisement. It is, therefore, very gratifying that the sister militant society has now decided, in the event of the Conciliation Bill not becoming law this session, also to adopt this form of protest. It is to be hoped that the Women’s Tax Resistance League will succeed in persuading all the other Suffrage Societies to unite on this logical policy of refusing supplies until our grievance is redressed.


The Vote

From the issue of The Vote comes this amusingly-written tale of tax resistance:

Government Rests Upon the Consent of the Governed.

They had decided not to insure; they attended great gatherings at the Albert Hall and passed resolutions with fervour, and clapped and cheered the incitements to rebellion, and when the fatal Bill went through and July 1 came, they formed a conspiracy to defraud — the little mistress, and the cook, and the housemaid, who was also her daughter. “Nothing,” said the little mistress, who was developing unsuspected powers as a street-corner orator, “nothing will induce me to pay a fresh tax levied on women without their consent. I will not lick stamps at the bidding of Mr. Lloyd George; I will go to gaol as a protest against such an unconstitutional Government.”

“’Ear, ’ear ma’am,” said the cook; “I ’ate that ole Lloyd George; I’d do anything to spite ’im. I always did ’ate Radicals, and as my ’usband says, they always do leave a mess for other folks to red up. They takes us poor people’s money and pays theirselves salaries out of it: Gladys read that out of the paper to me the other day. Old John Burns is ’aving thousands a year, and when we lived in Battersea I remember his saying as no man weren’t worth five ’undred, and quite enough, too, I says. Conservative gentlemen are rich and knows about governing the working classes, but this ’ere set of Radicals don’t know nothing abou it; they aren’t no better than us, and just on the make for a bit of money. What’s the good of the Insurance Act to folks as aren’t never ill? I never ailed nothing in my life except when I was upstairs with the children. No more ain’t my old Dad, and he’s just on ninety. When he broke his leg two years ago and the doctor wanted ’im to swallow some nice-looking red medicine, he just took it for to be perlite, and then spat it out and said ’is stummick had lasted him eighty-seven year and ’e weren’t going to start a-poisoning of it then.

“Silly talk I call it. I ’ate men — I ’ate the sight of them! and me, a married woman with eight, having to turn out and keep ’im and the little ones as I can’t do with the paltry pittance of my wages and Gladys, and now sixpence a week out of our wages and them children’s stummicks — taking to-day’s bread to pay for to-morrow’s medecine I calls it,” and the cook grasped the scrubbing-brush and viciously attacked the speckless kitchen table.

The month of July came and the husband, whose business took him abroad for long periods, returned to his revolting family, and what Gladys reported as a “few words” were spoken at the dining-table. He would not dream of resisting the Insurance tax. He was the master of the house and the women would please obey. He was not going to be summoned for any silly fad of his wife’s; besides, he had a vote and would look a fool in dock.

The wife replied that she had made inquiries, and her Suffrage Society considered she would be liable to be summoned as the servants were in her employ. They were ready all three to go to gaol like John Hampden for what they considered an unjust and unconstitutional tax.

The newspapers were consulted, and Mr. Masterman’s great and illuminating answer to a questioner in the House on that point of responsibility was quoted by the wife to show they might settle between them: “It is a purely domestic matter.” Then a brother, who was also a solicitor, was questioned, and deprecated such an evasive reply from a Cabinet Minister, stirring up domestic quarrels in many a home. In his opinion the husband only was responsible for all payments; a wife, of course, was under coverture and had no civic existence: she acted as her husband’s agent only.

“I am allowed to have my money, though, under the Married Women’s Property Act, ,” said the little mistress, angrily.

“That has nothing to do with it. I understand you pay the servants out of your husband’s money.”

“Then you may stamp-lick yourself, Claude,” said the little mistress. “I will not defile my tongue with Government gum.” Then she went upstairs and cried bitterly. The master sent for the servants and reduced them, as he thought, to submission. The housemaid became one year and a-half younger than the age at which she was engaged over a year ago; and though it seemed incredible, her statement was accepted, for the master knew that “to think a girl sixteen” is a valid excuse before any magistrate, and argued that the converse would also hold good, and no man with any chivalry could contradict a lady.

The cook procured a card as she was bidden, and because she quoted the Truck Act and the illegality of stopping wages, the master paid the lot, licked Government gum till his tongue was sore, and then, his house in order, departed to his business in far countries.

Then the revolt burst out once more. In spite of her boast of good health, the cook, finding six shillings paid down for ill-health and medical attendance, immediately developed the usual domestic ailments, swimmings here and sinkings there, pains in various regions, which, with the assistance of advertisements for quack medicines, she scientifically diagnosed as liver, kidney, “tisis,” and “pneumonia.”

When she was told that these must be endured till January without State assistance, but that if she was really so ill the family doctor should at once be summoned, she replied she would not dream of such a thing, she never did ’old with doctors, but if she paid money down she liked something to show for it, and not a ’alfpenny more would she put on that card.

Then the “Mark Wilkes’ case” happened, and the power of the law of coverture was proved, so the little mistress went down to consult her society. She had been brought up on cricket, and it did not seem fair, as she said, to get her husband into prison in his absence.

“Serve him right,” said the honorary secretary.

“Quite enough women have been to gaol,” said the treasurer; “it is time a few men got there for their own folly in allowing such laws.”

“You know we have your pledge as a passive resister, prepared with your two servants to go to gaol; you cannot go back on your word, Mrs. James.”

“We don’t wish to do so; but if they only fine my husband, who has a vote, our protest falls flat; he won’t be a Mark Wilkes and go to gaol for us.”

“You can, of course, take back your pledge.”

“But then cook won’t, and she is very obstinate.”

“You might dismiss her.”

“Yes, but she can cook, and so few cooks know how.”

“My dear,” said a white-haired woman, “if she can cook give her the best bedroom and anything she desires and go on talking about the Insurance Act when your husband comes home. Discussions on Women’s Liberty are glorious, but disputes over spoilt victuals are degrading.”

As time went on the little mistress, who had both a conscience and a power of attorney, became appalled at the revolt of the women. The little governess who came to teach the children refused to insure. She was a Christian Scientist and did not believe either in illness nor doctors. “Why,” she asked, with unanswerable logic, “should one insure against anything non-existent?” The charwoman said no one would engage her because of “them stamps,” they took up girls under sixteen instead; but now she suddenly posed as a married woman, wife of a wage-earner, her husband, whom she had supported for years, having once found employment as a buckler-on of skates when, at rare intervals, the climate allowed the ponds on the common to be opened to the public for the exhilarating exercise. The little dressmaker, who came to renovate and repair, was not insured. She had been dismissed from her place, she said, in July, and since then no one would employ her because she had not card. As she would probably end shortly in the workhouse, she thought she might as well go there via prison — both supplied board and lodging gratis. The model, who came to pose for the figure of Justice which the little mistress was designing for a Suffrage banner, also said that the ladies of her profession would not dream of insuring; and as, apparently, Mr. Lloyd George had never heard of the trade they were safe.

When October 15 drew nigh the cook, after several exhortations, was given an evening off and money for stamps, and sent to join an Approved Society. She returned very late, having missed a train on the Tube, and very vituperative against the Government; in fact, her command of Limehouse was worthy of the Chancellor himself. The next afternoon she again was granted a holiday, but returned this time depressed and lachrymose. She had heard, she said, of a gentleman at Lilac Cottage on the Common who would make excellent terms with her, and she was going back after tea.

“No,” said the little mistress, “you cannot go out again; I am expecting a friend and you must stop at home and cook the dinner.”

The meal came up as incoherent and confused as the Insurance Act itself, and amongst the rare refreshing fruits of the macédoine a big white onion flaunted so aggressively that the eldest son of the house, who came down to dessert, announced that he “could hear it smell.”

The ladies took refuge in the drawing-room, the little mistress jealous of her reputation as housekeeper quite overcome.

“I can’t think what is the matter with cook, the Insurance Act seems quite to have unhinged her.[”]

“No wonder,” said the honorary secretary, as she lit her cigarette.

Margaret Wynne Nevinson.

Also from the same issue:

Success at Letchworth.

Our enthusiastic member in the Garden City, Miss [Clara] Lee, has been working hard for some time trying to form a Branch of the League there, and now her efforts are to be crowned with success. A meeting was arranged for , at which the speakers were Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard and Mrs. [Margaret] Nevinson. It had been well advertised by Miss Lee in various ways, her poster parade at creating quite a sensation in Letchworth. The result was a splendid meeting; the Howard Hall was full, and in response to Mrs. Despard’s inspiriting appeal, a number of people gave in their names as members of the new Branch. Miss Lee, who, on more than one occasion, has refused to pay taxes, had the joy of learning that, as a result of Mrs. Nevinson’s speech on tax-resistance, she will now be supported by many other tax resisters in the first Garden City. A resolution, moved by Mrs. Tudor, calling upon the Government to include women in the proposed Reform Bill, was carried, one might almost say unanimously, for, though one gentleman dissented, he admitted afterwards that his position was that of “sitting upon the fence.” Miss Lee, who has kindly agreed to be hon. secretary of the new Branch, will be glad to hear from any sympathisers in the district.


The story of the birth of Jesus, as given in the gospels, begins with his pregnant mother and her husband on the move to Bethlehem in order to enroll in the census that Caesar Augustus had launched as part of his plan “that all the world should be taxed.”

A government doesn’t launch a census just because it’s curious, but usually, as with Augustus, as the prelude to a tax. It’s the government’s way of “casing the joint” before the big heist.

And so some tax resistance campaigns have started by resisting a census. Today I’ll review some examples.

Poll Tax resistance in Thatcher’s Britain

Refusal to register was one of the ways people resisted Thatcher’s Poll Tax. And the government’s difficulties in tracking people as they moved from place to place, and from one council’s jurisdiction to another, made enforcement difficult.

Resisters also successfully refused to provide information about their employment that could be used to seize taxes from their paychecks. According to one account:

[T]he councils still had one insurmountable headache. They had to find out where people worked. This was a real nightmare because other than asking the people concerned, they had no real way of getting the information they needed. When a liability order was granted by the court, non-payers were sent a form which requested details of employment. Failure to fill it out carried a fine of £100 and £400 if the non-payer provided false information. But this didn’t act as a deterrent either, because, if people couldn’t pay the Poll Tax itself (and the court costs which were added), then it made little difference if the council added another £100. A survey carried out by the Audit Commission in showed that, nationally, only 15% of people who received the form actually sent it back. Like electoral registration, it was widely ignored even though this was a criminal offence.

Household Tax resistance in Ireland today

The Household Tax resistance movement in Ireland is defined by refusal by households to register to pay the tax.

This is not a charge to fund your local community, it is a tax to fund private speculators, bondholders and the bailout. Our incomes and services are being decimated to pay this private debt. Now people have a chance to register their opposition by not registering for this tax. By not registering, we can make this a referendum on the bailouts for the rich and the cuts for us.

When the registration deadline hit at , only about half of Irish households had registered. Ruth Coppinger of the Campaign Against Household and Water Taxes declared victory:

This is more than was achieved by Poll Tax non-payment which started off at 15% in the first year, , and which only reached 45% boycott in the year of its abolition.

Episcopalians in Scotland

The official church of Scotland had a habit through the centuries of taxing everyone in Scotland for the support of that church, whether they were members or not. This tended to annoy those who belonged to other churches. And this annoyance became especially loud whenever the “official” church got swapped from one denomination to another.

When the Presbyterians replaced the Episcopalians in the official chair in , one way the Episcopalians resisted was by refusing to pay the tax and refusing to participate in a church-run census. William Maitland, in his History of Edinburgh, fretted over difficulties in estimating the population at this period of time, noting:

[T]he greatest Defect is owing to the Episcopalian Inhabitants, who, being of a different Communion from the established Church, are not subject to the Controul and Examination of its Ministers; wherefore, many of them refuse to give Accounts either of the Names or Numbers of Persons in their Families.

Queensland water tax strike

In Queensland, Australia, in , the government tried to sneak in a tax on farmers who used wells or water pumps to irrigate their lands. The farmers rebelled.

Since the “tax” took the form of a stiff fee accompanying the mandatory registration of such wells or water pumps, it was natural that the tax resistance included mass refusal to register. Local Producers’ Associations across Queensland gathered and voted to refuse registration.

A month after the tax went into effect, facing mass refusal, the government backed down and rescinded the tax… though without eliminating the requirement to register wells and water pumps. Some Associations continued to counsel their members to refuse to register even after the tax resistance victory. A Mr. Roome of the Woodmillar LPA put it this way:

A lot of farmers were under the impression that because of registration fee had been withdrawn, everything in the garden was lovely. But the regulations were still there, and farmers who were under that impression would receive a rude awakening. Only formal registration had to be made, but they would find that if they furnished the particulars asked for they would give the Government an opportunity to later on impose the charges. The danger was still there, whereas if they refused to register the onus was on the Government to get the particulars, and prove that the farmers put down wells or sunk dams, etc. Once they gave the information they were at the mercy of the Government. … The excuse by the Government was that they wanted to get a survey of the water facilities which was absolutely ridiculous. The whole thing was a farce, and an excuse to impose a tax. The only way was to refuse to register, which he hoped would be done by members of all branches, and also refuse to pay the tax.

A motion that the members of the Association refuse to register was passed.

Zakāt resistance in Malaysia

When the Malaysian government assumed control of the traditional Islamic religious tithe called the zakāt, made it mandatory, and fixed its rate based on the acreage and yields of farmers, this also meant that the government had to do a census of agricultural land and monitor the crop yields.

This led to widespread, varied, mostly quiet, but strikingly effective resistance. James C. Scott, who studied the resistance, writes of one technique:

Some cultivators, particularly small-holders and tenants, simply refuse to register their cultivated acreage with the tithe agent.

Resistance to a pre-tax census in Fiji

A poll tax on indentured workers from India was initiated in Fiji in . The Indians had no political representation on the island, were banned from the schools, and could only emigrate on a single ship voyage offered once per year: they were essentially considered disposable migrant labor. The workers thought the tax, which amounted to the pay of 12 days labor, was a sort of bait-and-switch on the contracts that had brought them to Fiji, and vowed to resist. As one account put it:

A start will be made in to register all those liable to pay the residential tax, and prison will be the fate of him who does not comply with the law. Leading Indians in every district declare that they will willingly go to gaol before they register their names, and a general passive resistance is highly possible, with all its attendant strikes and bitter feeling.

The British women’s suffrage movement

The women’s suffrage movement in the United Kingdom, more so than anywhere else, used tax resistance in its struggle. “No taxation without representation,” was the cry. Suffragists also resisted government attempts to get information from them, both because these attempts were part of the effort to tax them, and because the laws that governed such information-gathering were passed by a male-exclusive government.

In , Winifred Patch wrote:

I have recently received a paper from the Inland Revenue Office headed “Duties on Land Values. Notice to Furnish Information,” asking for the names and addresses of any persons to whom I pay rent or for whom I may collect rents, a penalty not exceeding £50 being incurred if this information is willfully withheld. … As I am denied the rights of citizenship I absolutely decline to facilitate in any way the carrying out of the provisions of Mr. Lloyd George’s Finance Bill, and am returning my paper with this written across it. I am hoping, through the Women’s Tax Resistance League, of which I am a member, to obtain expert information which will enable me to make it impossible for the Government to exact the £50 penalty, and will leave them with no alternative but to imprison me in default. Will other women join me in making this protest? I feel that there must be many like myself who would gladly risk imprisonment for the cause, but who, for various reasons, find it very difficult, if not impossible, to take part in the more active protests which have hitherto brought women into conflict with the law. I cannot help hoping that we have here another vantage ground from which to attack a Government which refuses us justice.

Teresa Billington-Greig took up Patch’s suggestion and rallied the troops:

The famous forms on which the owners and lease-holders of the country have to prepare the necessary statistics for the levying of the new [land] tax have been issued now in practically all parts of England, and they will be issued in Scotland within a few days. Already these forms have been returned unfilled up, and with a curt comment as to the status of the women applied to, by some of our members in England. They will be so returned by many Suffragists across the border. Neither information nor money will be forthcoming in response to the Inland Revene Department’s demands. As far as possible this piece of Government business will be impeded first by the determined refusal of information, and, second, by the withholding of the money claimed in taxes.

Such refusal to yield to tyranny is always desirable. But at the present moment it carries an additional value in that it can be employed to improve the chances of the Conciliation Women’s Suffrage Bill. From now until the fate of the Bill is decided, every woman to whom any Government application for information or for taxes is made should not only refuse to comply because of the unrepresented condition of her sex, but should add a rider to the effect that she will gladly supply information and provide the money claimed if the Women’s Suffrage Bill at present before Parliament becomes law this Session.

Margarete Wynne Nevinson put it this way:

Here I have one of Mr. Lloyd George’s wonderful forms, with its numerous questions, to answer which intelligently I should require, apparently, the training of a lawyer and surveyor, and a fund of universal knowledge which I do not possess. I am asked to answer those questions, but am not considered fit to vote for a member of Parliament. This Form is addressed to me because I have a little freehold property, but it starts off with “Sir.” I am sending it back, pointing our that I must be addressed as “Madam,” and not “Sir,” and that as I have not vote, I do not see what this matter has to do with me. If you think of it, it is rather an insult to all women property holders to be addressed as “Sir,” and not by their proper title of courtesy. The State seems to take for granted that there can be no free women or women freeholders in the country, but that all the land must be owned by men.

, Charlotte Despard announced that this strategy of non-cooperation would be extended to the census proper. One news account said:

The census would cost a great deal of money, said Mrs. Despard, and involve an enormous amount of labor. So far as they were concerned, this census should not be taken.

“We shall prove,” said Mrs. Despard, “whether there is a people, or whether there can be a people without the women. We shall call upon women householders and women lodgers all over the country to refuse absolutely all information when the census takers come round.”

Women, she went on, had been proud to belong to the nation, but they had been denied their citizenship. Was it not logical, therefore, that they should say, “Very well; citizens we are not, and we shall not register ourselves as citizens?” That was logical, as a protest should be, and it would be effective.

Speaking of the preparations for the census, Mrs. Despard asserted that the officials were trying to get cheap labor: little girls from the schools at six and seven shillings a week. Mrs. Despard added that the members were going to obstruct other Government business and make other protests, and they would stop the census boycott only when they had the promise of the Prime Minister that a Woman’s Suffrage Bill would be introduced this session.