How you can resist funding the government →
a survey of tactics of historical tax resistance campaigns →
resonate with myths, legends, folklore, or historical examples →
John Hampden as an inspiration to later tax resisters
I reprinted Benjamin Ricketson Tucker’s defense of his brief experience with poll tax resistance.
Tucker said in that defense that he thought of such tax resistance as being solely for the purpose of “propagandism” — at least until such time as “a determined body of men and women” could “effectively, though passively, resist taxation, not simply for propagandism, but to directly cripple their oppressors.”
After this, Tucker soured on using tax resistance if it would invite retaliation from the State and he restricted himself to forms of symbolic tax resistance that he felt would be more-or-less equally effective propaganda.
In the following series of excerpts from Liberty ( and ), Tucker describes one such episode, and then defends it from a critic who attacks it for being too passive.
Time: , 7:30 P.M.
Place: Residence of the editor of Liberty, 10 Garfield Ave., Crescent Beach, Revere (a town in the suburbs of Boston).
Dramatis Personæ: Charles F. Fenno, so-called tax-collector of Revere, and the editor of Liberty.
In answer to a knock the editor of Liberty opens his front door, and is accosted by a man whom he never met before, but who proves to be Fenno.
Fenno. — “Does Mr. Tucker live here?”
Editor of Liberty — “That’s my name, sir.”
F. — “I came about a poll-tax.”
E. of L. — “Well?”
F. — “Well, I came to collect it.”
E. of L. — “Do I owe you anything?”
F. — “Why, yes.”
E. of L. — “Did I ever agree to pay you anything?”
F. — “Well, no; but you were living here on , and the town taxed you one dollar.”
E. of L. — “Oh!
it isn’t a matter of agreement, then?”
F. — “No, it’s a matter of compulsion.”
E. of L. — “But isn’t that rather a mild word for it?
I call it robbery.”
F. — “Oh, well, you know the law; it says that all persons twenty years of age and upwards who are living in a town on the first day of May—”
E. of L. — “Yes, I know what the law says, but the law is the greatest of all robbers.”
F. — “That may be.
Anyhow, I want the money.”
E. of L. (taking a dollar from his pocket and handing it to Fenno) — “Very well.
I know you are stronger than I am, because you have a lot of other robbers at your back, and that you will be able to take this dollar from me if I refuse to hand it to you.
If I did not know that you are stronger than I am, I should throw you down the steps.
But because I know that you are stronger, I hand you the dollar just as I would hand it to any other highwayman.
You have no more right to take it, however, than to enter the house and take everything else you can lay your hands on, and I don’t see why you don’t do so.”
F. — “Have you your tax-bill with you?”
E. of L. — “I never take a receipt for money that is stolen from me.”
F. — “Oh, that’s it?”
E. of L. — “Yes, that’s it.”
And the door closed in Fenno’s face.
He seemed a harmless and inoffensive individual, entirely ignorant of the outrageous nature of his conduct, and he is wondering yet, I presume, if not consulting with his fellow-citizens, upon what manner of crank it is that lives at No. 10 Garfield Ave., and whether it would not be the part of wisdom to lodge him straightway in a lunatic asylum.
This was followed by:
The last issue of the Workmen’s Advocate contains the following communication:
To the Workmen’s Advocate:
Oh! what a feeling of rapture came over me as I began reading the dialogue between Tucker and Fenno in the last number of Liberty.
(Ego Tucker needs no introduction; Fenno is the fiend who came to collect the poll-tax.)
My thoughts went back to another age and to distant clime.
I thought of John Hampden refusing to pay the ship-tax.
I had often asked myself, who will be the leader in this, the struggle of the fourth estate?
Where is the man who will dare resist oppression?
I thought and I was answered.
Here! here was the man who would risk all for Liberty! And although she slew him, still would he trust in her!
But softly; as I read further, he takes the big iron dollar from his pocket and gives it to the minion.
Oh, ignominy!
Instead of refusing to pay, he indulges in a little billingsgate — a favorite pastime with him.
He pays, and all is over.
Our idol is but clay, and we must seek another leader.
Is this what Ego Anarchists call “passive resistance”?
If it is, it is certainly passive.
―H.J. French
When I published the poll-tax interview, I foresaw that it would call out some such rubbish as the above from my Socialistic critics.
The fact that timely retreat often saves from defeat seldom saves the retreating soldier from the abuse of the “home guard.”
The “stay-at-homes” are great worshipers of glory, but are always willing to let others win it.
To the man of peace the man who runs is never a hero, although the true soldier may know him for the bravest of the brave.
After reading such a criticism as Mr. French’s, well may one exclaim with Wilfrid Scawen Blunt: “What men call courage is the least noble thing of which they boast.”
To my mind there is no such depth of poltroonery as that of the man who does not dare to run.
For he has not the real courage to obey his own judgment against that “spook,” public opinion, above which his mind is not sufficiently emancipated to rise in scorn.
Placed in a situation where, from the choice of one or the other horn of a dilemma, it must follow either that fools will think a man a coward or that wise men will think him a fool, I can conceive of no possible ground for hesitancy in the selection.
I know my circumstances better than Mr. French can know them, and I do not permit him to be my judge.
When I want glory, I know how to get it.
But I am not working for glory.
Like the base-ball player who sacrifices his individual record to the success of his club, I am “playing for my team” — that is, I am working for my cause.
And I know that, on the whole, it was better for my cause that I should pay my tax than that I should refuse to pay it.
Is this passive resistance? asks Mr. French.
No; it is simply a protest for the purpose of propagandism.
Passive resistants, no less than active resistants, have the right to choose when to resist.
Far be it from me to depreciate the services of the Hampdens and the martyrs reverenced by mankind.
There are times when the course that such men follow is the best policy, and then their conduct is of the noblest.
But there are times also when it is sheer lunacy, and then their conduct is not for sane men to admire.
Did Mr. French ever hear of the Charge of the Light Brigade at Balaklava?
And does he remember the comment of a military man who witnessed that memorable, that splendid, that insane exploit, fruitful in nothing save the slaughter of half a thousand men; “It is magnificent, but it is not war.”
The editor of Liberty is engaged in war.
My first thought on reading this is that of course Tucker is right.
All of us have to pick our battles, and if we didn’t sometimes have to retreat in the face of the State’s power, we’d have already won.
On further reflection, though, it seems to me that Tucker does a lot more than just to state this bit of wisdom.
He seems to betray some defensiveness in just how bitterly he denounces his critic.
I don’t mean to read too much into this.
Tucker is probably somewhat disappointed at himself for not having a better, more valiant option that fits with his game plan, or at not having a “determined body of men and women” backing him up who would make a show of rebellion on his part more than just a quixotic gesture.
In part, he seems to be writing to himself: “Remember, don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.”
A century back, British nonconformists (that is, non-Anglicans), engaged in a large-scale tax resistance campaign against government subsidies to religious schools.
This campaign made tax resistance a topic of public and scholarly debate, and brought other activist groups to consider the tactic, in particular the British women’s suffrage movement, which soon developed its own Women’s Tax Resistance League.
One example of this debate is a paper on “The Ethics of Passive Resistance” by Rev. J. G. James from the International Journal of Ethics in , which I reproduce below.
James is opposed to the tactic, mostly because he is a believer in the sovereignty of liberal majoritarian representative government (of which he feels the English government is an exemplar), and he thinks that a good citizen submits to such a government and only attempts to improve it by its own constitutionally-approved methods and not through civil disobedience.
In other words, he’s a pretty good spokesperson for modern political orthodoxy.
Any conclusion that you can draw from the arguments in favor of civil disobedience that undermines faith in liberal majoritarian representative government, he takes as a reductio ad absurdum — on the argument, not on the government.
This makes his arguments somewhat circular: if the system that makes the laws is legitimate and makes legitimate laws and if the mechanisms by which its errors may be corrected are themselves legal and good and available, then circumventing those methods to violate the law must therefore be wrong — wasn’t that easy?
He goes even further, to suggest that even objections to civil law based on religious revelation must be suspect, for “[t]he command of God is heard in the legalized demand itself and by means of human law and institutions.”
Indeed, in political matters, the voice of the majority is the voice of God:
[I]t is the duty of a conscientious citizen to pay [even] an unjust charge if he has tried in vain to prevent the measure passing into law, on the ground that he is no longer responsible for the expenditure of public funds, after he has done his utmost to control that expenditure by legalized means, through legislation, and by doing his part in the appointment at the polls of candidates who may be trusted to carry out those principles which he as an elector holds.
…
There is, in short, no personal or individual right in a matter of political obligation, on the ground of morality, to stand against or to resist the collective will or conscience of the majority, when once the proposals have passed from the legislative to the administrative stage.
(By the way, the Rev. James himself, though I’ve been able to find out little else about him, was a Congregationalist, that is, a member of one of the nonconformist sects, and therefore didn’t have any sectarian reasons for supporting the Act or denigrating its opponents.)
In spite of its faults, the paper makes for interesting reading because many of the same basic issues and arguments that people were considering a century ago are still with us today.
The Ethics of Passive Resistance.
We are face to face in England to-day with a curious contretemps in educational matters, which is assuming considerable proportions.
We have grown accustomed to such characteristic phenomena as “conscientious objectors” in respect to vaccination, and the objectors to medical attendance on the part of the “Peculiar People,” and later in the case of “Faith-healers[”] and “Christian Scientists.” These cases have been so exceptional and isolated in this country that they have attracted comparatively little attention, and possibly may be more easily justified on the ground that they are not likely to become a “universal law,” according to Kant, than the present movement.
The revolution of feeling in England, however, threatens to become somewhat serious; and as it seems probable that it will increase rather than decrease in the course of time, it calls for consideration and comment.
Already nearly ten thousand summonses have been issued, and it is said that there are not less than sixty thousand “Passive Resisters” in England.
The movement has its political and its distinctively religious aspect, whilst being an educational problem.
Its moral bearings and issues are those with which we are now immediately concerned, and possibly these are the most important in the long run.
These issues are rendered still more important for the reason that although it might be shown that “Resisters” are fanatics, wrong-headed, seekers for a “cheap martyrdom,” and “faddists,” yet the facts that for the most part they are law-abiding citizens, who have never appeared before the magistrates as defaulters or criminals, and that they exert a wide-spread influence over the population, entitle them to respectful consideration and at least serious attention.
The actual ground of complaint or grievance need not here call for extended notice.
The objection to the Education Acts of and is chiefly two-fold.1 In the first place it is said that they do not province adequate public control, and practically there is no direct representation on the educational authorities and boards of management.
This is more entirely a question of politics, and we need not discuss it in this place.
The other objection is that which is included in the Kenyon-Slaney clause, and that which immediately follows2 which give the power of directing religious instruction in public elementary schools which are not provided by the educational authority to managers, who carry out the terms of the trust-deed subject to the decision of the bishop or other ecclesiastical authority as referee.
Four out of six of these managers are appointed in accordance with the spirit and terms of the trust-deed.
It thus eventuates that religious teaching, with the whole body of dogma and ritual that the schools in question were established to teach, is thrown upon the rates for maintenance, the buildings alone being contributed by the denomination whose doctrines are taught therein.
The religious bodies of all persuasions are treated absolutely alike by this Act, and no charge of injustice can be brought against the Act, so far as its form is concerned, whatever its origin or intention.
The “nonconformist conscience” is scandalized, however, at having to pay for teaching religious doctrine of any kind, or the tenets of any particular church, although there is no necessary objection to the teaching of morals, or of the Bible as literature.
That the teaching of one Church should be devoted to the “unchurching” of all others, and that such teaching should be supported out of the rates, is a special form of the grievance.
If it be objected that the application of public money to purposes of which a section of the taxpayers do not approve is inevitable, the reply would be that in this case it is directly and specifically stated for what purpose the money will be used, and that such is not the case with Imperial taxation.
We have thus tried to state as simply and as briefly as possible the grievance which it is proposed to remedy by the “Passive Resisters,” and it is considered by them serious enough to justify their action in breaking the law at the dictates of conscience.
Let us grant that the grievance is a real and genuine one, and that there is something to be resisted, and that the motives and desires of these persons are morally justifiable, all of which would have to be considered from other points of view in order to make a complete case, are these persons morally justified under the circumstances in resisting the legalized demands for payment of rates?
This is the question to which we have to address ourselves.
In this endeavor we have to consider whether law-breaking is in this case a violation of any moral law.
Some have sought to vindicate the conduct of “Passive Resisters” on the ground that the law provides an optional mode of payment.
This has actually been stated in the courts.
There is the voluntary mode of payment, by which the money is paid over on demand; and on the other hand, there is the mode of recovery by distraint, which the law provides, which relieves the conscience of the payer, inasmuch as he can say, “I do not willingly pay, but if the law compels me, you must come and take it.”
In either case the law is satisfied, and such is the meaning of “Passive Resistance.”
The objections to this attitude are many.
It may well be questioned if the payment of rates or taxes is voluntary at all, since the account is presented in the form of a demand, and not a polite request.
Inasmuch as payment is compulsory in any case, is not Passive Resistance merely an awkward, expensive, and an inconvenient mode of payment for all concerned?
Further, there can be no point or significance in the protest unless it is an act of law breaking.
If it is nothing more than the choice of alternatives to which the law stands in an indifferent attitude, it seems to be absurd to throw needless obstacles in the way of the course of the law, since the result must be the same in either case.
If “Resistance” means anything at all, it must mean resistance to an objectionable law that infringes upon the rights of conscience.
Besides these considerations, the wording of the warrant for distraint precludes any such supposition that distraint is a legalized form of payment.
It is a summary measure (under the extension of the Act for Summary Jurisdiction) for the recovery of a lawful debt, payment of which has been refused.3 Expert opinion supports the view that such resistance is illegal.
We may conclude therefore that Passive Resistance being a refusal to pay a legal charge is necessarily an illegal act.
The justification offered is invariably that the law of conscience, i.e., the moral law, is superior to civil law, and that “we must obey God rather than man.” For further support it is also adduced that whilst all other means of “killing the Act” should be tried, this will alone provide the remedy, and that civil and religious liberty has been won for us by acts which, whilst morally justifiable, were, according to the law of the times, illegal.
It will be convenient to take these reasons in reverse order.
The examples that are generally adduced of lawlessness with a view to the overthrow of a harsh or unjust law are those of the resistance of the Parliament men to the Stuart kings, the action of the Puritan clergy in opposition to the Conventicle and Five Mile Acts, the case of John Hampden, the patriot, and the persistence in preaching on the part of John Bunyan and others.
In recent years the violation of the Slave laws and the refusal to pay Church Rates are often given in support of a defiance of the recognized law, with good moral intentions and results.
In reply to these instances and the argument they are brought forward to support, it must be pointed out that if such acts were justifiable in an age when the rights and liberties of the individual subject were not respected, and when they might have done something towards securing the privileges we now enjoy, it does not by any means follow that they are justifiable at the present time.
Since we are in possession of the full privileges of citizenship, the franchise, the rights of free speech, freedom of the press, the facilities for influencing public opinion, and every opportunity of bringing others by the force of persuasion to our own point of view, the justification afforded by the actions of our ancestors does not hold.
In fact, it is a somewhat unfortunate ground to take, for it only serves to show that we are unworthy of the efforts made by our fathers on our behalf, inasmuch as we have employed our privileges and opportunities to so little purpose.
What may have been excusable and right under a tyranny, may be entirely wrong in a country that is endowed with so large a measure of freedom and enjoys so fully the advantages of democratic institutions.
We have in our hands, as all will allow, an exceptional and unprecedented degree of political liberty, and every thoughtful person will surely agree that whatever resistance is offered to an obnoxious measure, every constitutional resource should first be exhausted.
It would lead us too far into the purely political aspect of the question to inquire if every resource has been tried and failed.
The writer is of opinion that the merits of any truly righteous case will not fail to appeal to the enlightened common-sense of Englishmen sooner or later, and that the justice of any cause will most certainly, in time, working through constitutional methods, move public opinion, against which nothing can continue to stand or effectually resist.
In the meantime, is it the duty of non-conformsts to resist the course of the law?
“Passive Resistance” is not a criminal act unless it is organized and inducements are brought to bear upon others by those who “resist,” with a view to secure their refusal to pay, in which case it amounts to conspiracy.
Inasmuch as it is, however, in the eyes of the law a refusal, and therefore a violation of a legalized claim, it will be followed of necessity by some of the bad results of law-breaking.
There will be a certain weakening of the authority of the law, especially as these acts are deliberate on the part of persons who are well competent to judge and calculate the results of their conduct.
Whatever influence may be brought to bear prior to the passing of the measure into law, it is in the interests of good order and effective government that all citizens should maintain, uphold and respect the authority of the law.
That the supremacy of the law as a whole should be honored is more important for the due development of persons as citizens and in political and social relations, than that an evil affecting a section, even an important section, should be remedied by the violation of the law.4 If this movement continues to grow, one serious result will follow, viz.: that our police-courts will come to be regarded as somewhat more respectable for criminals, and for those with whom the officials of the law are having continual trouble.
The presence of “Resisters” in the courts to answer to the charges of non-payment, whilst it may have something of the element of martyrdom, is likely to make the disgrace of appearing before the magistrates somewhat less in the eyes of criminals.
If this objection is more fanciful than real, then must we adduce another argument.
If “Passive Resistance” under the circumstances is right for those who believe in it, nevertheless some bad effects must be experienced, and we can hardly calculate what the end will be, or estimate the lengths to which these results may reach.
Rightly or wrongly, there are sincere persons who conscientiously object to “secular instruction” as it is called, and they object not less emphatically to moral teaching without religion, and religion without dogma.
This position may be unreasonable, but it may be a truly conscientious one.
In the event of the “Passive Resisters” succeeding in turning the tables on their opponents, they will have given them direct encouragement, on their part, to “resist.”
If then each party, as it comes to be a minority, is to “resist” the measure passed by the majority, in relation to religious questions, something approaching to political chaos is before us.
It may be argued that the right has to be done regardless of consequences, and that if we were to stop to consider the direct or indirect bad results or attendant circumstances of our actions, all moral effort, and especially, moral reform, would be paralyzed.
An act is to be judged according to its own inherent rightness, and the consequences are beyond the limits of our responsibility.
Nevertheless, the results of our conduct, in so far as they may be reasonably forecast, must be a determinant to us amongst others as to the rightness of that conduct.
They fall within the scope of our “intentions,” using the term in the legal sense.
The rightness of our conduct cannot wholly be judged without regard to results.
There are some acts, more particularly those of cardinal rank, which may be undertaken without pausing to consider their results, the reason being that we are already convinced that their results must ultimately influence for good the morals of the community, and not because their results are ignored.
“Passive Resistance,” however, involves conduct on the part of citizens that is of a public character, and cannot but have far-reaching results upon others, in consequence of which these results must be taken into account.
We can deal with the argument better as we study the reason that forms the final justification, beyond which there can be no appeal.
“We must obey God rather than man.”
It is not, perhaps, necessary to inquire why we must obey God rather than man; the whole question of the categorical imperative is herein raised.
The plain man who believes in the Christian religion would doubtless reply that we are commanded in the Scriptures to do so.
In the abstract, or rather as a principle, the will of the Divine Being would be regarded as paramount, and as superior to any human ordinance.
There is not, however, in this case a clear issue.
It means the facing of two evils from the nonconformist standpoint.
The nonconformist is in a dilemma.
There is, at least, a certain degree of right on the side, both of Resisters and Non-resisters, to entitle each to respect from the other side.
Let us then assume that it is our duty to obey God rather than man.
Why we should do so we may state to be based upon an intuition.
The will of God for us, let us say, is that we should realize the best of which we are capable, the ideal contemplated in this case from the point of view of citizenship, and also as to our responsibility to the rising generation and the future of our country.
If we have to “obey God,” it is clearly in no private capacity in this case, nor is it in the assertion of a private right.
It is the will of the Divine with respect to the handling of an objectionable law.
What that will is cannot be determined by means of an intuition.
The proper view of our duty has to be arrived at as the result of the balancing of considerations; and the estimation of probable consequences must enter into the calculation.
The question is not to be settled in the same manner as a temptation to commit a breach of fundamental morality, with an instant and final negative, regardless of consequences.
The command of God is heard in the legalized demand itself and by means of human law and institutions.
Whatever the mystic may say with regard to his conscience and its demands, morality can recognize no call to a duty which disregards the obligations of the law and the claims it lays upon the individual citizen.
These might be laid aside at the call of a higher duty, it is true; but in determining the higher duty in a case of this sort, legal obligations must enter in.
To throw the matter into a more concrete form, it may be fairly reasoned that it is the duty of a conscientious citizen to pay an unjust charge if he has tried in vain to prevent the measure passing into law, on the ground that he is no longer responsible for the expenditure of public funds, after he has done his utmost to control that expenditure by legalized means, through legislation, and by doing his part in the appointment at the polls of candidates who may be trusted to carry out those principles which he as an elector holds.
The case assumes a somewhat different complexion when we bear in mind in what consists the sovereign power of modern England.
“Passive Resistance” sets on one side the teaching of St. Paul, that “the powers that be are ordained of God.”
These powers are resisted on the ground that they no longer represent the authority of God in civil affairs.
Their authority is superseded by the authority of conscience.
This reasoning, however, disregards the fact that the ultimate authority and the sovereign power of England at the present time, is the goodwill of the citizens as a body.
Unless we can charge the main body of citizens with having no conscience in the matter, such a course of action as “Passive Resistance” is to set up the conscience of the individual against the collective conscience, or, at least, to make the conscience of the minority superior to that of the majority.
If the sovereign power is that authority which the citizens, as a whole, habitually obey, and if the government of our country can only be upheld as the whole body of citizens are willing that it should continue and are agreed loyally to support the laws when once they have been duly passed, then ought the collective conscience, or the conscience of the majority, to be recognized within certain limits, as indicating the duty of citizens and the will of the Supreme Ruler, in civil affairs.
We would go so far as to say that, in this respect, vox populi is vox Dei.
There is, in short, no personal or individual right in a matter of political obligation, on the ground of morality, to stand against or to resist the collective will or conscience of the majority, when once the proposals have passed from the legislative to the administrative stage.
It has been asserted throughout the course of this controversy that the Education Act of does not fairly represent the will of the people, inasmuch as the electorate was never consulted on the subject, and the Government forced the Bill through the House of Commons on the strength of a majority returned to bring the war in South Africa to a termination.
There having been no “mandate” from the constituencies to deal with this question, the people are, so the argument runs, released from their obligation to submit, and, under the circumstances, “Passive Resistance” is the least objectionable form of resistance.
We can imagine the reply to be that there never is, in a General Election in England, an unequivocal and distinct pronouncement on any definite question before the country, nor is there at any time a single, clear, or unmistakable issue upon which the country gives its voice.
It might also be said that, whilst there may be one outstanding question which mainly determines the majority, yet an election is never fought on that issue alone.
There is always the general line of policy which belongs to each of the respective parties, and in an election regard must always be had to it.
It might fairly have been conjectured beforehand that the Conservative Party would bring in, sooner or later, a bill dealing with education, in conformity with its relation to the State Church.
Let us grant, however, for the sake of argument (and not that we necessarily commit ourselves to that view), that the Government of Great Britain, having been returned to power on a war vote, has presumed upon its huge majority to force a measure through the legislature in an unconstitutional manner, and has thus abused its immense strength by taking advantage of the weakness of its opponents.
On that view of the matter we have an instance of the tyranny of the majority, which, of course, is quite possible in a democratic state.
Two questions would then arise.
Making all allowance for the subtle influence of vested interests, where they exist, for re-actions in public opinion and for accidental circumstances, is not an Opposition, to some extent, responsible in a modern community for its own weakness, especially if it is lacking in unity and enthusiasm?
When an Opposition has a good cause and can present a united front, it is seldom, if ever, possible that a tyrannical government can fly in the face of strong public opinion, even though its exponents are in a minority, without the risk of swift and sure retribution.
Whether this be accepted or not, the question remains whether it is right and in the interests of law and order, and conducive to the well-being of the citizens as a whole, and good government, that tyranny should be met by lawlessness?
Would not this tend to make “confusion worse confounded,” if generally adopted.
This position of affairs might afford a substantial argument in favor of the “Referendum,” but in the present condition of party government, it would generally be considered by the most thoughtful persons of either party preferable in the interests of the community that those that compose the minority should always bide their time until they can, by regular and constitutional methods, remove their grievances, on the peril of making the “remedy worse than the disease.”
This argument has thus been briefly dealt with, because it is almost always used to strengthen the position of the “Passive Resisters.”
It has many other implications of a political character which we have no reason in this paper to discuss.
Nevertheless, we are not, I think, entitled to regard this as the main argument of the Resisters, for the reason that the grievance would exist, even though there had been an appeal to the country on the issue of Education.
There would still remain a case for Resistance on the ground that these persons are called upon definitely to pay for the instruction of the children in public schools in religious dogma in which a portion of the community do not believe, and they would probably “resist” all the same.
This political aspect of the question is adduced as an additional argument to strengthen the attitude taken in “Resistance”: but, as the writer has indicated, he does not see that such ground of justification can be maintained, nor, as before stated, does he consider that it has any justification on moral grounds.
We may take, however, yet another view of the matter.
There may be ecclesiastical or religious grounds for refusing to pay the rate, but these lie beyond the scope of this discussion.
A man may be convinced in his own mind that the voice of conscience bids him to “resist,” as the most effectual protest against what he regards as false doctrine or ecclesiastical aggression.
He may be absolutely incapable of justifying himself on moral grounds, or he may even be prepared to admit that some bad moral results may accrue from his action, and yet feel that it is his duty to “resist.”
It may be impossible to convince him that he is in error, because he maintains it is a matter of religious conviction, and to be settled between himself and his God.
We cannot, of course, make any headway against reasoning of this kind, even though we may be thoroughly convinced that, from an ethical point of view, the position is wrong.
Let it be understood, therefore, that we pass no opinion as to the religious or ecclesiastical aspect of the case.
If, however, the “Resisters” have made up their minds on this point that they must “resist” in spite of argument and consequences, then a new question for ethics is raised.
We have the spectacle of a number of earnest persons, women no less than men, who are prepared to suffer in their pockets and to be committed to prison for their principles, and with no material or private end to serve.
Right or wrong those principles may be, yet in an age of moral indifference, and when the moral sense is seldom really stimulated or roused, these “Passive Resisters” set the example of a certain form of heroism that refuses not to suffer for conscience’s sake.
The same may be claimed, of course, for law-breaking Ritualists, who are at the opposite extreme in Christian doctrine.
Thus “Passive Resistance” will have the further effect of keeping the whole subject, the religious and moral instruction of the young, prominently and vividly before the public, until a satisfactory solution to the problem is found.
The very interest that attaches to such subjects will have a moral value of its own.
We may conclude by saying that “Passive Resistance” has no support on ethical lines alone.
The writer is of opinion that it cannot be justified on ethico-political grounds.
Nevertheless, on the assumption that it has any support in the religious convictions of the individual (upon which assumption no opinion is here offered), it may possess some moral value, such as will always attach to the movements that are carried out with moral seriousness and sense of moral responsibility.
In any case, certain evil results are inevitable, and it is an open question whether, on the whole, more evil than good may not be the net result.
J.G. James. Yeovil, England.
For the sake of brevity we omit the objection to the imposition of religious tests upon teachers.
Education Act, ; Section 7, Paragraphs 6 and 7.
The warrant for distraint contains these words: “…The said several sums have been duly demanded of them respectively, but they have not … paid the same sums … but they have refused and still do refuse to pay the same … and have not … shown to us sufficient cause for not paying the same.”
I recently discovered on Google News Archives a treasure trove of information
about tax resistance in the British women’s suffrage movement, in the form of
what looks like the complete run of The Vote, the
newspaper of the Women’s Freedom League.
I’ve found upwards of 175 different mentions of tax resistance in this
archive, and I hope to share them here over the next year, assuming I can keep
up the pace. They tell the story of a tax resistance campaign that had many
facets, met multiple challenges, used a variety of techniques, and can take
at least some of the credit for a successful campaign for women’s suffrage.
I was not present when she took her stand as a Tax Resister from Chestnut
Cottage, Wendover, but was told by a countryman that “if ever there was a
rebellion in the quiet village of Bucks it was that day”! How
reminiscent of those four women who backed John Hampden and resisted the ship
money! Their names were writ in letters of ribboned gold tied upon a wreath
and placed by their spiritual descendants (Mrs. Hamilton and others) on the
great Hampden’s statue in Aylesbury market-place in our day and generation.
For some reason, Google News Archives lists The Vote
mistakenly as “The Globe,” so it can be more difficult to find than it should
be.
John Hampden was adopted as a sort of patron saint of the Women’s Tax Resistance League and other suffragist groups who used or defended the tactic of tax resistance.
To explain why the Hampden legend had the sort of resonance it did, I’ll turn to Stephen Dowell, who tells the story in his A History of Taxation and Taxes in England ():
The famous ship writs of king Charles Ⅰ. formed an extra-parliamentary method of obtaining the result of a tax on property.
They embodied the ultimate expression of the ingenuity of the king’s advisers in the invention of means to enable him to rule without a parliament.
It will be remembered that the position of the king as regards the levy of taxes on property was clear and acknowledged.
Except in the case of the Jews, who had been liable to indefinite extortion at the hands of the king because they were permitted to be here solely at his will, and in the case of the tenants of royal demesne, who by reason of their relation to the king as their landlord, were liable to tallage when he was in debt — with these two exceptions, the king never had any right to take an aid or subsidy from the subject without the consent of parliament, unless it were for knighting his son, for the marriage of his eldest daughter, or to ransom his person, and then only to a reasonable amount.
On any other occasion the grant was in the hands of parliament.
An acknowledgment of this right of parliament was implied in the terms used for the contributions in aid of the king, which were demanded as for “gifts” and “benevolences,” or under the specious pretext of “loans;” and these attempts at exaction and any tax of the kind had been suppressed by the Petition of Eight, to which the king had given his assent in .
There was nothing new in the use of ship writs.
They formed a well-known means of getting together a navy in times of war.
Before the invention of cannon there was little difference between any ship worthy to be called a merchant vessel and a ship of war; and in the times of the Plantagenets, when we had no permanent navy, when ships were wanted for war, the sea-port towns had been required to furnish their ships with men and equipment for the defence of the kingdom.
A permanent navy, commenced by Henry Ⅷ., with the Regent and the Harry Grâce à Dieu, or “the Great Harry,” had been carefully increased by him and Elizabeth, who, to the “one and twenty great ships and three notable galleys, with the sight whereof and the rest of the royal navy it was incredible how much her grace was delighted,” added, after the breach with Spain, one large ship at least every year.
But even after this formation of a permanent royal navy, it was from the merchant navy that two-thirds of the ships that formed the fleet against the Armada were derived; and they were the result of ship writs, issued according to precedent, to London and the other port towns, requiring them to furnish ships and their equipment for the defence of the kingdom.
Thus also, in , the greater number (12 out of 18) of the vessels employed in the attack on Algiers — the only warlike operation by sea undertaken by James Ⅰ. — were ships hired from private merchants; and on this occasion the port towns had been required to provide ships, and ship money was levied for the purpose.
And lastly, as late as in , when we were at war with Spain, the seaports had been required, after the dissolution of parliament, to provide and maintain a fleet of ships for three months.
But all these were war precedents, and applied only to the port towns; and Noy’s ingenuity in building upon them his famous superstructure consisted in drafting the preamble of the “new writs of an old edition,” so as to bring the case, as far as possible, within the precedents, and to prepare the way for a more extensive issue of writs throughout the kingdom, on the plan of the ship-geld of Anglo-Saxon times.
At this time, though England was at peace with other nations, a rising jealousy of the importance of the Dutch threatened at no distant date to lead to war with them upon the question of the close or open sea.
War was going on between the Spaniards and French and the Dutch.
While the Barbary pirates had extended their ravages upon our merchant ships even to within sight of our coasts.
Such was the state of affairs.
Noy made the most of them.
He began by infusing a spirit of crusade into the business by stigmatizing the corsairs as “Turks, enemies of the Christian name;” grouped these “thieves, robbers, and pirates of the sea” together in bands; recited their capture of ships and men in the channel and their further preparations of ships “to molest our merchants and grieve the kingdom;” and, referring to the wars abroad and the possibility that we might be involved in them — “the dangers which in these times of war do hang over our heads;” thus presented a strong case for providing for “the defence of the kingdom, safeguard of the sea, security of the subjects, and safe conduct of ships and merchandise coming to the kingdom and passing outwards to foreign parts.”
Then he went on to say — in allusion to the principle of the old ship-geld of Anglo-Saxon times, that the whole kingdom ought, it was true, to bear the burden of defence, but the maritime counties and towns were “more chiefly bound to set a helping hand, not only because they got more plentiful gain by the sea than others, but also because it was their duty of allegiance to defend the sea coast and keep up the honour of the king there,” for which reason writs were sent to them on this occasion.1
The writs were issued on .
There was no opposition to this levy, which, after all, was not an unprecedented charge, though some towns petitioned against what they regarded as an overestimate of the proportion of the whole amount to be paid by the town, and the citizens of London, who were charged with the payment of a fifth of the whole sum, remonstrated on the ground they had advanced in former times against tallage, of their peculiar privileges of exemption from such levies, by reason of their charter, their ancient liberties and acts of parliament.
But a summons of the lord mayor before the council and a stormy meeting ended in the submission of the Londoners to obey the king’s orders in the matter.
The amount raised was £104,252, a sum obviously insufficient for any extensive increase of the navy, while the course of events on the continent increased the anxiety of Charles to strengthen his force at sea.
He was now advised to advance in the business and carry the intention of taxing the whole kingdom into effect by means of a second set of ship writs, to extend to inland as well as maritime counties and towns; and in June, the lord keeper, Coventry, in the usual address to the judges of assize in the Star Chamber, previous to their going on circuit, informed them to that effect, and that the grounds on which the council had advised the step were that “since all the kingdom was interested both in the honour, safety and profit, it was just and reasonable that they should all put to their helping hands.”
Accordingly on , a second issue of ship writs was ordered, to extend to inland as well as maritime counties and towns.
In these writs the recital of the reasons for the issue was altered so as to suit the circumstances.
They proceeded upon the old principle of the ship-geld of Anglo-Saxon times, that inasmuch as the burden of defence relates to all, it should be borne by all, according to the law and custom of England.
A writ was sent to the sheriff of every county, and separate writs to a number of the principal cities and towns.
The writs stated the tunnage of the ship or ships required and the place of rendezvous at a given date, and contained elaborate provisions for the apportionment of the expense between the different parts and towns in the county, the assessment of the contributories, and the collection of the rate.
In substance the levy was an extra-parliamentary levy of a subsidy of a fixed amount for the purpose of increasing the navy; for it was not necessary to provide the ship itself or the men.
A special commission was issued for the loan of ships and pinnaces of the king’s own to counties and towns unable to find them as required by the writs, and the arming and furnishing them in warlike manner with ordnance and munition of all sorts; and the treasurer of the navy was empowered to receive from the officers of the counties and towns, all moneys paid in for the said ships and service.
Although the whole sum to be raised was but £208,900, a sum less than the produce of three subsidies, this more extended application of the ship writs encountered opposition not only in inland counties, but also in maritime places where the previous levy had not been opposed.
No doubt the new assessment involved in the levy tended to render the ship money unpopular throughout the country; for the contributories would have to expect that their assessments would be raised in the king’s subsidy books, and for all the different local levies of the period — for building houses of correction, for contributions for places stricken by the plague, rates for the poor, &c. And no doubt the people also resented the interference of the sheriff in the business.
But it was not for these reasons only that ship money met with opposition.
It was now opposed on principle.
In Oxfordshire, in the hundred of Bloxham, where stands lord Saye and Sele’s castle of Broughton, the constables, evidently upon careful advice, refused to proceed to the assessment, on the ground that they “had no authority to assess or tax any man” and conceived the warrants sent to them did not give them any power to do so, and eventually sir Peter Wentworth, the sheriff, was ordered himself to make the necessary assessment.
While troubles of the same kind occurred in Devonshire and other places.
In these circumstances the king caused a case to be submitted to the judges, in , for their opinion as to the legality of the levy and his power to enforce payment of the ship money, and the twelve judges, viz., the justices of the courts of king’s bench and common pleas and the barons of the exchequer, or ten of them according to some accounts, expressed and signed their opinion, in answer to the questions put to them, as follows:—
We are of opinion that when the good and safety of the kingdom in general is concerned and the whole kingdom is in danger, your Majesty may by writ under your great seal of England, command all the subjects of this your kingdom at their charge to provide and furnish such a number of ships, with men, victuals, and munition, and for such time as your majesty may think fit, for the defence and safeguard of the kingdom from such danger and peril; and that by law your majesty may compel the doing thereof in case of refusal or refractoriness.
We are also of opinion that in such case your majesty is the sole judge, both of the danger and when and how the same is to be prevented and avoided.
This opinion was, by command of the king, enrolled in the courts of chancery, king’s bench, common pleas and exchequer, and also entered among the remembrances of the court of star chamber; and thus fortified, he continued the levy of ship money.
A third issue of ship writs, similar to those issued on , was ordered in , and they produced £202,240 And in there was a fourth issue of writs.
Although under the new assessments, the ship money was, certainly, more fairly assessed than any fifteenth and tenth or subsidy hitherto collected — for indeed, it was of extreme importance to the king that no fault to be found with the assessment or any detail of the tax should endanger the rapidity and ease of the collection — and although the amount levied was no more than about the annual average of the produce of the subsidies granted to the king by parliament in the earlier part of the reign, the opposition of the people to ship money increased on every occasion of a levy.
Already Robert Chambers, a merchant of London, an old opponent of the imposts who had suffered imprisonment for his opposition, had endeavoured to test the legality of ship money in a court of law, but without success; for the court had refused to hear his counsel on the ground, as stated by sir Richard Berkeley, that “the question raised was one of government and not of law.”
And now lord Saye and Sele, and John Hampden, a Buckinghamshire squire, determined to obtain a legal decision upon the point.
The king, confident in the opinion expressed by the judges, had no reason to offer any opposition to the course proposed, and Hampden’s, made a test case, came on for hearing in the court of exchequer in .
In cases of great importance and difficulty arising in one of the three superior courts of law, it was usual to adjourn the case into the exchequer chamber, a court which, for this purpose, consisted of all the judges of the three courts.
This course was taken by the barons of the exchequer in Hampden’s case.
The case was argued solemnly for several days; and in the result, it was decided by a majority of the judges that Hampden should be charged with the sum assessed on him, the main grounds and reasons for the decision being those of the extrajudicial opinion of the judges in .
At last, the king was compelled to summon a parliament, , in order to provide for the expenses of the preparations for the campaign in Scotland.
But this parliament, subsequently known as the short parliament, was dissolved as soon as it appeared probable that they would refuse to proceed at once to the question of supply.
In the king summoned a great council of peers and laid before them the difficulties of his case, and on their advice, summoned in , subsequently known as the Long Parliament.
This parliament, after passing the Triennial Act and the Bill of Attainder against Strafford, settled the question of tunnage and poundage by granting the subsidy for a short term, and then proceeded to pass Acts against the ship money, distraint for knighthood and illegal impositions, and for ascertaining the bounds of the royal forests.
The Act against ship money, 16 Car.
I. c. 14, entitled, “An Act for declaring illegal and void the late proceedings touching ship money and for vacating all records and process concerning the same” recites:—
“The issue of the ship-writs.
The necessity of enforcing payment against sundry persons by process of law.
The proceedings against Hampden.
The hearing of the case and the decision of the judges that Hampden should be charged with the sum assessed on him.
The grounds for that decision.
The extrajudicial opinion given by all the judges on the case submitted to them in , and, That other cases were then depending in the court of exchequer and in some other courts against other persons, for the like kind of charge, grounded upon the said writs commonly called ship writs, all which writs and proceedings as aforesaid were utterly against the law of the land;” and enacts:—
That the said charge imposed upon the subject for the providing and furnishing of ships, commonly called ship-money; and the said extrajudicial opinion of the said justices and barons and the said writs, and every of them and the said agreement or opinion of the greater part of the said justices and barons, and the said judgment given against the said John Hampden, were, and are, contrary to and against the laws and statutes of this realm, the right of property, the liberty of the subjects, former resolutions in Parliament, and the Petition of Eight made in the third year of the reign.
And further, that all and every the particulars prayed or desired in the said Petition of Eight, shall from henceforth be put in execution accordingly, and shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as in the same Petition they are prayed and expressed.
And that all and every the records and remembrances of all and every the judgment enrolments, entry and proceedings as aforesaid, and all and every the proceedings whatsoever, upon, or by pretext or colour of any of the said writs commonly called ship writs, and all and every the dependents on any of them, shall be deemed and adjudged to all intents, constructions and purposes to be utterly void and disannulled, and that all and every the said judgment, enrolments, entries, proceedings, and dependents of what kind soever, shall be vacated and canceled in such manner and form as records use to be that are vacated.
The attorney-general, “with his own hand” — according to Edward Hyde Clarendon — “draughted and prepared the ship writs” for the maritime towns and counties.
“Noy,” writes Selden, in his Table Talk, “brought in the ship money for maritime towns, which was like putting in a little auger that afterwards you may put in a greater.
He that pulls down the first brick does the main work; afterwards, it is easy to pull down the wall.”
Karl Marx, when he was on trial for his own tax resistance, referred back to Hampden, saying:
Far be it from me to deny that the English revolution, which brought Charles Ⅰ to the scaffold, began with a refusal to pay taxes or that the North American revolution, which ended with the Declaration of Independence from Britain, started with a refusal to pay taxes.
The refusal to pay taxes can be the harbinger of unpleasant events in Prussia too.
It was not John Hampden, however, who brought Charles Ⅰ to the scaffold, but only the latter’s own obstinacy, his dependence on the feudal estates, and his presumptuous attempt to use force to suppress the urgent demands of the emerging society.
The refusal to pay taxes is merely a sign of the dissidence that exists between the Crown and the people, merely evidence that the conflict between the government and the people has reached a menacing degree of tensity.
It is not the cause of the discord or the conflict, it is merely an expression of this fact.
At the worst, it leads to the overthrow of the existing government, the existing political system.
The foundations of society are not affected by this.
In the present case, moreover, the refusal to pay taxes was a means of society’s self-defense against a government which threatened its foundations.
Benjamin Ricketson Tucker faced off in the pages of Liberty with a letter writer who contrasted Tucker’s hesitant tax resistance with that of Hampden’s. Some of Gandhi’s first writings on tax resistance also concerned Hampden:
At that time, King Charles was the ruler of England and he wanted to wage wars in foreign lands.
As his treasury had become empty, he imposed Ship Money.
Hampden, a rich gentleman of great prestige, saw that, if Ship Money were paid, the King’s demands would go on increasing and the people would suffer.
He therefore refused to pay the tax, and many joined him in this.
Though some of them agreed to pay the tax, Hampden remained firm and was prosecuted.
The judges sentenced him, declaring that he had committed a crime in not paying the tax.
Despite the sentence, Hampden did not pay the tax.
Hampden and his companions went to jail and the people congratulated them.
Like them, the people too remained firm.
Many did not pay the tax and there was a great revolt.
The King became nervous and the whole matter was reconsidered.
It was realized that thousands of people could not be sent to jail.
He therefore got the earlier judgment reversed by other judges and Hampden was set free.
The seed of the struggle for freedom that he sowed grew into a mighty tree.
As a result of the struggle he put up, Cromwell emerged and England acquired real power and the people were given a large share in the governance of the country.
Hampden died fighting for his country; he remains immortal.
From The Nelson Evening Mail, , comes this remarkable letter that, with the updating of a few details, would look good in tomorrow’s daily:
Taxation — Speaking Out.
The following letter is copied from an English journal, and is addressed to Mr. Lowe, Chancellor of the Exchequer, by Mr. St. Swithin Williams, a tradesman at Oxford.
Sir — It is my deliberate intention not to pay the income-tax.
In a humble way I shall do what Hampden did about the ship-money; I shall take care not to break your laws, but within the limits of your laws I shall withstand you to the utmost.
I refuse to pay your demand for the same reason that I should resist the demands of a highwayman or a burglar.
Archbishop Whateley reminds us that it is only so far forth as the taxation of a country is a fair charge for the services rendered by the Government that taxation differs from avowed robbery.
Now, is forty-three millions a year a fair charge for the services rendered to us by the tax-consumers?
Everyone knows that all the real good you do for us could be done for very much less than forty-three millions a year.
This is admitted by every minister when out of office.
My own conviction is that twenty millions a year of your taxation is unnecessary: to that extent your taxation is robbery.
In return for shameless taxation you fail to perform the first duties of a Government.
So ignorant are you of the art of war, that ten thousand British soldiers, when led by you, are no match for a handful of Maori barbarians.
You cannot even tether our troop horses.
Our seamen you run aground and drown.
Hundreds of thousands of labor’s hard earnings you fling into the waves at Alderney; but our commercial ports, on whose safety our food depends, you leave, with sinister designs, open to bombardment.
Your miserable allowance to witnesses and prosecutors in courts of justice compels policemen and all prudent men to shut their eyes when crime is committed.
In order to check the growing wealth and power of the industrial and commercial classes, you contrive insolvency and bankruptcy laws which enable the extravagant and dishonest to defraud the industrious and thrifty of thousands of millions.
It is not because it is the income-tax that I refuse to pay you.
I wish that I could raise the issue on some tax still more iniquitous; such as the millions you snatch from poor people’s necessaries — their tea or sugar.
As I neither import nor make taxed articles, I can challenge you only on a direct tax.
Nor do I wish to shirk my duties as a citizen; quite the contrary.
When the Crimean war had proved to us the imbecility of your standing armaments, I was one of the first to become a volunteer — a volunteer in earnest.
If I save this income-tax from your clutches I shall offer it as a donation to societies for promoting political reform — the Financial Reform Association, &c.
Your fallacy, that if I pay you less some one else must pay you more, deceives no one who understands your expenditure — you just squander all that you can lay your hands on.
True, you apply a little now and then to a sham reduction of the national debt; but you run us into debt again the first opportunity; so that our national debt is about as much to-day as it was forty years ago.
Could you rob us of another ten millions a year you would govern us no better; you dare not rule us worse if we saved twenty millions a year from your bottomless pit.
Until members, who are or have been tax-consumers, or whose fathers or sons or sons-in-law are tax-consumers, are excluded from voting on questions of taxation, it is absurd to look to Parliament for a reduction of taxation.
For you make it the interest (pecuniary or social) of a majority in both Houses to increase the expenditure.
A national refusal to pay unnecessary taxation is our only remedy; and it is a sure one.
You tried to tax our American brethren against their will, and you failed.
The Irish peasantry got rid of your church cess and your tenants’ tithes by dogged non-payment.
A few dissenters steadfastly refused to pay your church-rates, and church-rates had to be abolished.
You can rob us of our chairs and tables, but they will be of no use to you if we will not buy them of you.
In the hope that others may be induced to follow my example, I shall publish this letter.
Notice how conscious the author was of the history of tax resistance in the British empire.
He mentions John Hampden, the American revolutionaries, the anti-tithe movement in Ireland, and the tax resistance by Christian nonconformists.
There was a time when examples like these fixed themselves in the public mind and became historical landmarks of common reference.
Today, hereabouts, semi-confused references to the Boston Tea Party are about all we can hope to find common ground on.
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.
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 determined stand made by our good friend Mrs. Harvey, in barricading her house, Brackenhill, Burnley, against the authorities who desire to seize her goods in payment of taxes, still continues.
The barricade is unbroken.
Passers-by read the bold declaration that she refuses to be taxed by a Government that refuses her representation because she is a woman.
Her continued resistance has aroused keen interest in the London and Provincial Press, and afforded excellent “copy” for numerous illustrated papers.
We rejoice in Mrs. Harvey’s determination, and ask all members and sympathisers who can take part in the demonstration when the goods are eventually sold, to send in their names to the Political and Militant Organiser, 1, Robert-street, Adelphi, London.
We must make a brave show to testify to the strong support Mrs. Harvey receives from the League.
Other Resisters: The Growing Movement.
John Hampden statue at Aylesbury
Dr. Elizabeth Knight, our hon. treasurer, and Mrs. Lane, of Ipswich, have again refused to take out dog and trap licenses as a protest against taxation without representation.
A waggon was sold recently to recover the amount due.
Tax resistance by women is growing in a most remarkable way throughout the length and breadth of the land.
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.
Recently a Rembrandt picture, belonging to Miss McGregor, a woman of considerable property, was sold at Arbroath, for £75, and the sale created great interest throughout Scotland.
At a demonstration at Balham, after a silver teapot belonging to Mrs. [Leonora?]
Tyson had been sold, strangers in the crowd proposed and seconded votes of thanks to the speakers.
Keen interest was aroused in Hampstead, when the goods of Miss Lilian Hicks and Miss Constance Collier were sold last week, and at Oxford, after the sale of a gold watch and silver spoons belonging to Mrs. O’Sullivan, a poster parade through the town announced a meeting in the evening at the Martyrs’ Memorial, a novel experience for the University.
A special demonstration is being arranged by the Women’s Tax Resistance League of “Modern John Hampdens,” when the new statue of the great tax resister, John Hampden, now on view at Burlington House, will be unveiled in Aylesbury Market Place on .
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.
(from W.F.L. Literature Department, 1s.; post free, 1s. 1d.)
Not long ago, at the final meeting of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, it was decided to present the famous John Hampden Banner (which did such magnificent service at so many women’s protest meetings against the Government’s unconstitutional practice of taxation without representation), to the Women’s Freedom League.
We treasure this standard of former days, and now we are the grateful recipients of an edition of “The Tax Resistance Movement in Great Britain,” written by our old friend, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, with an introduction by another of our friends, Mr. Laurence Housman.
This little book is charmingly produced, and on its outside cover appear a figure of Britannia and the colours of the Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Every reader of The Vote knows that it was the Women’s Freedom League which first organised tax resistance in as a protest against women’s political disenfranchisement, and all our readers should be in possession of a copy of this book, which gives a history of the movement, tracing it back to , when two sisters, the Misses [Anna Maria & Mary] Priestman, had their dining-room chairs taken to the sale-room, because, being voteless, they objected to taxes being levied upon them.
Dr. Octavia Lewin is mentioned as the first woman to resist the payment of licenses.
It is refreshing to renew our recollections of the tax resistance protests made by Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Mr. [Mark] Wilks (who was imprisoned in Brixton Gaol for a fortnight), Miss [Clemence] Housman (who was kept in Holloway Prison for a week), Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison, Mrs. [Kate] Harvey (who had a term of imprisonment), Miss [Kate] Raliegh, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Saunderson, Dr. [Winifred] Patch, Miss [Bertha] Brewster, Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight (who was also imprisoned), Mrs. [Mary] Sargent Florence, Miss Gertrude Eaton, and a host of others too numerous to mention, and last, but not least, Miss Evelyn Sharp, who, as Mrs. Parkes says, “has the distinction of being the last tax resister to suffer persecution at the hands of unrepresentative government in the women’s long struggle for citizenship.”
The full list of tax-resisters appearing at the end of this pamphlet will be found to be of special interest to all suffragists.
I haven’t yet found a copy of this book on-line or available via interlibrary loan.
I might be able to order photocopies of a microfilm version held by a library in Australia, but I’m too cheap and so I’m holding out for a better option.
Any ideas?
Another source I’ve had trouble tracking down is Laurence Housman’s The Duty of Tax Resistance, which comes from the same campaign.
The Vote printed excerpts from it in their issue:
The Duty of Tax Resistance
By Laurence Housman.
Two years ago Members of Parliament determined to place the payment of themselves in front of the enfranchisement of women; and now women of enfranchised spirit are more determined than ever to place their refusal to pay taxes before Members of Parliament.
To withdraw so moral an object-lesson in the face of so shabby an act of political opportunism would be not merely a sign of weakness, but a dereliction of duty.
Nothing can be worse for the moral well-being of the State than for unjust conditions to secure to themselves an appearance of agreement and submission which are only due to a Government which makes justice its first duty.
It is bad for the State that the Government should be able to collect with ease taxes unconstitutionally levied; it is bad for the men of this country who hold political power, and in whose hands it lies to advance or delay measures of reform, that they should see women yielding an easy consent to taxation so unjustly conditioned.
If women do so, they give a certain colour to the contention that they have not yet reached that stage of political education which made our forefathers resist, even to the point of revolt, any system of taxation which was accompanied by a denial of representation.
It was inflexible determination on this point which secured for the people of this country their constitutional liberties; and in the furtherance of great causes, history has a way of repeating itself.
Our surest stand-by to-day is still that which made the advance of liberty sure in the past.
In this country representative government has superseded all earlier forms of feudal service, or Divine right, or the claim of the few to govern the many; and its great strength lies in the fact that by granting to so large a part of the community a voice in the affairs of government, it secures from people of all sorts and conditions the maximum of consent to the laws and to administration; and, as a consequence, it is enabled to carry on its work of administration in all departments more economically and efficiently than would be possible under a more arbitrary form of Government.
But though it has thus acquired strength, it has, by so basing itself, entirely changed the ground upon which a Government makes its moral claim to obedience.
Representative government is a contract which requires for its fulfilment the grant of representation in return for the right to tax.
No principle for the claim to obedience can be laid down where a Government, claiming to be representative, is denying a persistent and active demand for representation.
People of a certain temperament may regard submission to unjust Government as preferable to revolt, and “peaceful penetration” as the more comfortable policy; but they cannot state it as a principle which will bear examination; they can give it no higher standing than mere opportunism.
It may be said that the general welfare of the State over-rides all private claims. That is true.
But under representative government it is impossible to secure the general welfare or a clean bill of health where, to any large body of the community which asks for it, full citizenship is being denied.
You cannot produce the instinct for self-government among a community and then deny it expression, without causing blood-poisoning to the body politic.
It is against nature for those who are fit for self-government to offer a submission which comes suitably only from the unfit; nor must you expect those who are pressing for freedom to put on the livery of slaves, and accept that ill-fitting and ready-made costume as though it were a thing of their own choice and made to their own order and taste.
Representative Government man, without much hurt to itself, acquiesce in the exclusion from full citizenship of a sleeping, but not of an awakened section of the community.
And if it so acts toward the latter, it is the bounden duty of those who are awake to the State’s interests to prevent an unrepresentative Government from treating them, even for one single day, as though they were asleep.
They must, in some form or another, force the Government to see that by its denial of this fundamental claim to representation its own moral claim to obedience has disappeared.
That is where the great distinction lies between the unenfranchised condition of certain men in the community who have still not got the vote and the disenfranchised position of women.
It is all the vast difference between the conditional and the absolute.
To no man is the vote denied; it is open to him under certain conditions which, with a modicum of industry and sobriety, practically every man in this country can fulfil.
To woman the vote is denied under all conditions whatsoever.
The bar has been raised against her by statute, and by statute and legal decision is still maintained.
There is the woman’s direct and logical answer to those who say that, after all, she is only upon the same footing as the man who, without a vote, has still to pay the tax upon his beer and his tobacco.
The man is always a potential voter; and it is mainly through his own indifference that he does not qualify; but the woman is by definite laws placed outside the Constitution of those three estates of the realm from which the sanction of Government is derived.
If it asks no sanction of her, why should she give it?
From what principle in its Constitution does it deduce this right at once to exclude and to compel?
We see clearly enough that it derives its right of rule over men from the consent they give it as citizens — a consent on which its legislative existence is made to depend.
But just as expressly as the man’s consent is included in our Constitution, the woman’s is excluded.
From that exclusion the State suffers injury every day; and submission to that exclusion perpetuates injury, not to the State alone, but to the minds of the men and of the women who together should form its consenting voice as one whole.
This submission is, therefore, an evil; and we need in every town and village of this country some conspicuous sign that among women submission has ceased.
What more definite, what more logical sign can be given than for unrepresented women to refuse to pay taxes?
If Women Suffragists are fully awake to their responsibilities for the enforcement of right citizenship, they will not hesitate to bring into disrepute an evil and usurping form of Government which does not make the recognition of woman’s claim its first duty.
The Cæsar to whom in this country we owe tribute is representative government.
Unrepresentative government is but a forgery on Cæsar’s name.
For Suffragists to honour such a Government, so lacking to them in moral sanction, is to do dishonour to themselves; and to offer it any appearance of willing service is to do that which in their hearts they know to be false.
From pamphlet published by The Women’s Tax Resistance League.
1d.
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 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 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 , 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 , 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 , 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.
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 ; 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, .
Inland Revenue — Surveyor of Taxes.
Madam, — Referring to your letter of , 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.
Miss Evelyn Sharp again appeared before the Registrar at Bankruptcy Buildings last morning, and her case was once more adjourned, this time until , in spite of the fact that she told the Registrar that she needed no further time for reflection, and was prepared to take the consequences of her refusal to make a statement of her affairs, on the ground that she was a voteless woman, and considered that taxation without representation was tyranny.
We cannot condemn too strongly the petty persecution of Miss Sharp by the authorities.
They have taken away her furniture and have refused to sell it, although the Official Receiver declared in court that its sale would cover the amount of the tax and the cost of the proceedings; they intercept all her correspondence, which they open, and read, and return to her at their leisure, and keep her in the position of an undischarged bankrupt, unable to transact business of any kind.
We understood that the Government had declared a truce with suffragists, but while it is dilly-dallying with women’s chances of enfranchisement in the Representation of the People Bill, it is apparently as eager as ever to persecute suffragists for their principles whenever an opportunity occurs.
The thanks of our League are due to our courageous fellow-member, Miss Mary
Anderson, for the splendid opportunity provided by her for carrying our
gospel into new quarters. The quiet little village of Woldingham, one of the
beauty spots of England, has been thoroughly roused by Miss Anderson’s
spirited protest against the tyranny of taxation without representation; and
a great gathering of its inhabitants attended at the sale of her goods on
.
Our energetic and honoured workers, Mrs. Snow and Mrs. Fisher, most ably
seconded Miss Anderson in organising the protest. By the courtesy of Messrs.
Jarrett, the King’s officers, whose consideration and forbearance call for
our kindest appreciation, the sale was to have been held on the village
green, close to Miss Anderson’s residence; but owing to the inclement
weather, the adjacent public hall was “commandeered” for the ceremony. In
spite of an incessant downpour, the hall was packed with an appreciative
audience.
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.
Mrs. Huntsman took the chair as soon as the sale was completed and the
necessary sum realised. Mrs. Despard and Mrs. Cobden Sanderson were the
principal speakers, Miss Boyle expressing the acknowledgments of the two
Leagues and of Miss Anderson to the King’s officers for carrying out the
stern duties of their office with so little unpleasantness.
A resolution, proposed from the chair, and carried with only one open
dissentient, was couched in the following terms:— “That this meeting
supports Miss Anderson in her protest against the tyranny of taxation
without representation, and calls upon the Government to include women in the
Franchise Reform Bill.”
At the close of the ceremony the goods, bought in by her friends, were
presented to Miss Anderson, who briefly returned thanks, and expressed her
intention of maintaining that form of protest.
Among those present were Miss F[lorence].A. Underwood, looking very well and
sunburnt after “holiday” with the Scottish campaign; Mr. Snow, to whose
kind support no words will do justice; Mrs. [Kate] Harvey; Mrs. [Emma]
Fox-Bourne and her son and daughter-in-law; Mrs. Lawrence and her little
sons; Miss Charrington; Mrs. Robert Barr and her daughter and son-in-law;
Mr. and Mrs. Galbraith, Colonel and Mrs. Eales, Mrs. O’Sullivan, Mrs. Croad,
Miss Watson, and other well-known residents of the neighbourhood.
The next event of a similar kind to which we may look forward is the breaking
of Mrs. Harvey’s barricade at Bromley. Mrs. Harvey, with the greatest
resolution, has kept the King’s officer at bay for months; and she should be
heartily applauded for flying the flag of resistance, and invading with
suffrage protest and propaganda so notorious a centre of anti-suffrage
activity as Bromley. It is hoped that all good Freedom-Leaguers and all good
Tax Resisters will rally in force to the protest when the final act is being
played.
Undaunted, Mrs. Harvey has gone to Holloway.
The Bromley police authorities, after certain spasmodic efforts to secure payment of the sums claimed from her, have carried the sentence of the court into effect, and, by courteous arrangement, allowed Miss Harvey, Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, and Miss [Mary] Anderson to accompany her to the gates of Holloway.
A plain clothes officer and a woman warder met them at Bromley Station, and two taxi’s [sic] conveyed them to the prison from Holborn.
A great meeting of protest is to be held against the vindictive sentence on our brave comrade, for which has been fixed.
Trafalgar-square will be the place of meeting, and we hope to have a great rally of the friends of freedom.
Meetings also will be held in Bromley Market-place twice a week — Mondays and Wednesdays — at 7.30 p.m., where we hope members will rally when possible.
We venture to foretell that Mrs. Harvey will come out of prison no less resolute a resister than when she went in, and that she will stand to her principle of resisting Government without consent and taxation without representation no matter what Governments may order or police authorities execute.
We wish to call attention to another prosecution, that of four farmers in Scotland — we have republished several lately, — of men who also resisted the Act and whose servants resisted the Act by joint conspiracy, the latter not being prosecuted at all.
The penalties imposed in none of these cases have been so heavy as those imposed on Mrs. Harvey, whose chief crime is that she acts on principle and not because she desires to evade and obligation.
The Scottish farmers’ case is as follows:—
At Aberdeen on four farmers from the Turriff district pleaded guilty to having failed to pay insurance contributions in respect of farm servants in their employ.
Their agents stated that the farm servants in this district, believing that they were better off under the former conditions, when the employers provided for them during illness, than they would be under the provisions of the Act, refused to bring their cards, and declined to engage unless the master gave an understanding not only that he would not deduct the money from their wages but would not apply for an emergency card.
The Fiscal said that in such cases complaint should have been lodged with the Commissioners, who would have instituted a prosecution against the servants.
A penalty of 15s. for each offence in each case was imposed, and on the application of Mr. Gerrard, who appeared for the Scottish Insurance Commissioners, decree was given for the amount of contributions in arrears.
―Glasgow Herald, .
C. Nina Boyle.
Letter from Mrs. Harvey.
Comrades, — When you read this you will be much in my thoughts, for I shall be in Holloway Gaol.
I will not insult you by asking you to think of me, but when you do, will you remember that if my sentence be the means of bringing home to but one person the kind of justice meted out by vote-protected men to voteless women, the price will be light though the sentence is heavy, very heavy when compared with that passed on men whose only desire is to shirk responsibility when refusing to pay the Insurance Tax, iniquitously heavy when compared with the sentences passed on men who ruin the bodies of our girls, often baby-girls.
Since writing the above I have heard that, quite lately, a man was sentenced to a twenty shillings fine or seven days for criminally assaulting two children, the excuse being that his brain was weak.
The same authorities do not hesitate to label Suffragettes “mad,” but in their case it is only an added excuse for harsh treatment.
Justice!
We have almost forgotten the meaning of the word.
“No taxation without representation.”
Men made that law, men break that law, then punish women for not breaking it also!
Justice! It is conspicuous by its absence!
Another man-made law, “a man must be tried by his peers”; equally so a woman should be tried by her peers!
One thing I ask.
Will you strive by every means in your power to make “Hiawatha” [a dramatic version of Longfellow’s poem that Harvey had put together] a huge success?
It is a sore trouble to leave before arrangements are fully completed; help me by letting my absence rouse you to enthusiastic endeavour for our paper!
Many doubt as to the wisdom of the step I have taken; none can doubt as to the lack of wisdom in a Government that deliberately turns good citizens into outlaws! — Yours, in the Cause that is nearest to our hearts, the Cause of women — and children, they are inseparable,
K. Harvey.
Mrs. Despard’s Letter to Mr. McKenna
Mrs. Despard has sent the following letter to the Home Secretary:—
2, Currie-street, Nine Elms, London, S.W.
.
To the Right Honble. Reginald McKenna, M.P.
Sir,— A few months ago you granted an interview to me and several of my colleagues in the Women’s Freedom League.
I spoke to you then on what I conceive to be the maladministration of justice in this country and the unequal incidence of punishment.
I desire now to bring before you a glaring instance of that of which I complain, hoping that if your attention has not been drawn to it, you will immediately give it your serious consideration.
Thousands of British men and women are refusing to pay the Insurance Tax or to deduct the Tax from the wages of those whom they employ.
Some object to this tax on principle; others desire to shirk responsibility.
Suffragists — and I am amongst their number — are, in many cases resisting this in common with other forms of taxation because their rights of citizenship are not recognised.
There have been sundry prosecutions — mostly of men in business.
I wish to quote three cases to show you the different treatment meted out to men and women in our law courts.
Joseph Lister, of Doncaster, defaulter for thirty-one weeks, was given by Mr. Andrews, the magistrate, a fine of 50s., with payment of costs.
Mr. F. Hamblin (Eastbourne), who had conscientious objections, was summoned on twenty counts.
He was ordered to pay fines, costs and arrears to the amount of £6 14s., 8d..
Mrs. Harvey, of Brackenhill, Bromley, Kent — a Suffragist, the first who has been proceeded against for Insurance Tax resistance — was summoned, on , on ten counts in respect of her gardener.
She was fined £1 on each count, £4 10s. costs, £2 2s. special costs, and ordered to pay the arrears, 5s. 10d.; total, £16 17s. 10d.
I beg you to compare this sentence with the two previous ones.
Mrs. Harvey, deeply conscious of the injustice done to her, has refused to pay the money.
A week later a further fine of £5 was imposed upon her for refusal to pay her gardener’s license.
The alternative was a month’s imprisonment on each summons, and she went to Holloway yesterday.
I cannot believe, sir, that you will permit this injustice to be done.
Let me remind you that the woman who, in a Piccadilly flat, used for vile purposes, was drawing young girls to their ruin, had a similar sentence.
We hear, moreover, on good authority, that she was released after she had served ten days.
Mrs. Harvey is one whose time, service and money are given to the rescue of little destitute children, and to the help of those not so fortunately placed as herself.
While such injustices as these are permitted by the authorities, can you wonder that women are in revolt? ―Yours truly,
C. Despard
Women’s Freedom League Statement.
The following letter has been sent to the Press from Headquarters:—
Sir,— We write to protest against the extraordinary partial administration of justice in this country.
Thousands of persons are resisting the Insurance Act in Great Britain; many cases have been brought before the Courts and nominal fines only have been imposed on the defendants.
When, however, it is a case of a woman, and a Suffragist, resisting this Act, who from the point of view of principle, objects to paying taxes because she is not represented in the counsels of the nation, a heavy penalty is exacted.
Mrs. Harvey, of Bromley, Kent, who refused to pay her Insurance dues in respect of her gardener, William David Asquith, or the license for him, was fined as follows:—
For refusal to pay Insurance dues—
£16
17
10
£1 fine on each count
£10
0
0
Arrears of Insurance amounting to
0
5
10
Court fees
4
10
0
“Special costs” asked for by the Insurance Commissioners
2
2
0
For refusal to pay the license—
£5
14
0
Fine
£5
0
0
Costs
0
14
0
And since she declined to pay these fines Mrs. Harvey has to-day been conveyed to Holloway Gaol for two months’ imprisonment in the second division.
We think these facts speak for themselves.
Mrs. Harvey spends her life in working for the betterment of conditions under which our poorer children live, and has never failed to help those weaker than herself.
She believes that until women have a voice in making the laws, no satisfactory legislation will be carried through for the protection of girls and children.
For this reason she protests against the exclusion of women from full citizenship rights, and the answer of men’s representatives is two months’ imprisonment in the second division.
For keeping a Piccadilly flat for the express purpose of ruining young girls physically, mentally and morally, another woman was also sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and it is universally believed that she was released at the end of ten days!
―We are, yours faithfully,
Charlotte Despard. Florence A. Underwood.
A “Snowball” Protest.
As evidence of the wide interest which is being aroused, Miss Marie Lawson writes from 5, Westbourne-square, London, W., to inform us that she has started a “Snowball” protest on behalf of Mrs. Harvey — a form of protest which she worked successfully in the case of Mr. Mark Wilkes.
The “Snowball” letter, which she hopes will be copied and widely distributed, is as follows:—
Dear Madam,— Mrs. K. Harvey, of Bromley, Kent, has been committed to prison for two months for non-payment of a Government tax and for non-compliances with the requirements of the National Insurance Act.
Because she refuses to submit to the tyranny of arbitrary taxation and because her conscience will not permit her to comply with conditions which she knows to be wrong and unjust, she has been given this extraordinarily severe sentence.
Passive resistance is a form of protest which has been frequently and successfully used in this country by men.
A good part of our constitutional history may be said to have been written in the terms of tax-resistance, and it is largely by such means that some of our greatest reforms have been won.
In the case of voteless women it is the only form of protest open to them, short of actual violence.
They have to choose between passive resistance and cowardly acquiescence.
Mrs. Harvey has chosen the latter [sic], and as a result now lies in Holloway Prison.
I earnestly request you to assist the agitation for her immediate release in two ways:—
By copying the accompanying form of protest on to two postcards, adding your name and address, and directing one to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, The Treasury, Whitehall, S.W., and the other to the Home Secretary, Home Office, Whitehall, S.W..
By copying this letter and the form of protest in full and forwarding it to at least three friends, inviting them to join in this “snowball” movement.
Relying on your sympathy and cooperation,
Yours sincerely,
No Taxation Without Representation.
Form of Protest
I write with reference to the case of Mrs. K. Harvey, of Bromley, Kent, who has been committed to prison for two months as a result of her refusal to submit to the tyranny of arbitrary taxation.
In seeking to impress upon a Liberal Government the necessity of putting its principles into practice, Mrs. Harvey adopted the time-honoured protest of passive resistance.
That being her only offence, I protest against this vindictive sentence, and urge you to use every effort to secure her immediate release.
We look forward to a strenuous autumn and winter campaign.
We shall begin this in London by holding a demonstration in Trafalgar-square, , to protest against the biased administration of the law and its treatment of women, as instanced in the two months’ imprisonment in the second division which Mrs. Kate Harvey is now undergoing at Holloway because of her refusal to comply with the regulations of the Insurance Act.
We urge our readers to make this demonstration as widely known as possible, and to bring all the friends they can to the Square to protest against this excessive sentence.
Vote sellers, literature sellers, collectors, and banner bearers will be in great demand, and we shall be glad to have names of volunteers at an early date.
“Would 20s. have ruined Mr. Hampden’s fortune?”
“No, but the payment of half 20s. on the principle on which it was demanded would have made him a slave.”
So Burke epitomised the attitude of John Hampden towards unjust taxation, and so with equal conciseness might the position of the modern tax-resister be summed up.
Beyond the fact that he resisted Ship Money, the majority of people know little about John Hampden, and we therefore commend the new edition of a pamphlet by Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison, of the Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Herself a well-known resister, the writer has depicted with sympathy and force the struggle between Hampden and the King, and with a novelist’s skill has made the events live again.
The character of this “rebel and leader of rebels” was marked by restraint and dignity, by respect for order and good government.
Slow to take up arms against the King, he acted directly his duty became clear; he received his death-wound leading his “Green Coats” at Chalgrove Field.
Incidently it is interesting to note that the loss of his case against the Crown roused people to see how degenerate the law may become, and paved the way for the Great Rebellion.
It was not the men alone who rebelled, but the women also refused to submit to unjust laws.
Among the twenty or thirty people who signed the protest against Ship Money in Great Kimble Church in 1635 were four women — Mrs. Westall and the Widows Bampton, Goodchild and Semple.
Women also presented petitions for peace at Westminster Hall.
“It may be thought strange and unbeseeming our sex to show ourselves here… but… we are sharers in the public calamities,” so ran the first petition.
This deputation was well received by Pym.
Not so fortunate was the later one of 5,000 women.
Because they pushed their way to the doors of the House of Commons, a cavalry charge was ordered, two women were killed and several injured.
One wonders if there was not a touch of sarcasm about the meek wording of these petitions.
One can imagine the lips of these brave women slightly curling with scorn at such words, as “We need not dictate to your eagle-eyed judgment the way,” or “We do this not… as seeking to equal ourselves with men either in authority or wisdom.”
But we forbear from further extracts, and advise all who wish to realise the continuity of the struggle for freedom through the centuries to read this little book.
M.L.
* “John Hampden” (second edition, with frontispiece).
By Mrs. Darent Harrison.
(Published by the Women’s Tax Resistance League, 10, Talbot House, 98, St. Martin’s-lane, W.C.
Price 1d.)
…some of us have just accompanied to the gates of Holloway the comrade and friend whose letter will be found in the columns of this issue.
Mrs. Harvey, of Bracken Hill, whose splendid work and gracious personality are known to so many of us, having been sentenced to a month’s imprisonment in the second division for refusing to pay her Insurance Tax, and to another month, in lieu of fine, for a license for a manservant, went to prison on Monday.
Our readers will understand that no effort will be spared by the League to make this iniquity known.
We have reason to believe that the law has been strained, if not broken, in the infliction of these sentences.
That will be ascertained.
It is our fervent hope that Mrs. Harvey will soon be with us again.
Meantime we hope and believe that every member of the League will help us to the utmost limit of their powers in the battle we are waging against this gross injustice.
In particular, will every member of the League in London and the neighborhood rally round our banners on , in Trafalgar-square, where a big demonstration of protest will be held?
We hope earnestly that you will not only come yourselves, but that you will bring others with you.
Just and righteous administration of the law is a question which affects men quite as deeply as it affects women.
Questioned on the Mark Wilks case in Parliament, the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted the ridiculous condition of the law, but was prepared to enforce it again in the same fashion to enrich his Treasury.
In the House of Lords, with even greater cynicism and dishonesty, Lord Ashby St. Ledgers denounced Mr. Wilks’s action as “in the nature of a political demonstration,” and said that “this imprisonment was intended to be a deterrent, a result to a great extent achieved, as other husbands were not likely to put themselves to the same sort of inconvenience.”
He admitted “illogicality” and “a certain substratum of hardship,” and “something especially out of date,” in a husband being imprisoned for failure to pay his wife’s taxes.
The Lord Chancellor agreed that the laws were full of anomalies, but appeared to think change even more dangerous, and involved himself in the following luminous remark:— “They would have to be very careful lest in making changes they stumbled into the temptation to take advantage of provisions which belonged to a past state of law, while at the same time taking advantage of changes which had been made in quite another direction.”
Dr. Elizabeth Knight, hon. treasurer of the W.F.L., was “hauled up” before the Justices of the Peace for non-payment of dog license at the Hampstead Petty Sessions, Rosslyn-hill.
Writing this in time to go to press, we do not know the result; but if our treasurer is penalised for this time-honoured protest against the upkeep of an unrepresentative Government, the W.F.L. members, we are certain, will rally strongly to a great demonstration in support of her action.
Mrs. Fyffe’s protest was a great success, a procession marching from Roxborough-mansions, Kensington, to the auction rooms at Westbourne-grove.
Miss Constance Andrews carried the W.F.L. banner and moved the following resolution:—
That this meeting protests against the seizure and sale of Mrs. Fyffe’s goods, and is of opinion that the tax-paying women of this country are justified in refusing to pay all imperial taxes until they are allowed a voice in deciding how these large sums of money shall be spent.
The John Hampden banner and other colours were carried, and speeches were made from a carriage decorated in the brown and black of the W.T.R.L. by Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Miss [Constance] Andrews, Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, and the Rev. Charles Baumgarten.
…An extraordinary general meeting was held on … Mrs. Rentoul Esler in the chair.
Business: To confirm the election of Mrs. Flora Annie Steel as president of the society (vice Miss Elizabeth Robins, resigned).
On the agenda: “Whether the W.W.S.L. should, as a society, resist the new insurance tax and refuse to insure their secretary, with her full consent to their so doing?”
A brief report from the Stamford Hill branch noted that “Mr. Mark Wilks’ reception was well attended by our Branch, and the crowded meeting testified to the high appreciation we all feel of his and Dr. Elizabeth Wilks’ plucky protest against the vagaries of Income-tax Law.”
There is a piquancy which women tax-resisters will not fail to appreciate, in the declaration of Mr. Lloyd George that he is really one of their growing company — have not the Unionist business men in Belfast joined in?
Can it be a result of the tax-resistance campaign now gathering strength in his own Principality, or is it the first indication of an intention to deal fairly with women over that million and a-half sterling which the Treasury conveniently pockets?
Those who live will see.
The “John Bright” Tradition: No Taxation Without Representation.
For a Liberal Government which has repeatedly declared that there must be “No Taxation without Representation” to discover the grandson of John Bright amongst the tax resisters, must be seriously discomforting.
Mrs. Clark, of Street, Somerset, wife of Mr. Roger Clark, grandson on his mother’s side of John Bright, is a member of the old constitutional society for Woman Suffrage, but is also a strong believer in the “No Vote No Tax” policy of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, considering that so long as women are taxed and refused representation it is their duty to make this constitutional protest against injustice.
She, therefore, refused to pay her Income-tax, but was told that though the income was hers, her husband was the person liable to pay the tax.
Mr. Clark, inheriting the “John Bright” tradition, upheld his wife in her determination to demonstrate that, as far as she was concerned, there should be “No Taxation without Representation”!
A silver jug and an Indian rose-bowl were taken to satisfy the claim of the law, and were sold by public auction on at the Crispinian Hall, Street.
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, presided over by Mr. Roger Clark, at which Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, organising secretary of the Women’s Tax Resistance League spoke, emphasising the constitutional character of tax resistance, and insisting that a nation which approved the action of John Hampden by erecting statues to his memory must also approve the action which tax-paying women are taking to protest against unrepresentative Government.
At the close of the meeting many questions were asked, new members joined the League, and the following resolution was passed with enthusiasm, and only one dissentient:
“That this meeting is of opinion that women tax-payers are justified in refusing to pay all Imperial taxes until they are granted the same control over national expenditure as male tax-payers possess.”
A further and most startling piece of news has come to hand.
In Belfast last week 5,000 men of business came to a “momentous decision.”
They have pledged themselves to “keep back payment of all taxes which they can control, so long as any attempt to put into operation the provisions of the Home Rule Bill is persevered in.”
It would almost seem as if these “hard-headed” men of business who represent £144,000,000 of capital, and who, we learn, are ready to risk the loss of everything, had taken a leaf out of the book of the “wild and evil spirits” whose contumacy they deplore.
But that to which we desire here to draw special attention is the extraordinary lack of any sort of principle on the part of those who govern us.
Women who persist in tax-resistance are imprisoned, and treated with the harshest rigour that the law permits; no recognition of motive; no first division; no permission, except under strict regulation, to see friends; one man is imprisoned for asking soldiers not to shoot their brothers — this in a civilised and Christian country; two or three others because they preached resistance against intolerable trade conditions, exposed the wickedness of the mere money-mongers, and advised hunger-stricken people not to pay rent until the industrial dispute was at an end.
Other people meanwhile conspire to break the laws, should they not be to their liking, threaten armed resistance, and actually drill and organise a provisional citizen-army and government, and, so far from imprisoning and torturing them, the authorities speak them fair, invite them to confer, and hint at a possible compromise.
[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 .
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 .
After inexplicable delays, the representatives of the Law have finally made up their minds to wrestle with the case of Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight.
On , 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 Mrs. [Caroline] Fagan spoke at Woking on the subject of Tax Resistance.
New members joined the League at each place.
On , 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 , 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 and proceed with the John Hampden Banner to Trafalgar-square.
“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 , Mr. Mark Wilks was in prison, and the Caxton Hall rang with the indignant demand for his release.
In 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 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.
The Women’s Tax Resistance League and the Reform Bill.
The Executive Committee met to consider the present situation, and the following resolution was passed unanimously:—
That the Committee of the Women’s Tax Resistance League view with the
utmost indignation the proposal of the Government to extend the franchise
to all men whilst ignoring the claim to citizenship of any woman, and calls
upon all tax-paying women to resist the payment of Imperial taxes, as a
protest against this further measure of injustice.
It has been decided to hold a John Hampden dinner on the evening of Tuesday, , at the Hotel Cecil.
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 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!
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 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.
At the Grand Concert Hall, Hastings, on 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 , 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 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 .
On , 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 , 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 .
Few places could seem so unpropitious as a field for Suffrage propaganda as Bromley, in spite of the constant presence of a Suffragist of the calibre of Mrs. [Kate] Harvey; yet, strange to say, the outcome of her protest meeting on Monday was more than gratifying, and the event must be chronicled as an unmitigated success.
By the skilful handling of Miss Munro, a dense crowd which threatened disorder settled down to listen in patience to four speeches of more than average excellence; and when at the close three cheers were raised for Mrs. Harvey, there was a definite show of goodwill and appreciation of the attitude and view which inspired the protest.
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.
Much hostility was displayed throughout the proceedings; and several Freedom Leaguers were of opinion that it was long since so much unpleasantness had been experienced as during the day’s campaign.
When the Inland Revenue vacated the rostrum and Miss [Anna] Munro took the chair, an ugly spirit appeared to possess the meeting for a few brief moments; but it was charmed away by the chairman’s tact and firmness, and an excellent and most courteous hearing was given to all the speakers — melting, towards the end, into real sympathy.
The first speech was from Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, in her most spirited style, winning a hearty meed of applause; and she was followed by Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, who has an admirable “way” with a crowd.
Miss [C. Nina] Boyle then spoke, provoking much amused laughter; and the last speaker, Miss Hicks, closed the “case for the defence” with a well-pointed and finely-balanced argument.
After that came questions, which Miss Munro dealt with in her usual adroit manner.
The audience departed well satisfied and good-humoured, and several new members were won.
Tea was served at Brackenhill after the meeting, a party of ten having been entertained to lunch earlier in the day by Mrs. Clarkson Swann.
In the forenoon Mrs. Harvey and some of her friends, including Mrs. Snow, Mrs. Fisher, Miss Boyle, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Mrs. Clarkson-Swann, and some members of Mrs. Harvey’s household held rendezvouz at the local Sessions Court to hear the case against Mrs. Harvey in respect of not paying a tax on her gardener.
As when Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight was summoned, the representative of the London County Council brought his case into court in the most slovenly, scandalous fashion — these cases furnishing a lurid light on the way the liberties of the public are held cheap by careless authorities.
A spirited defence, which made the cocksure representative aforesaid look extremely foolish, was put up by Mrs. Harvey’s counsel; the verdict of the court being 30s. fine, and costs.
Mrs. Harvey declared she would not pay fine or costs, and the ultimate verdict was “distraint or seven days” — in the second division.
Among those who were at Bromley for the protest were Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Huntsman, Mrs. Kux, Mrs. Macpherson, Mrs. Smith, Miss F[lorence].
A. Underwood, Miss Howard, Miss Rowell, Mrs. Thomas, Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr, Miss Barrow, and Miss Taylor.
In pursuance of our policy of tax-resistance, the Women’s Freedom League has decided to resist the Insurance Act on the ground that we refuse to acquiesce in any legislation which controls the resources of women without the consent of women.
We are now threatened with prosecution by the Insurance Commissioners, but it remains to be seen whether the latter will make good their case.
In a small tax resistance movement emerged when several tax refusers learned about one another and began to correspond.
Many of these early tax resisters were WRL members.
Abraham Kaufman, the League’s executive secretary, facilitated many of these contacts.
At its founding conference in , Peacemakers established a Tax Refusal Committee.
League members formed a majority on this committee, which was chaired by Ernest Bromley, a Methodist minister and the nation’s leading proponent of tax resistance.
For the next two decades, Bromley championed tax resistance and publicized examples from three continents to demonstrate its power.
American examples included Quaker tax resistance during both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, the popular tax protests by colonists during the American Revolution, and Henry David Thoreau’s refusal to pay the Massachusetts poll tax to protest the Mexican War.
He also cited England’s Wat Tyler (fourteenth century) and John Hampden (seventeenth century).
Finally, he invoked Gandhi and the Indian independence movement; both resorted to tax resistance in the struggle against British rule.
For both moral and pragmatic reasons, tax resistance appealed to Peacemakers and to radical pacifists.
Most important, it enabled absolutists to express their total commitment against militarism and war.
The Peacemakers’ literature underscored this uncompromising position.
One publication explained that tax resistance “is not merely a protest.
It is an act.”
Aware that modern, technological warfare required huge expenditures, tax resisters were seeking to cripple war preparation — and war — through nonpayment of taxes.
Other literature asserted that nearly 35 percent of the national budget was earmarked for the military and that 80 percent paid for past, present, and future wars.
The “new push-button type warfare,” Bromley declared, would require “more drafted dollars than drafted men.”
Tax resisters were hoping to influence American policy by publicly repudiating military preparedness and weapon stockpiling before conflict broke out again.
Unlike COs and nonregistration, tax resistance was both age and gender neutral.
By enabling men and women of all ages and occupations to participate, tax refusal expanded the sphere of war resistance and promoted solidarity with draft-eligible men.
Ernest and Marion Bromley, whose Wilmington, Ohio, home served as unofficial headquarters of the Tax Refusal Committee, embodied the spirit of tax resistance.
“The time has now come,” Ernest exclaimed in his IRS tax statement, “when men ought no longer to depend solely upon their spoken witness against war or preparation for it.
They ought to prepare themselves for an outright resistance by a thorough-going dissociation with the war-making system.”
In her letter to the tax collector, Marion charged that “this country did not turn to peace at the end of World War Ⅱ, but instead sought to protect and expand an American Empire,” declaring “I want to dissociate myself as completely as possible from these tragic, suicidal and evil policies… and to do all I can to convince my fellow citizens that we must completely renounce the way of war and violence.”
The Bromleys believed that radical pacifist individuals and organizations must assume risks for war resistance.
Anticipating the New Left, Ernest asserted: “Pacifists believe… that there is a… time and place where they as individuals must simply come to a stop, and ‘clog [the system] with their whole weight.’
Perhaps that time and place have come.”
Four months after its formation, Peacemakers’ Tax Refusal Committee published the statements of active tax resisters.
Many of these people were WRL members.
These statements illustrate the total commitment and absolutist nature of Peacemakers and of a section of the League.
Writing in a different venue, Caroline Urie similarly declared:
In a time of crisis like the present it is our duty as sovereign citizens to defend our country not only with protest but with our lives, if necessary, against military enslavement and the possible annihilation implicit in atomic and bacterial warfare.
In the brief time at our disposal, protest is not enough; if we are to assume real responsibility, we must act in a manner simple enough and clear enough to be understood and to arouse public conscience.
As justification for tax resistance, several WRL members pointed to the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, which had established the principle of individual responsibility for wartime actions, even in the face of wartime orders.
In his letter to the IRS, Walter Gormley declared that he was “refusing to make any federal income tax payment, because they money would be used mostly for ‘crimes against peace.’ ” “The U.S. is preparing for a shooting war of aggression by maintaining bases, subservient governments and military forces from Korea to Turkey, by intensive research on methods of mass slaughter and by maintaining a huge military organization,” he charged.
“I must refrain from supporting such a government.”
Likewise, Valerie Riggs explained that “if our government… at Nuremberg could hold individuals responsible to stand against crime… I feel thoroughly justified by my own government in not paying this part of my tax.”
Perhaps A.J. Muste best expressed the compelling logic of tax resistance.
“World War Ⅲ has already started,” he exclaimed in :
I cannot support a government in these war-measures, which I deem insane, wicked and suicidal.
I must withdraw support from such war-measures in every possible way.
The two decisive powers of government… are the power to conscript and the power to tax.
Pacifists recognize that to be consistent they must refuse to be conscripted for military service or training.
I have come… to the conviction that I at least am in conscience bound… to challenge the right of the government to tax me for waging war, and in particular for the production of atomic and bacterial weapons… The need for getting our pacifist teaching off the level of talk and writing and onto the level of action is, I believe, imperative.
Peacemakers was highly critical of pacifist organizations — the WRL included — that collected withholding taxes from their employees.
By withholding taxes these pacifist groups were effectively barring tax refusers from working for them, or forcing them to resign.
Both the WRL and the FOR paid a lot of attention to this issue.
A special committee of the FOR examined the problem for a year before recommending that the FOR withhold taxes, even though most FOR employees had indicated that they wanted to make individual decisions about tax refusal.
Staff member Marion Coddington (Bromley) resigned over the policy.
The WRL also decided to withhold taxes.
In justifying this policy, a member of the League’s executive committee declared: “The life of the organization is at stake.”
The Peacemakers’ Tax Refusal Committee, which characterized the WRL and other pacifist groups as “tax collectors for the government,” was scathing in its denunciation.
“If pacifist organizations, whose business is to create a warless world, are not ready to risk something for war resistance now,” the committee asked, “when will they be ready?”
Tax resistance took various forms. Total refusers paid not tax.
Since most workers could not avoid withholding tax, total refusers were often self-employed.
Miriam Keeler and Marion Coddington Bromley resigned from the Labor Department and the FOR staff in order to avoid the withholding taxes.
Percentage refusers withheld that portion of taxes corresponding to the percentage the federal government would spend on war preparation and the military (calculations ranged from 35 to 80 percent).
Finally, some tax resisters chose to live on an income below the taxable level or to work at several part-time, low-income jobs to preclude employers from withholding taxes.
Some tax resisters refused to submit tax returns; others explained their action in letters to local tax collectors and the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
Some tax resisters, instead of remitting taxes to the government, contributed the money to WRL and other peace and justice organizations.
As a result of Peacemakers’ activism, tax resistance became a major issue for the WRL.
The League sold stickers that tax resisters could attach to their tax forms. “This tax goes chiefly for war purposes, as a pacifist I pay under protest.”
In the League passed several resolutions commending those, members or not, who practiced tax resistance.
Beginning in , several tax resisters began donating a portion of their unpaid income tax to the League, an act consistent with their willingness to pay taxes for nonmilitary social programs. The League established a special literature fund for these donations to ensure that they did not go to pay staff salaries, which were subject to withholding taxes.
Ammon Hennacy, a WRL member most often associated with the Catholic Worker movement, was a pioneer tax refuser praised by the League.
A “Christian anarchist,” he first practiced tax refusal in , when the tax withholding system was implemented.
Each year at tax time he prepared a statement and mailed it to the IRS.
Hennacy’s tax statement reflected the direct action and civil disobedience impulse that would shake the League over the next half-decade.
“We can refuse to put our trust in Princes and Presidents,” he declared.
“With Thoreau and Gandhi we can start our own campaign of Civil Disobedience by refusal to buy war bonds… and… pay taxes for war or conscription.”
In , Hennacy began expanding his protest; each year, on 6 August, he fasted and picketed the local IRS office for as many days as years had passed since .
While picketing, he distributed tax statements and leaflets that repudiated war, advocated anarchism, and declared his tax resistance.
When threatened with arrest for disturbing the peace while picketing, he retorted: “I’m disturbing the war.”
In a letter to Hennacy, [Abraham] Kaufman expressed his disagreement with tax resistance.
But then he added: “I admire your guts and want you to know that I am with you, for each of us must use the methods he feels to be effective in bringing the world out of its present insanity.
Your method may prove most effective in the long run.”
Although he did not delude himself that his “One Man Revolution” would change government policy or transform the world, Hennacy insisted on the moral imperative of individual resistance to the militaristic state.
By , radicals had succeeded in raising the issue of the WRL’s payment of withholding taxes, especially for members like Roy Kepler who supported tax refusal.
In the WRL endorsed CCCO assistance for tax resisters and authorized a review of the issue.
Although they extended moral support to tax refusers and publicized their actions, most League members did not support tax resistance, and the WRL did not officially endorse it.
Kaufman, in particular, insisted that it would be “unethical” for a small minority to “coerce” the League into accepting such a policy.
With minor revisions, the League accepted its subcommittee’s Withholding Tax Report.
Concluding that its survival as an organization took priority over tax refusal, the League decided to continue to withhold income taxes from its employees.
The WRL eventually changed its policy on withholding, and stopped withholding income taxes from the wages of one of its tax-resisting employees, Ralph DiGia, in .
The Annual Register gave what it represented as a transcript of part of the rally held by the Birmingham Political Union while the House of Lords was going through the motions of contemplating the Reform Bill:
They were all acquainted with a peaceful, orderly, and most respectable body of men called Quakers, to whose example he wished specially to call the attention of the meeting.
This respectable sect of Christians refused to support a parson, but, in their opposition, they did not knock out the brains of the tithe-collector — they simply suffered a distress to be levied upon their goods.
Now, if the Quakers refused to pay the tithes, the people generally might refuse to pay the taxes; and, if the bailiff came, he should like to know where they would find the auctioneer who would dare to sell, or the people who would dare to buy.
The voice of the auctioneer, he conceived, would be passive, not active; and rather than knocking down, he would be himself knocked down.
While upon this point, he could not but think of another glorious patriot, whose name and character, during a long night of despotism, shone bright as the day-star of British liberty, whose example ought to be as an encouraging beacon for their future guidance.
When Hampden refused the payment of ship-money, his gallant conduct electrified all England, and pointed out the way by which the people, when unanimous and combined, might rid themselves of an odious and oppressive oligarchy.
He declared before God, that, if all constitutional modes of obtaining the success of the reform measure failed, he should and would, be the first man to refuse the payment of taxes, except by a levy upon his goods [tremendous cheering, which lasted some minutes].
I now call upon all who hear me, and who are prepared to join me in this step, to hold up your hands [an immense forest of hands was immediately elevated, accompanied by vehement cheering].
I now call upon you who are not prepared to adopt this course, to hold up your hands and signify your dissent [not a single hand appearing, loud shouts and cheers were repeated].
Mark my words — failing all other more constitutional means.
That volume also talks about the rioting that took place after the failure of Parliament to pass the Bill — rioting that seems, from the description, to have been strikingly methodical in its targeting of excise, toll, & customs houses, jails, and government buildings, starting with the Mansion House, moving on to the Council House, then to Bridewell prison where they “battered down the gates, rushed into the interior, liberated all the prisoners, and then set fire to the building.”
From there, they “attacked the new jail, while thousands looked on.
They carried and gutted the governor’s house, made their way into the yard, armed with hammers to break open the doors: all the prisoners — criminals as well as debtors — were forthwith set at liberty, amid the exulting shouts of the populace; and the jail, being thus emptied, was immediately set on fire, with all its adjuncts of tread-mill, chapel, and governor’s house.”
The rioters leaving the jail burning, and setting fire, on their way, to various toll-houses, next carried, without resistance, the Gloucester county prison, liberated its inmates, and then set it on fire — sending off a detachment to aid the conflagration of the Bridewell, one wing of which seemed otherwise likely to escape.
They torched the already ransacked Mansion House next, and the home of an anti-Reform bishop.
In Queen square:
They reached the Custom-house, an immense building, left utterly unprotected.
Its whole extent was forthwith added to the burning mass.… [T]he Excise-office… shared, unprotected and unresisted, the fate of the Custom-house.
The Political Unions became bolder and more organized, and a national Political Union formed.
On it (and “all such associations”) was banned.
It (and they) ignored the ban.
Today, some news accounts and testimony of resistance to the annuity and other
church taxes by Scottish and other British nonconformists in the
.
These accounts include such tactics as passively-resisting arrest (going
limp), disrupting auctions of seized goods, boycotts of such auctions by
sympathetic auctioneers and carters, intimidation of auctioneers, public
shaming of businesses that participated in tax auctions, publicizing of
tax auctions so as to draw a crowd of sympathizers, disrupting arrests of
resisters, going into hiding to evade arrest, use of barricades to prevent
property seizure, resignation of government officials, and raising money by
subscription to assist resisters who had property seized.
An Address to the Inhabitants of St. Austell, on the Subject of the Church Rate.
It is painful to our feelings to be engaged in differences with our friends
and neighbours; but when matters of principle are in question, and especially
those connected with civil and religious liberty, we dare not shrink from
avowing our sentiments, and maintaining them to the utmost of our power. The
subject of the church rate, which is now agitating this parish, is, with us,
one of these matters of principle. We consider that the end and object of
every good government is the protection of our dearest rights; that is,
person and property, and the worship of God in the manner which we
conscientiously believe to be most acceptable to Him.
Perhaps many of you are not aware of the forcible seizure of our goods to
support a place of worship from which we conscientiously dissent. We
therefore deem it to be our duty to give you the following information upon
the subject:—
For a church rate of 7s.,
demanded of J.E. Veale, articles were taken value £1
7s.
For a church rate of 5s.
1d., demanded of R. Veale,
articles were taken value £1
12s.
For a church rate of 2s.,
demanded of W. Veale, articles were taken value £1
5s.
For a church rate of 12s.
5½d., demanded of W. & A.H.
Veale, articles were taken value £2.
For a church rate of 7s.
1d., demanded of W. Clemes,
articles were taken value £2
10s.
You see, then, that our property has been forcibly taken from us in direct
opposition to all the precepts of the Gospel. Christianity is to be spread
through the world by persuasive and spiritual means. The people who meet in
an Episcopal place of worship have no more moral right to forcibly take our
property from us to support their worship, than we have to take their goods
to support ours.
Now, if we honestly pay the taxes levied by Government for the support of
civil society, we have a right to its protection. While a man does
this, and fulfils the social and relative duties of life respectably,
conscientiously refraining from doing any injury to any one, the State has
nothing to do with the manner in which he conceives it to be his duty to
worship his Maker. This is a matter entirely between his God and himself,
with which no earthly power has a right to interfere; and therefore, since
mutual protection is the sole object for which we submit to a form of
government, and pay taxes, laws made to compel subjects to support any
particular form of religion are unjust in their principle, and ought not to
be complied with.
Now, overlooking for a moment the circumstance, that these rates can be
legally enforced only by a majority of rate-payers in any given parish, let
us examine this position, on which, the advocates for the compulsory
maintenance of an ecclesiastical establishment take their stand. The whole
force of their argument lies in the very words employed by those who
condemned the Saviour of men, “We have a law, and by our law he ought to
die,” (John ⅹⅸ. 7.) We will, in the first place, tell them, that the
mere circumstance of having a law, is not sufficient to justify them
in the execution of it. Have they never heard of unjust, cruel, and wicked
laws? Can they forget, that Bishops Ridley and Latimer, and a glorious
company of martyrs, were burnt to death according to law, because
they could not conscientiously conform to the State religion? Had these
champions for law lived in Spain and Portugal, when the laws of the land in
those countries subjected conscientious men and women to the horrors of the
Inquisition, would they have considered it their duty to support those
proceedings, because there was a law for it? But we will tell them,
that every law which is contrary to the precepts and doctrines of the Gospel,
is more honoured in the breach than in the observance; and ought not to be
considered binding upon any Christian. And be it ever remembered, that it was
because they could not conform to the State religion, that the early
Christians suffered martyrdom; that the Protestants on
St. Bartholomew’s-day were
butchered; and that a great number of the members of the religious society to
which we belong, laid down their lives in prison, in the time of King Charles
the Second.
Under these circumstances, we appeal to the liberal portion of the Church of
England resident in this parish, whether they think it right to
compel their brethren to support forms of worship to which they
conscientiously object? and whether it is fair, or consistent with common
honesty, to put their hands into the pockets of their Dissenting neighbours,
for the support of their own particular forms and ceremonies of religion?
With best wishes for all our neighbours, we are, their sincere friends,
John Edey Veale.
Riciunn Veale.
William Veale.
Andrew Kingston Veale.
William Clemes. St. Austell, .
We direct attention to the Address, in another column, by some Friends at
St. Austell to their townsmen,
on the subject of church-rate exactions. Their case is calmly, yet pointedly
reasoned; and we feel persuaded, these Friends have the sympathy of their
brethren in religious profession throughout the nation. In connection with
the above, we have given an account from the pages of a cotemporary, of
certain proceedings at Edinburgh for refusal to pay the Annuity Tax; this Tax
being the mode adopted for obtaining the stipends of Clergymen belonging to
the Established Church of Scotland in that city. We quote these proceedings,
not by any means because we approve of the conduct of the parties who
attended the Roup, and obstructed the Auctioneer in disposing of the
articles; but as evidence of the strong feeling which exists in the minds of
the citizens of Edinburgh, against the unjust and oppressive system by which
the State Church is upheld;— a system, the agents of which may, for aught we
know, be one of these days laying their hands, as they have done before, on
the goods or furniture of some of our own members; thus robbing those to whom
the Clergy “perform no services, and on whom, consequently, they can
have no equitable claims.”
At a public meeting of the inhabitants, held subsequently to the attempted
Roup, resolutions approving of the refusal of the poinded parties to pay the
Annuity Tax, and condemnatory of the State Church oppression and in justice,
were passed; and it affords us pleasure to find the Chairman, Professor Dick,
disapproving of the uproarious conduct manifested by the populace on occasion
of exposing the Furniture for Sale:— “He was not at all surprised,” he said,
“at the offering of passive resistance in Edinburgh to tho Annuity Tax, on
the ground, first, that they considered the principles of an Established
Church to be unsound; and on the ground, secondly, that they did not believe
in the doctrines of an Erastian Church. He must take leave to say, that he
did not agree with all the steps which had been adopted at the sales for
Annuity Tax the other day. They did not want anything like physical force to
put down the Annuity Tax. He did not consider that it was proper to defeat
the officers of the law in their purpose. He deeply sympathised with the
feeling which existed against the Annuity Tax, but he did not think that the
exhibition made the other day was the best way of showing that feeling. The
proper way to get quit of this obnoxious impost was by a quiet, determined,
and peaceful agitation. He was persuaded that by a moral force resistance,
they would eventually overcome the iniquity. He was convinced that if they
showed a bold front — if they told the Government that there was an
unparalleled injustice perpetrated on the inhabitants of Edinburgh — with the
exception of the town of Montrose — they would be successful in getting
exempted from it.”
These sentiments are highly creditable to the learned Professor; they were
warmly applauded by the meeting, and encouragingly indicate an advance
towards the views and the practice of our Society; and we do sincerely trust,
that should any Friends in Edinburgh be called upon to suffer after a similar
fashion, they may be enabled to “adhere stedfastly to the original grounds of
our testimony; not allow themselves,” in the words of the
Book of Discipline, page 260, “to be led away by
any feelings of party spirit, or suffer any motives of an inferior character
to take the place of those which are purely Christian. May none amongst us
shrink from the faithful and upright support of our Christian belief, but
through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ seek after that meek disposition,
in which our Society has uniformly thought it light to maintain this
testimony, and which we desire may ever characterize us as a body.”
Next, from the
Portland Guardian and Normanby General Adviser
(Australia):
“The Established Church of Scotland,” says the Spectator, “is in
very hot water at this moment, in consequence of the wrong-headed policy
which has maintained the Annuity-tax, and which now logically compels the
responsible official functionaries to enforce payment. Strange scenes have
occurred in Edinburgh. An order went forth that the tax should be demanded
from certain persons. Three were pounced upon. Two, a Mr. Fairbain and a Mr.
William Brown, went quietly to gaol, rather than pay. A third, Mr. Hunter,
conceived the brilliant idea of refusing to pay the tax and of offering no
resistance, beyond a passive resistance, to the constables. Forthwith ensued
a scandalous scene of lugging and hauling. Hunter, a heavy person, was
carried out of his shop by the head and feet. Thrust into a hack cab, he lay
on his back with his legs dangling outside. Handcuffs were placed upon him
in order apparently that the chief of the arresting party might obtain a
greater purchase on their passive prisoner. A mob intervened. Resistance to
the law is not a Scotch characteristic. If a felon were apprehended in the
streets of Edinburgh, the mob would, if it were needed, assist in the
capture. But in this case, the phrase ‘arrested for refusing to pay
Annuity-tax,’ roused the passions of a people who have always been ready to
take fire at the sight of what looks like religious persecution. When it was
the fashion to seize the goods of those dissenters who refused to pay the
odious tax, a great array of soldiers and police was required to protect the
auctioneer instructed to sell the goods; and when purchasers could not be
found in Edinburgh, they were sought for and found in Glasgow. Opposition to
the payment of this impost, therefore, is an idea familiar to the minds of
the people of Edinburgh. Moreover, there was an air of novelty in the attempt
to imprison the malcontents. It was deemed a harsh measure to distrain, it is
regarded as odious to arrest. To the multitude, the officers, hauling at the
passive and manacled Hunter as he lay helpless beneath their hands, appeared
somewhat in the light of familiars of some Scottish inquisition. The people
acted on the impulse of the moment, obstructed the constables, and put them
to flight; and we have no doubt it would now require a strong armed force to
arrest the man in broad daylight. He therefore goes free; but we hear that
the constables are on the alert each night to catch the marked men; and that,
fearing a visit in the dark, these persons quit their homes and sleep abroad.”
Another annuity tax seizure has been made in Edinburgh on behalf of the city
clergy. The victim in this case was Mr. James Millar, an extensive furnishing
ironmonger in Princess street. From Mr. Millar’s residence, Hope-terrace, the
whole dining-room furniture was carried away, even to the carpet, which was
torn off the floor. The goods taken are in value upwards of £150; the tax
refused to be paid is less than £8. “Such,” says the Caledonian Mercury, “is
a specimen of Christian Edinburgh, with its Synod sitting, and its
assemblies, with her Majesty’s representative, about to sit, to further the
cause of Christ and His kingdom.”
“Abolition” as used here was a misnomer, if not a deliberate attempt at
deception, since the act did not abolish the tax, as many had hoped it would,
but instead tried to disguise it by subsuming it within the police tax and
explicitly refraining from itemizing it, as critics quickly pointed out:
By the 11th section it is enacted that the
“increased assessments under the powers of this Act shall not, in the
imposing, levying, or collecting thereof, or in the notices or receipts
relative thereto, be in any way separated or distinguished from the
assessments to be imposed, levied, and collected under the said Edinburgh
Police Act, , and Edinburgh Municipality
Act, .” It will be observed that the only
object of this clause is to conceal from the inhabitants the amount in which
they are assessed for the support of the established clergy…
David Lewis, a member of the Edinburgh town council, testified about the
effects of the Bill that lumped the annuity tax in with the larger police tax.
People who conscientiously resisted the small annuity tax and only paid the
police tax portion found that their entire tax bill was rejected for being
underpaid, and then the sheriff came after them (and penalized them) for the
whole amount. The sheriff had a good motive to do this, as he could then
collect a percentage of the total and keep it for himself.
Q: Just to illustrate the working of the
arrangement, supposing a shop or a house is rated for the police rate at
60l., and the police rate
1s.
3d., that would be
3l.
15s., would it not?
A: Yes.
Q: Then there would be
5s. added for this penny
[annuity tax] which is in dispute?
A: Quite so.
Q: Then for your house, which is rented at
60l., you tender
3l.
15s. for the police, and
you tender all the small rates for registration and everything else, but you
refuse to pay this
5s., unless you are
compelled, for the penny?
A: Yes.
Q: Then the collector gets 12½ per cent. on the
4l., because you have refused
to pay 5s.?
A: Yes.
Q: You offered the town council
3l.
15s., and they would not
take it, but they have taken
3l.
10s. through the sheriff’s
officer — because they never levy the
10s. from the recusants at
all; they cannot recover it, and it is a loss to the city fund, is it not?
A: Quite so; I have a case which illustrates the
question perfectly. One of my neighbour’s (a clergyman) rates come to
2l.
19s.
7d., he refuses to pay this
penny, which amounts to 3s.
4d.; in consequence of refusing
to pay the 3s.
4d., there are expenses to the
amount of
1l.
1s.
4d. charged against him in the
recovery of the 3s.
4d., and the city are charged
12½ per cent. on the entire amount of
2l.
19s.
7d.
The effect of this was that for tax years
, the government pursued 861 tax
refusers (of some 3,475 warrants they issued) in order to try to get £2,981,
of which only £497 were actually being resisted for conscientious reasons. In
order to get this disputed £497 from the resisters, the town paid the
sheriff’s office 12.5% of the total, which is to say, £372. Some of this
included costs of prosecution, which were charged against the resisters:
“although the warrants cost the council only
3d. or
4d. per head,” Lewis testified,
“those who are prosecuted were charged from
1s.
6d. to
2s.
6d. per head; so that we are
making a large profit out of the prosecutions in addition to the enforcement
of the rate.”
Q: Are you personally sure of that fact; because
it is a serious charge to make against the council that they collect money
under false pretenses?
A: I am personally sure of it.
Q: Besides those expenses, am I correct in
assuming that the sheriff’s officer charges all the legal expenses and the
expenses of cartage, and everything of that kind over and above?
A: He does.
Q: And these expenses amount to a very
considerable sum?
A: I should say they average about
10s. where there are no
sales, and from
15s. to
18s. where there are sales,
in addition. There is one statement I should like very particularly to submit;
and it is with regard to a gentleman, a Quaker, one of the most respectable of
our citizens, and I should say one who upon no condition could be objected to
as not having conscientious scruples. His rates amounted to
2l.
18s., the amount which he
disputed was 3s.
3d.; he offered to pay the whole
of the money less the 3s.
3d.; it was repeatedly refused;
the officer carried away goods to the amount of exactly
9l.; (I have the receipt here);
the goods were sold; in conscience he refused to purchase them; and he got
back out of the 9l. the sum of
9d.; so that refusing to pay
3s.
3d., cost him
8l.
19s.
3d.
Lewis also testified about the solidarity area businesses were exhibiting
with the tax strikers and against the government seizure-and-sale apparatus:
Q: Does it consist with your knowledge that no
auctioneer could be got to sell the goods?
A: It does.
Q: Does it consist with your knowledge that none
of the dealers in old furniture in Edinburgh will buy the goods that are
exposed?
A: None, to my knowledge
Q: Is it pretty generally arranged that somebody
buys them at the Cross?
A: Yes; in many cases there is such an
arrangement.
Q: Does it consist with your knowledge that
there has been great difficulty in getting any carter to hire his cart for
carrying away the property?
A: Yes.
Q: In point of fact, were the council checkmated
in their efforts to get a carter?
A: They were.
Q: You know that personally?
A: I do.
Q: Can you mention an instance?
A: I may mention that, after two carts had been
engaged belonging to two different parties, there was an action of damages
raised on both occasions against the proprietor of a journal for having
notified the circumstance that these parties had so hired their carts.
Q: It was held to have a damaging influence on
the business of the carters, was it?
A: Yes; these were the points argued in court.
Next interviewed was John Greig, who had been a town council member:
Q: Do you remember the introduction of the lorry
or police cart?
A: I read it in the newspapers.
Q: Has that made a considerable difference in
inducing people to pay?
A: Applying the screw, which has been done very
severely, has had very great effect in bringing in arrears.
Thomas Menzies, a dissenter, was questioned next.
Q: Was there a feeling among the Dissenters so
strong against the tax, that it induced some of them to leave the Council,
and prevented others from coming forward as candidates at the municipal
elections?
A: That was very striking indeed, in the case of
such men as Bailie Russell, Bailie Grieve, Ex-Counsellor Burns, and other
distinguished Dissenters, who retired from the Council rather than administer
the Act.
Q: Until the last year, has it prevented others
from coming forward as candidates for the vacant wards?
A: Most decidedly there has been great difficulty
in getting voluntary Dissenters to go into the Council, and in consequence of
voluntary Dissenters not going into the Council, the Free Church dissenters
have found great difficulty in carrying out this measure in the Council, and
many of the most influential of them also retired.
Q: Have great complaints been made in consequence
of expensive prosecutions being brought forward in the Court of Sessions
against parties?
A: An intense feeling of indignation has been
roused at the selection of some of our most distinguished citizens, and
dragging them into the Court of Session. We felt that we were under
persecution, and as to two of the parties in particular, subscriptions were
raised to mark our indignation at such a mode of prosecuting Dissenters. I
refer particularly to the late Thomas Russell, who when the money was
presented to him, said, “We shall give it to the Annuity Tax League, to
enable them to carry out their operations in the abolishment of the tax.”
Q: When was that?
A: That was in . A similar sum was raised for Mr. M‘Laren, of Saint Andrew’s
Hotel, and the expenses in each of those cases were from
27l. to
30l. Mr. M‘Laren was dragged
into Court the year following, and very summarily dealt with, because Mr. Caw
would not take the money, unless it was immediately presented to him,
although a very respectable citizen; Mr. Dixon, of the firm of Knox, Samuel,
and Dixon had offered him the money. The furniture was taken away; his
dining-room was left almost empty; and he spent to the extent of between
30l. and
40l. in pleading for redress
before the sheriff. He employed Mr. Trainer as his advocate.
Q: Do you know the result of the application to
the sheriff?
A: The sheriff decided against Mr. M‘Laren, and
he had, of course, to pay all costs.
Q: What was the amount for which he was sued?
A: I could not get the accounts before I came up,
and I am ignorant of the expense.
Q: Was it a large sum?
A: In the first prosecution, between
20l. and
30l.
Q: In that case was there a distraint?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you know that 52 police officers were
employed to distrain?
A: I have seen police officers in great numbers,
in several detachments, waiting on these sales, in quiet corners.
Q: Has any action been taken against you for the
recovery of your arrears?
A: Yes; I was summoned to the Sheriff’s Court for
three years’ arrears, and a decree was obtained against me, but no action has
been taken, and those three years’ arrears are still in my hands; I tendered
to the sheriff’s clerk, the police tax proper; the sum for the clerical tax
is 4s.
2d. Previously to this, I also
tendered it to Mr. Thomson, the collector, by a draft on the bank, and the
same to Mr. Saunders, who was employed as his agent. I have their respective
letters, showing that I have done so, but it was refused, because I would not
pay the clerical portion of the tax.
Q: Did you ask for a discharge for the whole
amount, or were you willing to acknowledge that a balance remained?
A: In the year that partial payments were agreed
to be paid I had not signed a document that it was due, because I considered
the tax to be unconstitutionally put on, and that we ought to protest against
such measures being thrust upon the community.
Q: Did the sheriff’s officer come to your house
and carry off your things?
A: He did.
Q: When?
A: ; he carried
off a hair-cloth sofa, and a hair-cloth easy chair, which I purchased back.
We were in the habit at these sales for the clerical portion of the tax, of
allowing our furniture to be taken as a protest. The auctioneer and sheriff
officer who are one person (Mr. Caw) put them up slump, and put this out of
my power, so that we could not make our protest so decidedly on that point.
Q: What do you mean by “slump?”
A: Instead of putting them up singly he put them
up in one lot.
Q: You have stated that you have always taken a
deep interest in this class of questions; did that induce you to go and see
several of the sales?
A: Yes, it induced me to go to the sales under
the small debts summons at the house of the parties to sympathise with them.
Q: Were you present at a sale at the house of Mr.
Hope, a wholesale merchant in West Preston-street?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you state briefly what you saw?
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: Was there a strong body of police present in
case, of an outbreak?
A: Not so many on this occasion as on succeeding
occasions. They gradually increased.
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.
Q: Were you present at a sale of Mr. Stewart’s
furniture, in Rankeillor-street in ?
A: I was.
Q: Did anything of the same kind occur?
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.
Q: Was the officer (Mr. Caw) then present?
A: Mr. Caw and his assistants.
Q: Were you present at the sale at Mr. Adair’s
hotel?
A: I was. That produced great sensation in the
city. The whole of the Highstreet between
St. Giles’s Cathedral and Tron
Church was crowded. I am not a great judge of numbers, but I should say there
were from 5,000 to 10,000 people. There was a miller’s cart passing, and some
of the policemen were powdered with flour out of the bags by the public.
Q: Is Mr. Adair a Roman Catholic?
A: Yes. I was present at that sale, and Mr.
Linton, the superintendent of police, ordered me to be pulled out; but Mr.
Adair protected me in his house, and I was allowed to remain. They carried
off a sofa, a piano, and a picture to the police office. In that case Mr.
Adair was able to give his protest.
Q: What were you doing at the time the
superintendent of police ordered you to be taken out?
A: Quietly observing the sale.
Q: Were many complaints made of the rough way in
which the police acted on those occasions?
A: Very many complaints, because the inhabitants
were very severely handled at these sales, and pulled out of the rooms by the
policemen; and even when there was room for them, as at Mr. M‘Laren’s sale,
they would not allow them to enter; and at Mr. Musgrove’s sale only six were
allowed to enter.
Q: You were also present at Mr. Musgrove’s sale?
A: Yes, but I was refused admittance; although it
is a large shop, and will hold 150 persons, Mr. Musgrove had cleared away all
his counters, being afraid of damage to his haberdashery goods, and yet only
six people were allowed to go in, and the policemen stopped the right of the
public to get in.
Q: Is Mr. Musgrove an intimate friend of your own?
A: A very intimate friend.
Q: And the police would not allow you to go into
the house and witness the sale?
A: No.
Q: Practically the police prevented people from
bidding by excluding all but six?
A: Yes; and I saw them refuse another gentleman
besides myself. I tried it again, but was refused again.
Q: Were you present at Mr. Dun’s, iron merchant,
in Blair-street, when his effects were distrained?
A: Yes: I saw sledge hammers and other
instruments there to open the premises and get at the goods, but after
labouring for half an hour or more they could not effect an entrance.
Q: Was that because Mr. Dun used some of the
metal in which he was a dealer to barricade his premises?
A: Yes; tons of metal were put up against the
back door, and it was impossible for them to get in. On the second occasion
they got the goods after removing about ten tons of iron from the top of
them; but they disputed the things, and Mr. Dun threw them out, and I saw
children running away with copper springs, and tossing about sheets of brass.
Q: You were present at the sale at Mr. M‘Laren’s
hotel, in St. Andrew’s-street?
A: Yes.
Q: Will you briefly describe the state of matters
there?
A: That sale reminded me a good deal of the
features of the former annuity tax agitation, when the cavalry and infantry
were turned out in Hanover-street; although there were no such accompaniments
on this occasion, the interest of the public was very great, and so great was
it, that when a sofa (for in this case the protest was to allow the clerical
portion to be sacrificed), when a sofa was thrown out by the crowd it was
burned, and continued to burn half an hour, large crowds occupying each side
of the street, and creating a very great sensation; and this is close to one
of our great public thoroughferes, Prince’s-street, and at 12 o’clock in the
day.
Q: Were there several thousand people there?
A: Altogether there would not be so many as in
Mr. Adair’s case; I should think 1,500 people.
Q: Did the police act very roughly to the crowd
on that occasion?
A: In driving off, the officers used the whip
very freely, because they always came and went off in cabs.
Q: Do you see any prospect of this feeling being
diminished?
A: By no means; it is getting more intense every
day.
Q: Do you think it will continue to be so as long
as any portion of this tax remains?
A: I have not the slightest doubt of it; it is
not the amount, but it is the principle, which the Dissenters feel.
Q: Do you think, although greater progress was
made last year in collecting the tax by means of that new engine, the lorry,
that indicates any change of feeling?
A: By no means; it has just irritated the public
more and more; and the indignation against the lorry is so intense, that it
has become associated with Treasurer Callender’s name, as the party who
invented it and ordered it, and brought crowbars, and everything connected
with it.
Q: Is the lorry one of those large low carts such
as are used in Manchester, Glasgow, and Liverpool, to take away goods?
A: Four wheel carts, with a large surface.
Q: Is there anything particularly obnoxious in a
cart of that shape?
A: Yes.
Q: It is an English invention, I suppose?
A: It is obnoxious if crowbars and sledge hammers
form part of its fittings.
Q: Is there a contrivance for putting instruments
of war behind it in a chest?
A: Yes.
Q: Crowbars and sledge-hammers?
A: Yes; otherwise the machine is like any other
lorry.
Q: What do you say about the “implements of war”?
A: They are carried in case they are required.
Q: Is there in the lorry a place kept apart for
conveying arms?
A: I do not think there are any arms; but I
think, on one occasion, our citizens were threatened with arms from one of
the officers, but I do not suppose they carried any.
Q: Perhaps they attacked the officer?
A: No; there was some altercation, and the
indignation was so great that they came to high words.
And later, under the more hostile questioning of Major Cumming Bruce:
Q: Do you consider that the proceeding in
resisting this tax, which you have described in your evidence, favourable to
the spread of true religion and morality?
A: I think so.
Q: And in accordance with the spirit of Christian
religion?
A: Yes.
Q: Then you consider that any minority of people,
however small, are entitled to resist a law passed by the Legislature of the
country?
A: Not to resist it with violence, but to take
the spoiling of their goods joyfully.
Q: Do you consider they took the spoiling of
their goods joyfully when the police were called in and the peace of the city
endangered?
A: I assure you that the Voluntaries of Edinburgh
have sacrificed large sums of money, and it has cost them a great deal to
resist this tax.
Q: My question was, whether you considered they
took the spoiling of their goods joyfully when the police were called in, and
the peace of the city endangered?
A: I believe it will bring about a happy
termination of this iniquitous tax system.
Q: Then you consider that the end justifies the
means?
A: Not to use violence, but simply to submit to
the penalty of the law.
Q: According to your own statement, was there not
violence used?
A: Not that I witnessed, although I was told
there was some riot.
Q: Do you believe that report which was told you?
A: Yes; I saw one of them, a Sabbath-school
teacher, taken along the street with his coat off, irritated by the officer,
and he was carried to the police office. I cannot explain how the thing
happened; but the officer was blamed for irritating and first attacking.
Q: There was a certain going on?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you consider that a minority, however
small, were justified in resisting a law which was passed by the Imperial
Legislature of this country?
A: On the same principle that John Hampden
resisted a law, when it was unconstitutionally put on.
Q: By violence?
A: Submit to the penalty, but not by violence.
Q: You cited the case of John Hampden as
analogous. Are you aware what it was John Hampden resisted?
A: He resisted ship-money, because it had been
put on by the king, and not by the Parliament.
Q: In this case there is an Act of Parliament by
the Legislature of the country, and an act having the force of law by the
decision of the Legislature of the country. In John Hampden’s case, was it
the law which he resisted, or was it merely a tax levied by the despotic
authority of the king?
A: Perfectly so, and in this case it has been
despotically put on.
Q: In this case the Act was passed through both
Parliaments?
A: Yes.
Q: Then there is no sort of analogy with the
resistance of ship-money which had been ordered to be levied by the king’s
authority?
A: To my mind things pass through Parliament, and
are put into Acts of Parliament which are not facts; for instance, that Act
states that which is not the fact, because it states that it is an abolition
of the annuity tax.
Q: I ask you whether you consider the case of
John Hampden’s resistance founded upon an illegal act of the king a parallel
case?
A: Not quite parallel, but there is some parallel
between them.
Sheriff Clerk Kenmure Maitland was examined next. He was one of the
authorities who attended some of the auctions of seized goods. Early in his
testimony he quoted from some of the newspaper announcements of these auctions
as a way of explaining why he expected trouble:
Rouping for Ministers’ Money. Come and see. R.H. Whitten selling off. East
Preston-street. .
Poinding for the Clerico-Police Tax. — Instructions to the Public. — In order
to defeat the illegal attempts made to roup the goods of Dissenters for
payment of ministers’ stipends, without notice of day or hour given, and
without, therefore, the possibility of a real sale being effected, it is
recommended that so soon as the goods are poinded, the individuals to whom
they belong should have a placard printed, in terms like the following, and
posted at their doors: “Poinded for Clerico-Police Tax.” “Goods to be sold
here for city clergy, on [give day when notice expires], or following days,
between 12 and 3.” “Who’ll buy. Shame! Shame! to so outrage Dissenters and
religion!”
In cases where the door may not be suitable, it is recommended that a black
flag, bearing the notice or suitable inscription, be suspended from the
windows, so as to be generally seen. It is also suggested that in the event
of an attempted sale, the proprietors of the goods should bid to the full
amount of the police portion of his tax on the first article put up, whether
that article be worth 10s.
or 10l., leaving the
clerico-police portion to be satisfied in whatever way the officers of the
law find themselves best able to effect it.
Efforts being made in the name of religion and law to sacrifice goods by a
mock sale, or sale without due notice, corresponding efforts must be made in
the same name to secure the utmost publicity, and as large an attendance as
possible.
To this end it may be worthy of consideration whether the doors of the houses
in which the sales are to take place should not be kept locked till they are
unlocked by the sheriff officers. This process of unlocking the doors by the
police officers will excite the attention of the general public, and an
opportunity thus afforded of a fair sale taking place.
Robbery and Religion. — Fellow citizens, the furniture of one of your number
is to be sold by public roup, at 4, Rankeillor-street, on
, for the behoof of the city clergy. As the
effects have been poinded at less than one-sixth of their real value, it is
expected that those who “love justice and hate robbery” will be in time to
ensure a vigorous competition.
Christians are informed that, among other valuable articles, there is a
beautiful engraving of the “Last Supper of Christ and his Apostles” (name of
auctioneer unknown).
Another example was given in an appendix:
“To your Tents, O Israel.” — Anti-Clerico Police Tax.
He also describes some of the tactics of auction disruption used by the
resisters and their supporters:
A: On the first sale that I attended at Mr.
Hope’s in Prestonstreet, I only took two or three police officers with me,
and they were in plain clothes to make as little show as possible; but we
were very much obstructed in carrying out that sale; we were hustled and
rudely used by the crowd, and there was a great deal of noise during the
sale. Mr. Whitten, the auctioneer for sheriff’s sales, was so much
inconvenienced and intimidated that he refused to take any more of those
sales. At the second sale, I arranged with Mr. Linton, the superintendent of
police, that he should have a body of police in attendance in case I should
require to send for them, and I considered that necessary in the case of the
sale in Rankeillor-street.
Q: What took place at the sale in
Rankeillor-street?
A: On proceeding there, 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. I said that I should send for
the police to clear the place, if they did not allow me to carry out the
sale. They hooted and jeered again. I sent for Mr. Linton, and he brought the
police. There was a good deal of opposition to the police at the head of the
stairs, and it looked a little serious for a time. The stairs are protected
on the outside by a banister and railing, and that banister and railing gave
way in a dangerous manner. I was afraid if the resistance was maintained
there might be an accident or a breach of the peace, and I sent for the
sheriff. Before he arrived, Mr. Linton and his assistants had ejected the
most troublesome into the street, and the sale was being carried out when the
sheriff arrived.
Q: Did you see on that occasion any of those
persons whose faces had become familiar to you?
A: Some of the parties there had been at the
former sale, and I noticed them again at subsequent sales.
Q: Was that the most serious of the obstructions
that you met with?
A: It was; because after that sale the police
went down beforehand, and kept the door pretty clear, so that we could get in
without obstruction. 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.
Q: What is the last sale that took place?
A: Mr. Dunn’s, in Blair-street; I was not present
on the first occasion at that sale, where the officials were defeated in
gaining entrance; Mr. Dunn had barricaded the door of the room where the
poinded effects were, so that an entrance could not be had. My deputy was
there, and the other officials; they gave the matter up, and reported that
they could not get in. Sometime afterwards the warrant was attempted again; I
went down myself on that occasion; I found that the room where the poinded
goods were was filled up to above the centre of the room with boxes filled
with plates of iron of immense weight. We were told that the poinded goods
were lying beneath those, and that we might get at them as we could. I sent
for labourers, and had the whole of those boxes removed into the front shop
until I got access, after great trouble, to the sheets of brass, which were
the poinded articles. These were then declared by the sheriff officers to be
of a different description, and inferior to what they had previously poinded;
they refused to take them; and the only articles they recognised were some
coils of copper wire; those they took to the police office, and those were
all that were obtained on that occasion. Mr. Dunn afterwards settled the
amount due by him. That was the last sale that was carried out under
proceedings at common law; after that sale the summary form of application
was adopted, and has been found to work well, I should say principally
because the parties who refused to pay on presentment of the summary
application having now no notice of the exact day or hour their goods are to
be taken, have no opportunity of getting up a scene; and the expense is
certainly less to them under the summary form than under the other mode of
proceeding.
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.
The report then quoted, in one of its appendices, from a paper submitted by a
public meeting in Edinburgh which said in part:
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.
It’s been a while since I’ve dug into the archives to hunt for information on how tax resistance was used in the British Women’s Suffrage Movement.
Here is a very early example, as reported by the Buffalo (New York) Express on :
London, — Miss Muller [Henrietta Müller, I think —♇], a member of the London School Board for the Lambeth District, is the first woman in England to pose as a martyr in the cause of woman suffrage.
She has undertaken in her own person to prove her devotion to the principle “No taxation without representation.”
Miss Muller is a leader of the Woman Suffragists, and was one of the first to propose, during the pendency of Mr. Woodall’s amendments to the Franchise bill, that women throughout the kingdom should form societies to resist the payment of taxes until the franchise should be extended to women householders.
When Mr. Woodall’s amendment was so overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Commons the ardor of the ladies perceptibly cooled, and but little has lately been heard of the proposed tax-resistance societies and defense fund.
Miss Muller, however, never wavered, and when the rate collector made his rounds this year she promptly and absolutely refused to pay a farthing for taxes upon her house.
This is situated in the fashionable precincts of Cadogan Square.
The collector argues and implored in vain, and finally distrained a portion of the furniture in Miss Muller’s residence in satisfaction of the levy.
was set for the execution of the writ, and Miss Muller, far from relenting to save her property, publicly advertised the date of the seizure, and invited the women of England to come and witness the disgraceful spectacle of a woman being robbed by the minions of the law because she dared to ask for a voice in the disposition of her taxation.
The invitation was accepted by hundreds of well-dressed but excited and indignant women, who crowded into Cadogan Square and nearly mobbed the bailiffs while they were removing the lares and penates from the Muller residence.
An indignation meeting was afterward held in Miss Muller’s drawing-rooms and many bitter and vehement denunciations of the tyranny and injustice of the law were indulged in.
Miss Muller was visited by a Cable News correspondent, and was found to be full of fight and determination to continue in her resistance.
She is a small and slender but sinewy woman of about forty-five, and gives one the impression of a veritable volcano of temper and pluck.
She sadly bewailed the seizure by the minions of the law of her favorite belongings, and said that the wretches had purposely picked out those articles which were most cherished by her on account of their associations and overlooked others of greater value.
“But,” she added, “they did not collect the rates, and they never will if they rob me of every stick of my furniture and pull the doors and windows out of my house.
I shall continue this fight if I am the only woman left in England to do so, but I hope and believe that thousands of English women will be found brave enough to follow my example.”
A paragraph of unsigned editorial commentary accompanied that piece:
The Smith sisters [Abby & Julia] of Glastonbury, Ct., who struggled so hard for the principle of “no taxation without representation,” now have an imitator in England.
The Smith sisters regularly refused to pay their taxes because they could not vote, and as regularly saw their cows sold by the tax collector, they protesting but bidding them in.
Miss Muller, the English woman who is following the same principle, lives in a fashionable quarter of London.
She witnessed the carting off of some of ber choicest furniture by the minions of the law, and invited several hundred other women to be present and witness the outrage.
It was no doubt a touching spectacle.
Our cable special clearly shows that Miss Muller was very mad.
But the public will refuse to sympathize very profoundly with a reform martyr of that sort.
Women suffrage may be advisable, though some of us do not believe in it.
But the policy of trying to reform the laws by refusing to obey them is certainly not the height of wisdom.
My next example is a brief note from the Camperdown Chronicle:
Women can refuse, as Mrs Montefiore is again doing, to pay income tax so long as they remain unenfranchised, on the old historic ground that “Taxation without representation is tyranny.”
If resistance, passive or active, ever can be justified, it assuredly is so justified in the case and cause of injured and insulted womanhood.
—“Ignota.” in “Westminster Review.”
From the Albany Advertiser:
Resistance Overcome.
London, .
The widow of Sir James Steel, a former Lord Provost of Edinburgh, refused to pay house or property tax on the ground that she is denied a vote.
A portion of her furniture was sold by auction to cover the amount of the tax.
Five thousand persons were present at the sale.
At first I thought that must be referring to Flora Annie Steele, but she was never married to a James Steel[e].
Turns out this was Barbara Joanna Steel.
She promoted tax resistance in 1907 to the Edinburgh National Society for Woman’s Suffrage, telling them:
On the ground that the franchise has not been extended to women, and she is therefore without a vote, the widow of Sir James Steel, a former Lord Provost of Edinburgh, lately refused to pay her house and property taxes.
The authorities thereupon ordered the sale by auction of a sufficient portion of Lady Steel’s household furniture to meet the demand of the tax collector, and the sale was held in the presence of 5,000 people.
A boycott of the census is (says the “Daily Chronicle” of ) to be the latest method of the militant suffragists for calling attention to their claims to the vote.
The announcement was made by Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard at a “King’s Speech meeting” of the Women’s Freedom League, held in the Caxton Hall.
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.
Tax resistance is to be another method of obstruction, and Mrs. Despard, who has already been “sold up” twice for refusing to pay taxes, produced a third summons to which she intimated that she would pay no attention.
A diamond ring, the property of the Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, seized because she refused to pay fines inflicted for failing to take out licenses for five dogs, a male servant, and a carriage, was sold by auction at Ashford (Middlesex) lately.
It was explained that the princess, as a member of the Women’s Tax Resistance league, refused to pay money to a Government which failed to give women representation in Parliament.
The ring was sold for £10, and was subsequently, on behalf of the league, returned to the princess.
London, — The first instance of a suffragist being committed to prison for non-payment of taxes as a protest against the disfranchisement of women occurred when Miss Clemence Housman, an authoress, and sister of Lawrence Houseman, was taken to Holloway Gaol by the Sheriff’s officer.
Similar protests have previously ended in distraint but Miss Houseman had no distrainable goods and was accordingly committed.
Miss Houseman, who belongs to the Women’s Social and Political Union and is on the committee of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, refused to pay for the taxicab in which she was taken to prison and the Sheriff’s officer paid the fare of $2,50, which curiously enough was the amount of the tax she originally declined to pay.
The monotony of purely educational work for woman suffrage has been enlivened by the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Miss Clemence Housman, writes an English correspondent, for non payment of the habitation tax.
Miss Housman a year ago refused to pay this tax, which was only 4/6 (1.10 dollar), and during the year has had sundry notices served upon her, the cost of which brought the amount up to between twenty five and thirty dollars.
The Government offered to compromise, but Miss Housman remained firm.
At length she received notice that she would be arrested on a certain day.
This was made the occasion by the Tax Resistance League of a protest meeting and a tea at the home of Miss Housman’s brother, Lawrence Housman, the noted dramatist and noted suffragist, for Mr. Housman is always speaking and writing for this cause and has thoroughly identified himself with it as his own.
The “John Hampden” dinner was the name under which the members of the “Women’s Tax Resistance League” gave a dinner recently in London.
At the end of the dining hall hung a picture of the hero, who resisted the ship money imposition, and on the menu cards appeared the legend, “No vote, no tax.”
The guests included many well-known people interested in woman suffrage, and the speakers, Earl Russell, Mrs. Despard, Sir Thomas Barclay, and Mr. Laurence Houseman, all upheld the right of women in refusing to pay taxes while they had no voice in the government of the country.
Miss Green, a member of the New Constitutional Society, and honorary treasurer to the Women’s Tax Resistance League, London, having again refused to pay inhabited house duty for 14 Warwick Crescent, Paddington, her bookcase was sold at Messrs.
Gill’s auction rooms in Kilburn.
Many sympathisers attended the sale, and the usual speech of protest having been made, three cheers were raised for Miss Green before the party left the auction room.
A procession then formed up, headed by a waggon decorated with the colours of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, and an open air meeting was held on the High-road, Kilburn.
Dr. Helen Hanson, who presided, spoke of the special injustice under which the voteless taxpaying women are suffering, and expressed her satisfaction in finding that they are now combining to protest in this way.
I’ve encountered “Miss Green” in the archives a couple of times before, but never with enough information for me to be able to attach a first name to her.
Discovery by Mrs. Mark Wilks Gives Suffragets Brilliant Idea.
Campaign of Sympathy
Wilks in Jail Because His Wife Refused to Pay Her Taxes.
London, . —
Mrs. Mark Wilks, whose husband is in jail because she refuses to pay her taxes, is entitled to immense credit for discovering a new and very formidable weapon for suffragets, members of the Women’s Social and Political Union said .
Suffragets are very generally women of property and will follow Mrs. Wilks’ example.
Their husbands in turn will follow Wilks’ example — go to jail, because they can’t help themselves.
It is not, of course, that the suffragets have anything against their husbands.
Many of these husbands are themselves suffraget sympathizers.
Indeed, suffragets are campaigning to create sympathy for Wilks.
Mrs. Wilks’ discovery is too valuable not to be utilised, however.
Husbands will have to be sacrificed on the altar of votes for women.
The plan will work only in the case of husbands whose wives have independent incomes.
Nor will it work in cases where husbands pay taxes on their wives’ incomes.
Some husbands, like Wilks, have not enough money to pay the taxes.
Suffraget-sympathizing husbands, who can pay, are counted on to refuse to do so.
Thus will a large proportion of Englishmen with suffraget wives be in jail shortly.
The suffragets think the scandal and injustice of it will be a big thing, for them.
Under the married women’s property act a husband has no control over his wife’s property or income.
Under the income tax act, he is responsible for the taxes.
If the taxes are not paid the husband — not the wife — is imprisoned.
Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income tax, $185, and her husband was locked up.
He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless his wife says otherwise or the law is changed.
When at liberty, he is a teacher in the suburb of Clapton.
The arrest and imprisonment “during the King’s pleasure” of Mr. Mark Wilks, the Clapton schoolmaster, who is unable to pay the tax on his wife’s income, is to be the subject of numerous protest meetings, organised by the Women’s Tax Resistance League, during the next few days (said the “Daily News and Leader” on ).
the Wilks campaign opens with a demonstration in Trafalgar Square.
On there will be another mass meeting in Hyde Park, and on a procession will march from Kennington Church to Brixton Gaol, where the central figure in the fight is detained.
In addition, a protest meeting is to be held outside the gaol every morning, and on Mr. Bernard Shaw will address a similar gathering in the Caxton Hall.
Under Two Acts.
A clear and humorous account of the affair was given to a “Daily News and Leader” representative by Mrs. Charles Stansfield; a sister of Mrs. Wilks.
“Mr. Wilks is in prison,” she said, “because he has not got £37 to pay a tax on property he does not own and cannot control.
That is really the whole case.
Under the Income Tax Act the property of his wife is his property for the purposes of taxation, but under the Married Women’s Property Act it is entirely out of his control.
“Every man who is married to a woman with an income of her own is in that position; and if he cannot pay his wife’s taxes he is liable to imprisonment.
It seems to place an enormous weapon in the hands of rich wives.”
It seems that in and Mrs. Wilks refused to make any return of her income either to the Inland Revenue authorities or to her husband, and, in consequence, the furniture, which is hers, was seized and sold.
The Schoolmaster’s Plight.
“In ,” her sister explained, “she claimed that such distraint was illegal, asserting that under the Income Tax Act she, as a married woman, was exempt from taxation.
As a consequence, all taxes charged upon her were withdrawn, and the authorities contented themselves afterwards with making their claim, sometimes on Mr. Wilks, sometimes on both conjointly, and, finally, on him alone.
“All this is interesting,” she added, “as showing the ridiculous position that arises through the operation of the two Acts.
But the serious side of the matter is that Mr. Wilks is in prison for debt, and his position as a master in a London County Council school must be endangered.
He does not know for what period he will be in prison, and he has no possible way of settling the debt.”
Which prompted George Bernard Shaw to wax wittily (from the Barrier Miner):
Mr. G.B. Shaw was the chief speaker at a meeting held in Caxton Hall, London, by the Women’s Tax Resistance League last month, “to protest against the imprisonment of Mr. Mark Wilks for his inability to pay the taxes on his wife’s earned income.”
Sir John Cockburn was in the chair.
Mr. Shaw said that this was the beginning of the revolt of his own unfortunate sex against the intolerable henpecking which had been brought upon them by the refusal by the Government to bring about a reform which everybody knew was going to come, and the delay of which was a mere piece of senseless stupidity.
From the unfortunate Prime Minister downwards no man was safe.
He know of cases in his boyhood where women managed to make homes for their children and themselves, and then their husbands sold the furniture, turned the wife and children out, and got drunk.
The Married Women’s Property Act was then carried, under which the husband retained the responsibility of the property and the woman had the property to herself.
As Mrs. Wilks would not pay the tax on her own income Mr. Wilks went to gaol.
“If my wife did that to me,” said Mr. Shaw, “the very moment I came out of prison I would get another wife.
(Laughter.)
It is indefensible.”
Women, he went on, had got completely beyond the law at the present time.
Mrs. [Mary] Leigh had been let out, but he presumed that after a brief interval for refreshments she would set fire to another theatre.
He got his living by the theatre, and very probably when she read the report of that speech she would set fire to a theatre where his plays were being performed.
The other day he practically challenged the Government to starve Mrs. Leigh, and in the course of the last fortnight he had received the most abusive letters which had ever reached him in his life.
The Government should put an end to the difficulty at once by giving women the votes.
As he resumed his seat Mr. Shaw said — “I feel glad I have been allowed to say the things I have, here to-night without being lynched.”
A resolution protesting against the imprisonment of Mr. Wilks was unanimously carried.
Mr. Zangwill wrote, expressing sympathy with the protest, and said, “Marrying an heiress may be the ruin of a man.”
Anna Stout, wife of the former New Zealand prime minister Robert Stout, gave her opinions of the suffrage movement (as found in the Perth Western Mail), including these remarks:
…the Tax-Resistance League… secured hundreds of converts to the cause.
“Twenty-six million pounds” Lady Stout said, “are paid annually in taxes into the Treasury by English women, and naturally there is much resentment created when the injustice of their not having a voice in the expenditure of it is pointed out to them.
We appeal to their pockets first, but almost invariably find hearts and brains behind them.”
Urges This Method of Getting Jailed for Non-Militant Suffragettes.
The non-militant suffragettes of Britain have decided to “let slip the dogs of war” to help win the cause that window smashing, red pepper distribution, mall destruction, and other gentle forms of militant protest have been ineffective in promoting.
Mrs. [Ethel] Philip Snowden, whose husband is an M.P. for Blackburn, announced on in a talk before the Equal Franchise Society how the dogs were going to be utilized.
Any old dog will do.
Mrs. Snowden herself has a dog, the breed of which she did not mention, and Philip Snowden, M.P., is not responsible for the dog.
Mrs. Snowden herself must pay the license for the dog.
Mr. Snowden, as a Member of Parliament, is responsible for the other taxes of Mrs. Snowden, which she has refused to pay, declaring that taxation without representation is unjustifiable, a sentiment that has been uttered on this continent, but they cannot put Mr. Snowden in jail for the refusal of Mrs. Snowden to pay her taxes, as he is exempted as an M.P..
The proposition of Mrs. Snowden seems to squint at the acquisition by all British maids and matrons of dogs and the refusal of the owners to pay the dog license.
Mr. Snowden, M.P., may not even know that Mrs. Snowden, N.M.S. — non-militant suffragette — has a dog; but she has.
By buying up dogs of all sorts and refusing to pay the licenses the suffragettes may get into jail with facility and honor.
Why place a bomb on the front porch or spread carbolic acid in a mail box, when you may get jugged just as well merely by refusing to pay your dog tax?
Mrs. Snowden commented on the “outrageous incompetence of the Liberal Government” and said she felt that her party no longer could trust its affairs with the Liberals.
The physical force party, Mrs. Snowden said, might destroy the sympathy of the British public.
Mrs. Pankhurst had started a crusade that she could not control.
The doctrine that the end justified the means might wind up with the blowing off of [Prime Minister H.H.] Asquith’s head.
The dodging of the dog tax seemed to Mrs. Snowden the lever with which the non-militants might pry themselves into prison.
The possibilities were large.
Every male member of the audience admitted this.
Think of a lady who had accumulated a pack of hounds refusing to pay the licenses thereon and thus making herself liable to a life sentence!
If one dog sent you to prison for one month, how many months would you be forced to serve if you owned 100 or 200 dogs?
Meanwhile you might put on all the dogs blankets inscribed “Votes for Women” and turn them loose in the Strand to the confusion of the bobbies and Parliament.
Destraint has been levied upon [Mary Russell] the Duchess of Bedford, who, as a protest against the non-enfranchisement of women refuses to pay property tax for the Prince’s Skating Rink, which is owned by her.
The tax is eight months overdue.
(When she first announced that she would resist payment of the tax the Duchess of Bedford said:— “I am very strongly opposed to the militant tactics adopted by a portion of those who are in favour of women’s franchise, and I have therefore taken this, the only course open to me, which appears justifiable, of protesting against the way in which the question of woman suffrage has been treated by the Government.)
This is an interesting example of how the violent tactics of the most militant wing of the British women’s suffrage movement (which make today’s “black bloc” look like the kumbaya chorus) gave the tax resistance movement space to present themselves as the reasonable non-militant alternative.
At this time in the United States, by contrast, tax resistance was considered a far-out militant tactic only adopted by the most radical fringe of the suffragist movement.
Distraint was levied on the Duchess of Bedford for non-payment of taxes due in respect of Prince’s Skating Rink.
A silver cup was taken to satisfy the claim.
The Duchess, who refused to pay the taxes on suffrage grounds, has instructed the Women’s Tax Resistance League to point out that the distraint is quite out of order, because as a married woman she is not liable to taxation.
The assessment or demand not should have been served not upon her, but upon the Duke of Bedford.
“Obviously,” she adds, “it was not my business to point out the law to those duty it should be to understand it.”
Carrie Chapman Catt was an American suffrage activist who felt the need to distance herself from the militant tactics of some of her fellow-strugglers across the pond.
But she had kinder words to say about the tax resisters.
From the New York Sun:
“The non-militant organization that interested me most was the Tax Resistance League, which has an enormous influence in England just now.
I went to the sale of the Duchess of Bedford’s curios, on which she had refused to pay taxes.
A member of the league made a speech along the lines of no taxation without representation which had a familiar Fourth of July sound.
It was expressly stated that this was the Duchess’s manner of protesting against militancy, though I fancy we should have considered it rather militant here.”
“No Vote, No Helping Government,” Is Suffragettes Latest Slogan.
Homes Sold Over Women.
One Firm Soldier of “The Cause” Calm While Husband Languishes in Jail for Her.
London, — The suffrage impasse in England is to be solved by a new and startling campaign.
This is to take the form of resistance to paying taxes — and is to be run by all the militant suffragettes in the kingdom who have homes but no votes.
The militants themselves are already jubilant at the prospect of their success, and are asking what Mr. Lloyd-George can possibly do to make up for this leakage in the revenues of England.
This movement is seriously worrying Lloyd-George, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and those unfortunate and always unwelcome officials — the tax collectors of England.
The women are either going to jail or having their jewelry and furniture distrained upon and sold by public auction, for the settlement of the Government’s claims.
Everyone of these public auction sales, too, is made the occasion for a grand procession of women tax resisters.
They march to the scene of the fray with drums beating and banners and pennons flying.
Some of the best suffrage speakers in the country are rallying to their aid.
Frequently thousands of people surround the auction halls and when the sale is over the “victim of distraint” mounts a platform outside the hall and addresses the multitude on the text “No Vote, No Tax.”
The suggestion that “taxation and representation should go together” and that “taxation without representation is tyranny” evidently appeals to the sense of fair play in a British crowd, so that converts are easily made, money comes rolling in, and propaganda goes merrily on.
Tax Resistance Three Years Old.
The Women’s Tax Resistance League started as a small cloud — no bigger than a man’s hand — in Lloyd-George’s financial sky, about three years ago.
That it has been growing steadily ever since is probably due to the fact that it is continually stirring the imagination and touching the sense of humor of the “man in the street.”
The society has been able to attain such proportions that shortly it will give a preconcerted “signal” to the women householders in every large city and town in England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, causing a general “tax strike.”
Every sympathizer who is a householder will, at a given moment, openly refuse to pay any more imperial taxes until political representation is accorded her.
Some startling developments are likely to follow.
Among the important and extremely active members of the league are the Duchess of Bedford, whose husband owns over 84,000 acres of land and whose collection of pictures at Woburn Abbey is one of the finest and most historic in the world; Princess Sophia Dhulep Sing, an Indian lady, at present in residence in England; Beatrice Harraden, author of “Ships That Pass in the Night,” and Miss Clemence Housman, sister of Laurence Housman, whose fame as an author and artist are recognized in America as well as in his own country.
His “Englishwoman’s Love Letters” made quite a sensation over here some years ago.
All London was agog when it became known that the Duchess of Bedford, aided and abetted by the Women’s Tax Resistance League, had definitely and emphatically refused to pay property tax and house duty on one of her own houses.
People who were not versed in the law speculated as to whether Mr. Lloyd-George would have the courage to order the Duchess to be arrested like an ordinary commoner and dragged off to Holloway Jail, there to endure the rigors of a plank bed and jail fare or to win her freedom by resorting to the hunger strike.
Fortunately, however, such indignities are not necessary in collecting the King’s taxes in England if tax-resisting rebels possess furniture, plate, or jewelry upon which distraint can be made.
Mr. Lloyd-George’s emissaries were therefore able to seize and carry off a beautiful silver trophy cup from the Duchess’ collection of plate, and sell it by public auction.
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, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, the secretary of the league; Mrs. Lilian Hicks, the honorary treasurer, and other Suffrage speakers held forth on the advisability and necessity of every self-respecting woman householder in Great Britain following the Duchess of Bedford’s lead.
Miss Clemence Housman’s Case a Poser.
The case of Miss Clemence Housman was really a “poser” for Mr. Lloyd-George.
It led to a long struggle between the woman and the authorities, and a denouement which was of the nature of an anti-climax for the Government.
The amount in question was an exceedingly small one — about $1 — but Miss Housman, incited and encouraged by the belligerent Tax Resistance League, refused on principle to pay.
As she had no goods on which to distrain, she was herself seized and thrown into Holloway Jail, there to remain until the tax was paid.
When it became evident that Miss Housman was a woman of determination and was quite prepared to spend the rest of her natural existence within the grim walls of Holloway Castle, the authorities reflected that the maintenance of a prisoner thirty or forty years in jail, and the public excitement this would involve, was too expensive and troublesome a method of collecting $1, so the doors of her cell were, after five days, thrown open and Miss Housman emerged a free and triumphant woman.
The most important and sensational event in the history of the tax-resistance movement, however, was the capture by the Government of the unfortunate husband of a woman tax-resister.
The case arose through the refusal of Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, as a Suffragist and tax-resister, to pay the tax levied on her earned income.
On two previous occasions this refusal had been followed by a distraint on her goods, but one of the peculiar anomalies of the income tax law, as distinct from the property tax in England is that, in spite of the Married Woman’s Property Act, a husband can be made liable for his wife’s income tax.
Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, realizing, therefore, that as a married woman she was not really liable to this taxation, informed the authorities that the claim should be sent not to her, but to her husband.
The government fell into the trap and sent the claim to Mark Wilks, a schoolmaster, who immediately declined to pay on the grounds that he had no legal means of ascertaining his wife’s income.
The treasury refused to accept this plea, and after a long correspondence decided to seize the person of Wilks and throw him into jail.
A public agitation was immediately started, among those who made strong protests on the platform and in the press being George Bernard Shaw, Sir John Cockburn, K.C.M.G., the Rt.
Hon. Thomas Lough, M.P., and Laurence Housman, with the result that Wilks, after being several weeks in jail, was suddenly released, no reason being given by the British Home Secretary for this act of clemency and wisdom.
The incident formed excellent subject for jest by all the humorous papers in England, and one of them suggested that now that husbands could be placed in durance vile for the non-payment of their wives’ income tax, it would be an excellent way for women who held the purse strings not only to get rid of lazy and troublesome husbands, but to have them maintained at the expense of the state!
Another ingenious form of protest adopted by women tax-resisters has been to refuse admission to the officials of the Inland Revenue who came to seize the goods, barricading their homes against the intruders.
Mrs. Dora Montefiore, a well-known Australian Socialist, was the first to adopt this novel method, and several others have since followed her example, the last being Mrs. [Kate] Harvey, whose house has been barricaded for months past.
Mrs. Harvey decided to resist Mr. Lloyd George’s insurance tax, and also refused to pay her gardener’s license.
In the meantime she took the precaution of getting a bill of sale on her furniture, so that the authorities, balked in every direction of their prey, have now seized the lady herself and committed her to jail for two months.
A vigorous agitation for her release is going on, and it is confidently expected that within a few days Halloway’s portals will again open wide and that a huge mass meeting already being organized, in Trafalgar Square, will publicly welcome her back to the arms of her fellow tax-resisters.
Primitive but effective means were resorted to by a bailiff, who, acting on a distraint order, sought to enter the house of a leading suffragette.
The lady in question was Mrs. Kate Harvey, of the Women’s Freedom League.
She had declined to pay taxes, and was being supported in her resolve by Mrs. Charlotte Despard, the well-known president of the league.
Mrs. Harvey resides in “Brackenhill,” a large mansion in Highland road, Bromley (Kent).
Failing to gain an entrance to the house, the bailiffs procured a battering ram, and, with the assistance of the police, accomplished his purpose at the end of two hours by smashing in the front door.
[Mrs. Harvey has for years been an ardent exponent of tax resistance.
In her goods were seized and sold for inhabited house duty, and her residence was barricaded against the King’s officers for eight months, entry by force being a last effected under a warrant.
On the same date Mrs. Harvey was sentenced to distraint or seven day’s imprisonment for a tax unpaid on a male servant.
Her companion, Mrs. Despard, has served two terms of imprisonment.]
Considerable difficulty attended the levying of a distress upon the goods of Mrs. Harvey, of the Tax Resistance League; at Bromley, Kent, on Tuesday.
Upon the arrival of a tax collector, a bailiff, and a police sergeant, they found the outer gate locked and the doors of the house barricaded.
The gate offered little obstruction, but to get the door of the house open was a difficult matter.
Finally, after a heavy beam was used as a battering ram, the door went in with a crash.
The door, however, led only to a narrow passage, where a still more obstinate door barred the way.
A crowbar, battering ram, and a small jemmy were here brought into use, but even with those it was nearly half an hour before the door, almost splintered, gave way.
Later, the hall was entered, where the tax collector was met by Mrs. Harvey and Mrs. Despard.
Here was little furniture visible, and it was not until a locksmith had forced the door of the dining room that the bailiff was able to place his levy upon goods.
The amount of the tax, it is understood, is about £15.
The remaining articles concern the resistance of Sophia Duleep Singh.
First, from the New York Herald:
Sophia Duleep Singh, of Woman’s Tax Resistance League, Refusing to Pay, Loses Gems.
A pearl necklace and a gold bangle studded with pearls and diamonds, belonging to Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, have been seized to satisfy fines and costs of about $80, which she was ordered to pay for keeping a carriage, a groom and two dogs without a license.
The jewels will be sold at a public auction.
The Princess is a member of the Woman’s Tax Resistance League.
Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, of Faraday House, Hampton Court, made her second appearance at Feltham Police Court, Middlesex, on .
She is a member of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, and was summoned for keeping a male servant, a carriage, and two dogs without licences.
The Magistrate imposed fines of £5 each in respect of the groom and carriage, and £1 5/ for each of the dogs, with costs amounting, to 18/.
Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, of Faraday House, Hampton Court, saw her jewels seized under a distress warrant rather than pay fines and costs amounting to over £16 for keeping a groom, a carrage, and two dogs without licences.
By order of the Justices of the Spelthorne Division of Middlesex, the jewels were offered for sale by public auction at the Twickenham Town Hall on .
The auctioneer (Mr. Alaway) explained that the jewels seized by the police consisted of a necklace, with 131 pearls, and a gold bangle, with a heart-shaped pendant, with a diamond centre surrounded with pearls.
He was proceeding with the sale when Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, who occupied a seat in the front of the hall, rose, and exclaimed:— “I protest against this sale, seeing it is most unjust to women that they should be compelled to pay unjust taxes, when they have no voice in the government of the country.”
The bidding started at £6, and when it had reached £10 the lot was knocked down to Miss Gertrude Eaton, a member of the Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Bidding for the gold bangle started at £5, and only two other bids being received, it was sold to the same lady for £7.
In the Washington Herald, Clara Bewick Colby continued her impressions of the British women’s suffrage movement with a note on tax resistance:
There is a league existing for this very purpose to enroll women who are willing to have their property sold for taxes.
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.
Not of American Origin.
I always felt at home on these occasions as I saw the familiar mottoes ranged around.
I had supposed they were of American origin, as we had quoted them in our suffrage work; but I found that all the principles embodied in our Declaration of Independence belonged to an earlier struggle for freedom which had been won on British soil, and exactly the same as the women are waging now.
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.
The object lesson of the sale and the subsequent meeting on the street corner or in the nearest park carries the message to an outlying part of London, and to a people who otherwise would know nothing of the agitation.
The discrimination which the government shows on every hand is apparent in this matter of seizing goods, for some are never annoyed for their delinquent taxes, while others are pounced upon with severity.
The league makes resistance systematic and effective so that no effort is lost.
Sometimes no one will bid for the sufragist’s property and they carry it home again, but the government cannot seize it for that assessment.
Of all forms of militancy this is most logical, and it is one that women might well adopt everywhere, as it was inaugurated in America when the Smith sisters of Glastonbury, Conn., allowed their New Jersey cows to be sold year after year under protest.
Mrs. Despard, sister of Gen. Sir John French, who is president of the Woman’s Freedom League, has been sold out repeatedly, until she has around her only the barest necessaries of life.
There is an imperial tax for the non-payment of which the person and not the property is seized.
Miss Housman, sister of the distinguished dramatist, Lawrence Houman, lives with him, but owns a little property subject to the imperial tax.
It was only a trifle — four and six ($1.05) — but she refused to pay.
Various processes were served upon her until the sum had grown to about $15. She was warned repeatedly by the officer that she would be arrested if she did not pay, but she was obdurate.
At length the officer arrived to escort Miss Housman to Holloway jail.
He was very polite and took her in a taxi, which cost exactly the sum of the original tax.
(Here it would have been for that distance the sum of the tax and costs).
Miss Housman was from day to day interviewed by various officials to get her to pay her tax, which she declared she had no intention of doing.
The government was in a quandary.
There was a law to put Miss Housman in prison but there was no law to let her out until she paid the tax and costs.
The government offered to knock off the costs and let her off with the original four and six.
Miss Housman was still obdurate.
To all intents and purposes she was in Holloway for life.
To make capital of the situation and to keep up her courage the Tax Resistance League organized a procession to Holloway.
I was extremely glad to be on the spot and able to show that I was not a fair-weather suffragist, for the weather had been perfect on the occasions of the five processions in which I had already taken part in England, and this day was rainy and the streets muddy.
It was a long trudge the four miles to Holloway but many made it, and, lo! when we got in front of the frowning old fortress the meeting that had been planned for protest became one of victory, for the government had weakened and Miss Housman was free.
She was a very quiet, delicate woman who had never taken any other part in the movement, and she made her first suffrage speech this day under the walls of Holloway jail.
Miss Housman has just been called upon by the board of inland revenue to pay arrears on her taxes, and she has again expressed her determination to abide by “plain constitutional duty in refusing consent to taxation without representation.”
There is a general movement among tax resisters to send their dues to one or other by the national funds for relief labeled “Taxes withheld from the government by voteless women.”
Jail Procession Frequent.
How many times had the women gone to Holloway to welcome out the prisoners on the day of their release!
This was before the days of forcible feeding and the hunger strike which has made it necessary to take away the tortured victims in an ambulance and to a nursing home as quickly as possible.
In the earlier days they have often been met with bands, sometimes the horses would be taken off the wagon and young girls would draw it in a triumphal procession.
Then there was breakfast and speaking, and everything to make it a gala occasion.
I was present at one of these breakfasts in Queen’s Hall decorated with flowers and banners and with tables for hundreds.
It was a queer sensation in those days to look upon sweet and ladylike young women — I remember that on this occasion one was the niece of the violinist Joachim — and to know that they had actually been prisoners.
It was not long before they were looked upon as something sacred, as those who had made special sacrifices for the cause, and they wore badges to show that they had been prisoners and in every place were given the post of honor until their numbers mounted up to the hundreds.
One, of their favorite banners bears the inscription:
“Stone walls do not a prison make. Nor Iron bars a cage.”
I came across the poem the other day from which this is taken.
It contains four stanzas, written by Sir Richard Lovelace in prison in the middle of the seventeenth century.
The balance of the stanza quoted is:
“Minds innocent and quiet, take That for a hermitage. If I have freedom in my love. And in my soul am free. Angels alone, that soar above. Enjoy such liberty.”
We shall see in the next paper which will deal with Lady Constance Lytton’s two prison experiences, that this is the spirit that animates women in prison even when undergoing tortures.
They are upheld by a sense of devotion to a great cause, and they feel that they are enduring this for the sake of all women.
With such consecration there often comes to such prisoners a development of spirit that is truly marvelous.
All ordinary values have slipped away and the sense of personality is lost in the new sense of solidarity.
They are at one with all the suffering women and the wronged women of the past and of the present.
I never talked with one who regretted having gone through the tortures of the prison.
They are the birth-pangs of the new age.
Rides in the Wagon.
From this wonderful breakfast and the inspiring speaking I was privileged to ride with the group that accompanied the released prisoners to the suffrage headquarters.
Notwithstanding that the young girls dressed in white and harnessed to the wagon with their green, white and purple ribbons, had drawn the six women all the way from Holloway, they gaily took up the march and drew the wagon the additional two miles to St. Clement’s Inn.
There was one young woman not released with the rest because she had infringed a prison regulation and had written a letter to her mother.
She was to be out a week later, and the same demonstration was made for her, only varied with elaborate use of the Scotch heather which gave the colors of the Union, white, purple and green.
Again the girls drew the wagon from Holloway and the young Scotch woman who was being escorted away in triumph bore a banner with the words (warning Mr. Asquith) “Ye mauna meddle with the Scotch thistle, laddie.”
Today, some notes about a successful organized tax resistance movement in
South Australia.
The Great Confederated Anti-Dray and Land Tax League of South Australia formed
in to fight taxes
associated with a recently-enacted Road Act. The League felt the taxes were
excessive; oppressive to poor farmers while exempting rich merchants, mine
owners, and bankers; had been imposed by a non-representative government body;
and operated largely for the benefit of land-holders who were also members of
the board that was imposing the tax and designing the road system.
Wells proposed a big demonstration at the Government House. Mr. [William?]
Parker reminded people of a successful resistance to taxes in Van Diemen’s Land
. Mr. Sutherland brought
up “the example of the heroic Americans in resisting the famous Stamp Act, and
threw the tea into Boston harbour.” The example of John Hampden in England was
also brought up as precedent.
Mr. [Thomas?] Wilson said the he thought “[t]he best plan was [for the League]
to subscribe ample funds, and defend any case in any district, in which the
Commissioners were so ill-advised as to proceed to extremities.”
The League announced itself with the following declaration, which gives you an
idea of how seriously they took the matter:
Fellow Colonists— In venturing to put forth this address to you, our aim and
object is, to encourage the faint and feeble-minded, and to stimulate to
still greater exertion the zealous and persevering. We have expatriated
ourselves from our native land, and embarked on the vast field of colonial
enterprise, with a view to reap a more liberal reward for our toil and
exertions. We have severed the ties both of paternal and fraternal affection,
which bind together the children to the parents and brothers and sisters to
each other. We have severed the ties of early friendship and denied ourselves
the pleasure of the company of those we dearly love.
We have left our native land in consequence of the overgrowth of its
population, its vast competition, and its enormous taxation, to seek in this
our adopted land a home for ourselves and our children, free from the immense
burthens of the parent state, where we might enjoy in all its plenitude the
fruits of our labour, see our families grow up to manhood enjoying the
freedom purchased by us by the sacrifice of our own early affections, and in
the decline of life to know and feel we are amply repaid for the sacrifice we
made by seeing our children and our children’s children enjoy the blessings
of peace, plenty, and freedom.
Fellow Colonists— How are our hopes likely to be realized? Already have the
few irresponsible legislators of this our adopted land — not content with a
treasury full to repletion — commenced a system of oppression and misrule,
unparalleled in the history of British legislation, if we except the
oppressive poll tax. The introduction of a system of direct taxation by an
irresponsible Government, with a revenue already yielding an excess equal to
forty thousand pounds a-year, cannot but excite the indignation of every
lover of freedom in the colony.
What, Fellow Colonists! shall we who have laboured to give both birth and
life to this flourishing colony — who have been buoyed with hope during its
struggles in infancy — who have suffered privations to give stability and
energy during the period when many, through fear, deserted it — shall we,
therefore, tamely submit to the mad freaks of this unconstituted few — shall
we bow our neck to the yoke, and see vanish into thin air the hopes which
have buoyed us up against all adversities? We should be undeserving the name
we bear if we did. Russian or Turk would be a more becoming name than
Britons. We should deserve the execration of every free nation, and the
curses of our own offspring.
But rather let us say, We dare and will be free. We will not submit to
misrule or oppression in any form, whether unconstituted or not. Let us to a
man join in denouncing and opposing the attempt to saddle us with imposts and
burthens beyond all precedent. Let us imitate the example set us by the Cape
colonists. Let us league in opposition to the odious and unjust measure, and
rally around the Standard already erected, viz., “No
Taxation without Representation.”
Fellow Colonists, be true to yourselves and to your families; join with us in
opposition to this odious and unjust measure; and be assured that nothing can
withstand the united voice of a united people. The Associations already
formed in various Hundreds, and now through the Delegates assembled, resolved
into one Grand League in opposition to all Taxation without Representation.
The League now formed has for its object a legal opposition only; but if not
attended with the success the unanimous voice of a free people deserve, we
are disposed to take such steps as shall secure that freedom we left our
native home to obtain.
Later, “an eccentric gentleman” “named Launcelott” made a lyrical
interpretation of this declaration and put it to music (later made available
as sheet music with lyrics for a shilling):
We’ve sever’d ourselves from our friends and home,
And far over the ocean we’ve come, my boys!
To reap from our toil, on this sunny soil,
A better reward than at home, my boys!
But sorrow clouds Hope’s sunny face;
Our autocratic* rulers base
Have taxed our roads, and taxed our drays
And coward slave is he who pays.
Then down with the road and the dray-tax, too,
And show to the minions of tyranny,
Bold Britons are we, who dare to be free,
And die for our rights and liberty.
To direct taxation we’ll not submit,
Without representation, I trow, my boys!
’Tis base, and, what’s worse, ’tis the monster curse
Of Turkey and Russia,† e’en now, my boys!
We’ll dare to brave oppression’s brand,
Hurl despotism from the land;
We’ll wear no chains of slavery–
We will be free — we will be free!
Then down with the road and the dray-tax, too…
…
Shall we to ourselves play the traitor knave?
Shall we who for freedome came here, my boys!
Resign all our rights, like a dastard slave,
And be ruled like a serf through fear, my boys?
Our wives, and sons, and daughters see,
Racked by the stings of poverty?
Oh, no, by Heaven, as men we’ll die,
Ere we to despot rule comply!
Then down with the road and the dray-tax, too…
…
* Another version says “aristocratic”
† Another version says “Prussia”
Mr [Jonathan?] Norman submitted that their work with regard to the [petition
to the Governor] was done… but they could take a step in another direction,
and that was, that every one present should pledge themselves to take every
means to the utmost of their power in resisting any measure the colonial
legislature should pass that would be a tax upon land and drays. Even if it
only amounted to sixpence it should be resisted.
Mr [Hiram?] Manfull concurred in the proposition, but discouraged resorting
to physical force. If they would have their property, let them take it, said
he, and if they take every hoof and stick off my farm, he would not resort to
physical force in resisting.
Mr Wells said… Although he was not a fighting man yet he knew sufficiently of
his own mind to assert emphatically that no two men should enter his
homestead without physical resistance. He would not advocate a display of
physical force; but it was evident the Governor was preparing to enforce the
Act in some shape or other.
Mr Norman then proposed the following resolution―
“That the delegates assembled pledge themselves, individually and
collectively, to resist by every legal and constitutional means any Act that
may emanate from the present Council which shall add any additional amount of
taxation, particularly any amendment of the Road Act.”
Seconded by Mr Wilson, and carried unanimously.
Mr Anderson had heard a great deal about moral force from the commencement of
the present agitation. Physical force had never entered into his mind; but if
any collector came into his place he would pitch him over the fence, like he
would a skittle ball, and kick him afterwards.
Mr Parker said he would give the first collector who called on him a right
good trouncing.
reports started coming
in of people being summoned for payment of the offensive tax. At a meeting of
the League, they
tried to decide how to respond:
Mr Wilson proposed that notice of the summonses served on Messrs Oliver and
Bennett be given to [the attorney] Mr Fisher, and that he be instructed to
defend them; if it were too late to do so, then let the same course be
pursued with regard to the next issued.
[Mr. Norman’s] proposition was that they should let judgment go by default,
and if a seizure took place, they would then have grounds for an action of
trespass in the Supreme Court.
Mr Wilson considered that they ought to defend the outposts with as much
vigour as if the citadel itself were assailed. If summonses were issued in a
Court, in that same Court they should be defended.
Mr Anderson supported the proposition. It was of no use appointing legal
advisers, and framing rules, unless they intended to act up to them. His
intention all along had been, if any seizure had been made, either on himself
or his neighbours, to have immediately communicated with Mr. Fisher. The
gentlemen at Willunga, although doubtless actuated with the best intentions,
had not done as the League required, by taking no notice of the legal
proceedings on the part of the Commissioners.
Wilson’s motion that Oliver and Bennett be represented by the League’s legal
team was carried unanimously. Mr. [John?] Darby noted that since only one case
would eventually be the test case they planned to take to the Supreme Court,
they should go on record as saying that “the other party should be indemnified
from all loss in the matter.” This was agreed to, but only in a “here, here”
sort of way, without any formal motion or discussion of the mechanics of how
this would be done.
In July the dray tax was repealed, and those who had paid the tax received
refunds. The land tax, however, was still in force, and the resistance
to it continued. Here is
an update from a
meeting:
Mr Norman said that … a general organisation of the hundreds forming the League had
taken place; that, as then anticipated, their Commissioners had attempted to
enforce the payment of the odious land tax, but that they had subsequently
been compelled to abandon the attempt. The results were the same in every
instance where resistance to the tax was properly carried out. Some solitary
cases might possibly be adduced, when persons not belonging to the League
might have paid, but those were very few. They had before them an example of
what might be achieved by union. In everything they had been victorious; the
dray-tax. which from time to time was threatened to be enforced, was
ultimately abandoned altogether. The various memorials from the different
hundreds, backed by the memorial of the united delegates, had caused the
Government to introduce an amended Act, which promised almost everything they
desired. The Governor, at all events, had shown a desire to make the new Act
just what was wanted. His Excellency had given up in the progress of the new
Bill, almost all the objectionable clauses contained in the old one. But how
was the Governor to know to what extent he was acting in accordance with
their wishes, unless they took some direct means of letting him know what
those wishes were? One part of the business of the meeting then called was to
consider the propriety of sending in a memorial stating in plain terms how
much of the new Act was consonant with their wishes, and what was wanting to
make it thoroughly, acceptable.
From here the meeting went on to go over the details of the expenses of the
League’s successful campaign and how the responsibility for paying these
expenses was going to be distributed among the various groups making up the
League.
Mr. Norman then proposed that a memorial be prepared by the Committee, to be
forwarded to his Excellency the Governor, praying his Excellency to forward
the passing of the new Road Act, leaving the power of fixing the amount of
the rate to a majority of the rate-payers, and enacting that the non-payment
of the old rates should not be allowed to interfere with the right of voting
under the new Act, as the retention of an untoward clause would inevitably
consign the new Act to the same fate as the old one had undergone.
The resolution was seconded by Mr. T. Colton. He considered that it was
nothing but right that the Governor and Council should know their sentiments
upon the proposed new Act; a memorial was therefore necessary.
After some further observations the resolution was carried unanimously.
A follow-up meeting was also
covered by the
South Australian. Apparently the League were
feeling the strain of funding a mutual legal defense. Excerpts:
[Mr Norman ―] …they had given instructions to Mr Fisher to defend every case
in which the commissioners should sue.
Mr Wilson ― No; not to defend — the resolution was that such cases
should be referred to the legal advisers.
The Secretary [Mr Darby] said that legal advice was only to be taken in case
of seizure.
[Mr Norman ―] … It was clear they could not afford a repetition of such bills
as that they had just paid, which though very moderate as regarded the
services rendered, was far more than the funds would bear on many occasions;
perhaps a committee might be appointed to decide what cases should be
defended. He moved to that effect.
Mr Parker reminded the meeting of the resistance in Van Diemen’s Land to the
Dog Tax, and recommended that the course which had been taken there should be
adopted here — that of suffering a single case to go before the Supreme Court
and thus settling the whole question in dispute.
Mr [Charles?] Watson seconded Mr Norman’s motion. It was quite wrong that
persons not belonging to the League should be defended from its funds.
Mr Wells strongly objected to defending actions in the Local Courts. It was no
triumph to defeat a summons on technical grounds while the principle remained
unshaken. He thought Mr Fisher should be instructed to defend no more cases in
those Courts.
Mr John Fisher of Gumeracks and Lyndoch Valley, mentioned that he had been
summoned to Gawler Town for his rate, and had put in an appearance. He and
many other settlers in the north were anxiously awaiting the result.
A conversation followed upon ways and means. It appeared that £80 had been
already spent and that some of the hundreds had not sent in the agreed
subscription of £20. Eventually two motions were put to the meeting — namely:
moved by Mr Manful and seconded by Mr Watson, “That the action against Mr
Fisher be defended by the League,” and an amendment by Messrs Wells and
Parker, “That no expense be incurred on behalf of any person whose hundred
has not contributed £20 to the funds of the League.” The original motion was
carried on by a division by 8 against 2, and it was determined that Mr Fisher
be instructed to take such steps as should be requisite to bring the case
before the Supreme Court.
It was proposed that all hundreds not sending in the agreed amount of £20
should be struck off the list, but on the Chairman’s recommendation the
motion was postponed till next meeting that they might first be written to.
A meeting was held later that month. The South African Register was
there. John Fisher went to court, defended by a lawyer hired by the League
(confusingly, also named Fisher). The court ruled in favor of the government.
An appeal to the Supreme Court was made, but “until that decision was received
the League could proceed no further in the matter.”
The determination of the members to abolish the impost had, if possible,
grown more strong, pending “the law’s delay,” as the Commissioners would find
out, should the decision of the Judges be such as to induce them to proceed
to extremities in collecting the assessment. [According to acting League
chairman A. Anderson.]
The debate over whether the League would defend people who did not pay their
dues was engaged again:
The Secretary of the hundred of Willunga had received a letter from the
Secretary of the League, calling for the payment of £20, such being the
amount required from each hundred to meet the expenses incurred for the
benefit of all. He (Mr. Norman) had no idea when he joined the League that
any such payment should be required to render a hundred eligible to
participate in the advantages likely to result from the protection of the
League. He had conversed also with a number of delegates and found that they
concurred in opinion with him, that any attempt to impose any arbitrary
condition would savour strongly of the principle they were associated to
oppose, and would work injuriously, inasmuch as it might exclude the smaller
and poorer hundreds from the benefits of membership. That would inevitably be
the case if the League adopted a resolution such as had been proposed at a
recent meeting. (Hear, hear.) He was anxious to be rightly understood. He
only deprecated a policy likely to weaken the League by disuniting the
smaller hundreds from those larger and wealthier.…
Norman suggested that instead of collecting dues per-hundred, that the League collect
dues per-person. “That plan,” he said, “had the advantage of experience in its
favour; it was always found to work well in England, in the various unions and
associations that adopted it.”
Mr. Parker reiterated that he felt the League should concentrate its legal
resources on a single good test case that would be suitable for getting the
offensive taxes declared unlawful in the Supreme Court, rather than playing
technical whack-a-mole with dozens of individual cases at the lower court
level.
Mr. Watson disagreed, saying that “the moral force of the League was greatly
enhanced by every triumph over those tools of tyranny the District
Commissioners.”
The debate over whether poor hundreds should pay as much dues as rich ones,
or populous ones more than sparsely-populated ones, continued, and the
rhetoric grew to such a pitch that one debater said that “to require any fixed
amount from the hundreds, irrespective of their extent, population, or means,
would be a worse tyranny than any contemplated by the concoctors of the Road
Act [the tax they had associated to fight].” (“Hear, hear,” the
Register reports after this remark.)
An important background to all of this agitation was that the British
government was in the process of passing the Australian Colonies Government
Act, which advanced the cause of self-government in Australia. There were
questions in the air about who would be qualified to vote, and to what extent
the acts (and taxes) of the superseded government would still be in force
under a new Constitution.
At a meeting in , for instance,
a member of the League
worried that land
tax resisters might be disfranchised because of their resistance, and that
the long battle to gain a voice in government might leave behind those who
had joined the tax resistance movement. But more determined voices prevailed,
and passed the following resolution:
That it would be inconsistent for any member of the League to pay the old
land-tax in order to secure a vote at the ensuing elections, and that they
individually pledged themselves not to pay it [even] at the risk of being
disfranchised.
Mr. Wilson reported at this time that the dray tax resisters in his hundred
had voluntarily pledged money to the repair of roads now that the
mandatory dray tax had been rescinded:
…the levy was resisted, and, after the payments were suspended, the people
subscribed cheerfully towards the repair of the roads. He had himself given
much more than the assessment would have extorted from him…
My understanding is that the resisters were ultimately successful in bringing
the land tax to an end, as they had been with the dray tax, but I haven’t
found much to confirm this by press time.
Tax resistance campaigns have found it useful to identify resonances with popular myths, esteemed tax rebellions of yore, and semi-fictional heroes.
Here are some examples:
Just about every tax revolt in the United States (and many elsewhere as well) appropriates the example of the Boston Tea Party as an evocative reminder of a grassroots uprising, the recent “Taxed Enough Already” TEA Party movement being just the latest of many, many examples.
John Hampden pictured on a banner of the Women’s Tax Resistance League
In Spain, the tancament de caixes plays a similar role to the Tea Party in America, with modern Spanish tax resisters comparing their campaigns with that legendary struggle.
In England (and the British empire), John Hampden has long been the exemplar of choice, with his example being used from South Africa to Ireland to India to prove that celebrated patriots can refuse to pay their taxes.
The phrase “no taxation without representation” has such resonance, especially in the descendant nations of the British Empire, that it gets trotted out even to support tax resistance campaigns in which representation isn’t really an issue at all.
It was especially potent in the American revolution and in the women’s suffrage movements.
The Rebecca Rioters in Wales, painting their faces and dressing in drag to destroy tollgates and mete out justice in the middle of the nineteenth century, were tapping into a folkloric form of grassroots justice that was centuries old.
“Jack a Lents” painted their faces and dressed in women’s clothing to tear down turnpikes in England a century before, and I’ve found references to protesters led by men in women’s clothing and using the shared pseudonym of “Lady Skimmington” in the Western Rising in England a century before that.
Resistance to the “Foreign Miners Tax” in California in gave birth to the myth of Joaquin Murieta, a sort of Robin Hood-like outlaw who became a desperado when he was forced off his claim by the tax.
The Robin Hood myth itself has taken on a tax resistance theme in recent years.
The popular Disney animated version of the Robin Hood story makes the wicked Sheriff of Nottingham a tax collector, and Robin Hood’s robbery of him a case of redistributing the taxes back to the people they’d been seized from:
While he taxes us to pieces And he robs us of our bread King Richard’s crown keeps slippin’ down Around that pointed head Ah!
But while there is a merry man in Robin’s wily pack We’ll find a way to make him pay And steal our money back
Urban legends helped to fuel tax resistance during the French Revolution.
Rumors that the King had abolished taxes led people to refuse payment or to destroy the obsolete offices and apparatus of taxation.
Here is a similar example from Russia (as found in James C. Scott’s Domination and the Arts of Resistance):
After the emancipation [of the serfs] in , the peasants in Biezdne (Kazan Province) were demoralized to discover that with redemption payments, labor dues, and taxes their burdens were, if anything, heavier than before.
When one of their number claimed that the emancipation decree granted them complete freedom from such dues — the term volia (freedom) appeared in many contexts in the decree — but that the squires and officials had kept it from being implemented, they leapt at the opportunity, now sanctioned from on high, to refuse payment.
The myth of the czar’s benevolence, which was of course promoted by the czarist government, could backfire in this way when peasants refused to pay onerous taxes or obey other commands of the czar’s subordinates, under the theory that because the czar was so good he could not possibly have ordered such terrible things:
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of the myth was its plasticity in the hands of its peasant adherents.
First and foremost, it was an invitation to resist any or all of the czar’s supposed agents, who could not have been carrying out the good czar’s wishes if they imposed heavy taxes, conscription, rents, military corvée, and so forth.
If the czar only knew of the crimes his faithless agents were committing in his name, he would punish them and rectify matters.
When petitions failed and oppression continued, it may simply have indicated that an impostor — a false czar — was on the throne.
In such cases, the peasants who joined the banners of a rebel claiming to be the true czar would be demonstrating their loyalty to the monarchy.
… In a form of symbolic jujitsu, an apparently conservative myth counseling passivity becomes a basis for defiance and rebellion…
Scott also talks (e.g. in his paper Everyday Forms of Resistance) about how “much of the folk culture of the peasant ‘little tradition’ amounts to a legitimation, or even a celebration, of [resistance]…”
In this and other ways (e.g. tales of bandits, tricksters, peasant heroes, religious myths, carnivalesque parodies of authorities) the peasant subculture helps to underwrite dissimulation, poaching, theft, tax evasion, evasion of conscription, and so on.
While folk culture is not coordinational in any formal sense, it often achieves a “climate of opinion” which, in other more institutionalized societies, might require a public relations campaign.
The very name “Poll Tax,” which came to be the most widely-accepted name for what Thatcher’s government hoped would go down as the “community charge,” was a potent propaganda coup for the resistance movement.
Danny Burns, a chronicler of that successful tax rebellion, says that “the story of [Wat Tyler’s] peasants revolt against the Poll Tax in 1381 was told in virtually every meeting.
Calling on these traditions was an important part of explaining why non-cooperation was needed…” Signs that people would hang in their windows reading “No Poll Tax Here” also hearkened back to the tax resistance accompanying the Reform Act agitation in the .
Today, tax resistance actions like the ongoing Household Tax resistance in Ireland compare themselves in turn to the successful Poll Tax revolt.
The Lady Godiva myth concerns a “noblewoman who, according to legend, rode naked through the streets of Coventry in order to gain a remission of the oppressive taxation imposed by her husband on his tenants.”
A motley variety of myths about “common law,” about the True Constitution, about the significance of fringed edges to flags, and other what-not, fuel the often bizarre Constitutionalist tax protester movement in the United States.
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.”
Tax resistance was an important tool of the movement to force the British government to finally enact the Reform Act of .
Here are some examples, from the archives of The Spectator, showing how that magazine covered the tax resistance angle of the campaign.
At the Cinque Ports Reform Meeting, held last week in Rye, on the motion of Colonel Evans, a resolution was unanimously adopted, that the inhabitants of the ports and adjacent country, including the whole line of the Sussex and Kent coasts, were ready to come forward to support Ministers in their plan of reform, if necessary, with their lives and properties.
Colonel Evans stated that he was aware of the existence of a society of mercantile gentlemen in London, who had determined, in the event of the Ministers’ measures being defeated, not to pay any new taxes levied by the Parliament; and that a similar determination had been come to in Birmingham and Manchester.
…the fear of losing those old walls, and old mounds, and old trees, with which for so many years they have plundered this once patient people, renders them blind to the danger of outraging the nation, now bent on governing and taxing itself.
Suppose that they should succeed in buying a majority of votes for the new Parliament — what then?
Have they heard of the discussions in Sussex and Warwickshire as to the legality of associations for the non-payment of taxes in money?
Quakers are not supposed to do that which is illegal when they tell the tax-gatherer to seize their goods; and the Quakers are permanently associated for regulating the conduct of the whole body: so that we do not see how the very comprehensive law of “conspiracy” even could be brought to bear upon associations for paying taxes like the Quakers.
The association, without the deed, would be enough; for who would buy the goods of one person in arrear of taxes, if a thousand persons in the same neighbourhood had declared that they would pay taxes only in goods? and what tax-gatherer would incur the expense of seizing goods without the least prospect of selling them?
But even supposing such associations perfectly legal — on which point we offer no opinion as yet — the small amount of direct taxes may appear to render them insignificant.
On this last point we have no doubt.
At present, a rotten borough is worth but little in the market; but the old tree at Beeralston would not fetch one sixpence if twenty [thousand?] of the middle classes had associated to pay taxes like the Quakers.… In a word, association alone would suffice in this case; — the only question is, would such associations be contrary to law?
That question was commonly, though not publicly, discussed before the introduction of the Reform Bill; and it will be tried, if the Association of Boroughmongers should buy a majority in the new Parliament and turn out the Ministers.
Come what may, the immense sum subscribed by the boroughmongering lords and baronets will never be paid, as they intend it should, by the people.
However, the question is yet in abeyance.
That the borough lords may never render it a present one, none can desire more earnestly than ourselves.
Months ago, we stated our apprehension, that, in case the Reform Bill should be thrown out, or materially damaged by either House of Parliament, the middle classes would associate for the purpose of withholding the direct taxes.
Such a measure, it appears, is contemplated in various parts of the kingdom, and boldly announced too, as the certain consequence of a rejection of the Bill by the Lords.
We do not pretend that such a measure would be justified by the occasion; nor do we, for our part, believe that the occasion will occur.
But, as the occasion will surely occur unless the Lords be convinced of the evils to which it would give rise, — and as, moreover, no saying or omission of ours will alter the determination of the people, — we think it most desirable that their Lordships should have clearly pointed out to them the consequences of a refusal on the part of the people to pay direct taxes.
The explanation may not be lost upon Ministers.
But to the point.
The direct taxes form but a small portion of the whole amount of taxes.
“Therefore,” it is said by the wildest Tories, “the Government may go on very well though the King’s taxgatherer should obtain nothing.
People will continue to eat and drink as usual, and consequently to pay the indirect taxes, whatever the lords may do with the Bill.
A fig for your threats!”
Let us see whether people would continue to eat and drink as usual after refusing to pay the direct taxes.
Let us suppose that a majority of the householders of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Birmingham, and some portion of London, have agreed to refuse the payment of King’s taxes in money; and that either the brokers refuse to act for the taxgatherer, or that, if the brokers should act, no one bids for the goods distrained and put up for sale.
Let us imagine that only a tenth of the householders of Great Britain do that in reality which the stiffest of the Quakers pretend to do, — viz. desire the taxgatherer to seize their goods; and that (what would surely occur in that case) the goods were not sold.
Two or three seizures in any district, without sales, would deter the taxgatherer from proceeding further; because seizures cost something, and, if they produced nothing, the loss would fall on the taxgatherer.
Consequently, if one tenth of the householders refuse to pay direct taxes in money, a most important law is de facto repealed by the People in spite of the Legislature: all the direct taxes are in fact repealed, notwithstanding acts of Parliament to maintain them.
“Never mind,” say our Cumberlands and Londonderries: “the indirect taxes will suffice for a time; and these the people must pay, because they will continue to eat and drink as usual.”
Will they?
— Let us see.
The foundation of public credit is public confidence in the future payment of taxes. if the people take upon themselves the repeal of a single tax, even though its amount were not 1,000l. a year, public confidence in the future payment of taxes must cease.
In such a case, the Government might be strong in votes of the Legislature and in the devotion of the armed force; but no one would reckon with confidence on the future payment of the dividends, and Government Stock would become unsaleable.
If the Government Stock of this country were to become unsaleable, or were suddenly to fall in price 30 or 40 per cent., the whole framework of society would be broken up.
If any one doubt this, let him reflect for a moment on the immense amount of transfers in Stock which take place every week for all the purposes of trade, and indeed, it may be said, for nearly all the objects of existence.
Further, would Messrs. Grote and Co., or Messrs. Payne Smith and Co. — would the Bank of England — discount a single bill for 20l., if a sudden and great fall in the price of Stock had occurred through a repeal of direct taxes by the People in spite of the Legislature?
In such a case, would any one take a Bank of England note? Every one who reflects for an instant on the nature of public credit, will answer these questions in the negative.
But if public credit fail, what becomes of private credit?
Both are equally dependent on confidence in certain future payments.
When Charles the Tenth issued his ordinances, the French Funds fell suddenly, and the assembled bankers of Paris put forth a declaration that they would no longer discount private bills.
What happened?
All the manufactures and trades of Paris were stopped forthwith: myriads of workmen were turned into the streets without the means of obtaining food: and then came the fighting of the Three Days.
In Paris, three days’ fighting produced tranquillity, and revived public and private confidence.
In London, probably, this would not be the case.
Here there is no Charles the Tenth — no Polignac — no Swiss Guard; here all the people ready to fight would be on one side.
There would be no fighting then: what would there be?
The destruction of public and private confidence in future payments involves the cessation of all markets.
If Bank of England notes would not pass, no cattle would be brought to Smithfield, nor any corn to Mark Lane.
There would be no fighting; but all classes would be without food, after the small quantity of food at any time in London had been seized by the strongest.
But this seizure of food by the strongest — this emptying of barns, shops, granaries, and grocers’ warehouses, by the starving workpeople — to what would it lead?
To the emptying also of brew-houses, cellars, distilleries, and gin-shops!
Next — there would be no fighting, but — let every reader’s imagination fill up the picture, recollecting that there are twenty thousand common thieves in London, and that the Peel, and Hunt party has succeeded in its endeavours to exasperate the working classes against all above themselves.
What may be predicated of London, is true of all the great manufacturing towns.
To all parts of the kingdom, where great masses of people live from hand to mouth by pursuits not agricultural, the mail would carry the infection of public and private distrust: in all such places, bank-notes would no longer pass, nor bills be discounted; the workpeople would be discharged; the markets would not be supplied; the physical force would be starving, drunk, frantic.
In a country where the great body of the people live by agricultural pursuits, so that in case of necessity they could seize the food — the cattle and the corn — in the midst of which they would live, an insurrection of the working class might produce less terrible effects than a refusal of the middle class to pay taxes.
Peasants, though in insurrection, need not be driven to utter desperation by hunger; because, for a time, they could obtain food in spite of the destruction of public and private credit.
But, in this country, where so great a portion of the physical force could not possibly obtain food without the concurrence of the middle class, it appears that an insurrection of the workpeople, if approved and guided by the middle class, would be less injurious than a refusal of the middle class to pay taxes.
This distinction merits notice: we offer it to the consideration of the Bench of Bishops.
It is understood that Ministers do not feel confident of a majority for the Bill in the Lords; and that, whether the Bill be thrown out or withdrawn, they will not resign, but will prorogue and reassemble the Parliament, carry the Bill once more through the Commons, and secure its passage through the Lords by a creation of Peers.
Of course Ministers expect that the People, being aware of the Ministerial intention, will patiently await the result: of course they expect that there will be no refusal to pay taxes unless they resign.
Is this expectation well founded?
For our part, we believe that the House of Lords now assembled will pass the Bill unhurt; but if they should not do so, we have great doubts whether the people will any longer place confidence in the Ministers.
For what is the state of the case?
Ministers profess to have at their disposal the means of carrying the Bill.
But say they — “We are not sure that the means is required: we are going to try an experiment on the Lords: if the Lords pass the Bill, well and good; if not, we shall add to their number, and then they will pass it; but let us try the experiment.”
If Ministers really have the King’s permission to create Peers for carrying the Bill, the above is a fair report of the language held for them by their partisans.
The desired result is in their power; but they prefer trying an experiment.
If they pursue this course, they may try two experiments — one upon the wisdom of the Lords, and another upon the patience of the People.
Were it not better at once to create a few Peers, and so put to rest all questions of hereditary wisdom or popular patience?
The Tories say that Ministers expect to be dismissed by a House of Commons elected under the Bill; and that they are therefore glad of a pretext for delay.
This explanation of their conduct is more credible than that which supposes them bent on a most dangerous experiment, even while the desired result is in their hands.
The next excerpt, from the issue, covered the 150,000-person strong meeting of the Birmingham Political Union, at which the crowd roared a tax resistance vow.
It quotes from the conclusion of a speech at the meeting by “Mr. Edmonds” (George Edmonds perhaps):
Should the Lords reject the Bill, and should the King refuse the creation of Peers, then it remained for the People to put in action a power which all constitutional writers admitted they had a right to exercise when Government was tyrannously opposed to the great majority of the nation.
The power to which he alluded had driven an anointed King from the throne of England, and was equally competent to drive an unanointed Peerage from the House of Lords.
They were all acquainted with a peaceful, orderly, and most respectable body of men called Quakers, to whose example he wished specially to call the attention of the meeting.
This respectable sect of Christians refused to support a parson; but in their opposition they did not knock out the brains of the tithe-collector — they simply suffered a distraint to be levied upon their goods.
Now, if the Quakers refused to pay the tithes, the people generally might refuse to pay the taxes; and if the bailiff came, he should like to know where they would find the auctioneer who would dare to sell, or the people who would dare to buy.
The voice of the auctioneer, he conceived, would be passive, not active; and rather than knocking down, he would be himself knocked down.
(Cheers and laughter.)
While upon this point, he could not but think of another glorious patriot, whose name and character, during a long night of despotism, shone bright as the day-star of British liberty, whose example ought to be as an encouraging beacon for their future guidance.
When Hampden refused the payment of ship-money, his gallant conduct electrified all England, and pointed out the way by which the people, when unanimous and combined, might rid themselves of an odious and oppressive oligarchy.
Mr. Edmonds declared before God, that if all constitutional modes of obtaining the success of the Reform measure failed, he should, and would, be the first man to refuse the payment of taxes except by a levy upon his goods.
(Tremendous cheering, which lasted some minutes.)
“I now call upon all who hear me, and who are prepared to join me in this step, to hold up your hands.
(An immense forest of hands was immediately elevated, accompanied by vehement cheering.)
I now call upon you who are not prepared to adopt this course, to hold up your hands and signify your dissent.
(Not a single hand appearing, loud shouts and cheers were repeated.)
Mark my words, failing all other more constitutional means.”
The House of Lords did in fact reject the bill.
Next, from the issue, an article that quotes Thomas Attwood of the Birmingham Political Union as saying that he expects new Lords to be appointed in order to get the House of Lords to pass the bill; barring this, he expects the House of Commons to “refuse the supplies” — that is, to refuse to authorize government spending.
[“]Even if the House of Commons should refuse to do its duty upon such an emergency, still the people would possess within their own hands the peaceful and legal means of insuring their own redress.
They had only to adopt the advice of Mr. Edmonds, which was strictly legal and constitutional, although it had been misrepresented, viz. — to act upon the system of the Quakers, and to submit to a distraint upon their goods for the payment of taxes, and the House of Commons would be instantly brought to see the position in which it stands.
In this way the people would legally act upon the House of Commons — the House of Commons would compel the Government — and the Government would compel the House of Lords, and every thing would be right.”
Under another subhead in the same article came this news:
Political Friends.
A number of people of Manchester and Salford have resolved to resist the payment of taxes in money.
Their reason for this step is the passing of the Bill in the House of Commons, which solemnly pronounces a large portion of the members not to be elected by the people.
They pledge themselves not to purchase the goods seized in execution for taxes, so long as the House remains unreformed.
Next, several months later, as yet another version of the bill has passed the House of Commons and is under consideration in the House of Lords, from the issue:
At the meeting of the Northern Political Union, held at Newcastle-upon-Tyne some days ago, a Mr. Fife declared, that if the Reform Bill were not passed in all its integrity, no inducement would prevail on him to pay one farthing more of taxes.
The same sentiments have been expressed at the meeting of the National Political Union in the Metropolis, by Mr. Galloway and others.
Our contemporary, the Standard, is witty at the expense of those who imagine so vain a thing as opposing a passive resistance to the “Peel and Dawson Crew,” when they again come into office.
“A poor honest cheesemonger,” he says, “who trembles at the crack of his own carter’s whip, will talk you ‘cannon, fire, and smoke, and bounce,’ in a manner to disturb the nerves of a buccaneer.
Sir Walter, who has scarcely left one human feeling or one human folly unmarked, has illustrated this cumulation of fictitious heroism, from rivalry, in the case of the little cutting mercer of Abingdon.
At the Black Bear meeting, Master Goldthread talked as highly of his desperate courses as Messrs.
John Fife and Larkin of what they mean to do — scrupled as little to confess his willingness to commit a highway robbery, as the Northern Unionists talk of their alacrity to embark in high treason.
But Laurence Goldthread cut a very different figure on the high-road.
When unhorsed by the very pedlar whom he had threatened to rob, he bore the case as peaceably as a Quaker; and so peaceably, no doubt, would Messrs.
Fife and Larkin bear the defeat of the Revolution Bill, notwithstanding all their swagger.
Mr. John Fife questionless would pay his taxes (that is, if he is of taxable rank) as punctually as ever; while Mr. Larkin would scud before a stirrup-leather in the hands of any of the driver’s corps that had ever served under the Duke of Wellington.”
The Standard afterwards gets into a sort of passion with Messrs.
Fife and Larkin; and calls them ignorant fools, resolved traitors, villains, and compares them to Thistlewood and Jack-the-Painter, and such like.
We regret his indulgence in this strain, for two reasons, — first, because, by giving way to anger, it would seem that he fears the men that he affects to despise; second, because, when we instructors begin to rhodomontade, we bring the clerk-craft into danger, and act no higher rôle than the Unionist whom we censure.
It is as easy for the journalist to bluster at his desk, as the Reformer on the hustings, and he is as likely as the Unionist is to prove the Master Goldthread of his own tale.
While we do not receive with implicit credit every profession that a Reformer may happen to make, any more than we would every profession that it might please an Anti-Reformer to make, we can see little wisdom in despising the professions either of the one side or the other.
What is to hinder the People, if they will, from refusing to pay direct taxes; or from abstaining, if they will, from the consumption of articles, not necessary, that are burdened with indirect taxes?
We should like to see the strap either of the Duke’s driver corps or driven corps attempt it.
We suspect, like that worthy magistrate mentioned by the author whom the Standard quotes, in the Duke’s anxiety to break the honest man’s head, he would contrive to break his own.
It was said by Lord Eldon — whom, indeed, the very mention of refusing to pay taxes seemed to strike with consternation — that it was illegal, we believe he said treasonable, to combine for the purpose.
Grant that the retired Chancellor make it out to be treasonable, and that Bishop Phillpotts anathematize it, still it may be practised, for it has been practised.
We presume, if there be in mundane affairs any truth less disputed than another, it is, that what has been done once may be done again.
What does the Standard say to Ireland?
Have not the people there combined, and have they not combined with perfect success?
How long before they combined did their cry go up unheeded; and how speedily afterwards was it listened to and considered?
We know our contemporary’s answer.
Theirs was a religious combination.
But if Englishmen feel as strongly on the question of Reform as the Irish feel on the question of Religion, they will combine as readily.
The case of Ireland is not a solitary one.
Look to Edinburgh.
There is no religious feud in that case; it is a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence.
Yet the people of Edinburgh have suffered their goods to be seized by the clergy, and not a soul has been found false enough to the popular cause to purchase.
But there is no need for that extended combination among the People, which seems to our contemporary only a fit subject for ridicule.
Suppose the auctioneers only — a very small class of the community — should say, “We will not distrain” — will the Duke’s stirrup-leather frighten them too?
Suppose their zeal quickened by a hint, that if they perform that very disagreeable and ill-paid duty, they must not look to be employed in such services as are not disagreeable and that are better paid?
It is true that, in London, it may be easy to find men regardless enough to do any thing; and there are so many holes and corners, that let a man’s villainy be ever so great, he may easily contrive to stow it out of sight.
But such is not the case in smaller towns.
In a town of twenty or thirty thousand inhabitants, such concealment is impossible.
A rogue may escape the eye of the Magistrates or of the Police, but we would defy Satan himself — unless, like Mr. Salusbury, of St. Mary’s, Aldgate, he were a non-resident — to play his pranks in such a town without being observed by his neighbours.
The strike against tax-paying; if ever we come to such a pass, will begin in the lesser towns.
We hope and trust, that the Lords will not by their conduct throw temptation in the People’s way.
Above all, we trust they will not be flattered into an opinion, that the People are to be driven from their purpose with the smallest show of coercion.
If the Duke of Wellington were insane enough to put foot in stirrup against the People of England, he would find it the toughest piece of work he has hitherto cut out for himself.
He and his partisans might boast while putting on their harness; but, truly, we believe their boast would be small when they came to take it off.
Another article in the same issue also covered the Fife speech, and began as follows:
At a meeting of the Union at Newcastle, on , it was agreed to send a petition to the House of Lords, praying them to pass the Bill unmutilated; and another to Earl Grey, calling upon him to effect this object by the creation of Peers.
Mr. J. Fife, in the course of an eloquent speech, said, “he trusted that the People would reject the Bill with scorn if it was impaired or emasculated.
For his own part, he was prepared to endure any consequences.
He would pay no taxes — they might confiscate his lands — they might persecute him to banishment or death — he would endure to the last, rather than be the willing slave of a tyrannical Ministry.”
The House of Lords again balked on passing the bill, and the King was dragging his feet on elevating enough pro-reform peers to that House to ensure passage.
This article appeared in the issue:
A Court of Common Council was held on , for the purpose of petitioning the House of Commons on the subject of the present crisis.
Mr. Galloway moved the resolutions; which were seconded by Mr. Pritchard.
The principal resolutions were as follows —
“That this Court views with the greatest grief, mortification, and disappointment, the extraordinary and distressing communication made by his Majesty’s Ministers, that his Majesty had refused to them the means of carrying through the House of Lords the Reform Bill passed by a large majority of the House of Commons, and required by an overwhelming majority of the people.
“That whoever may have advised his Majesty to withhold from his Ministers the means of insuring the success of the Reform Bill, have proved themselves the enemies of their Sovereign, and have put to imminent hazard the stability of the throne, and the tranquillity and security of the country.
“That, under these circumstances, this Court feels it to be its duty, as a necessary means of procuring for the people of this great country an efficient Reform, to petition the Commons House of Parliament to withhold the Supplies until such a Reform should have been secured.”
Alderman Waithman and Mr. Thornhill followed Mr. Pritchard on the same side.
Alderman Winchester objected to the language of the resolutions as too strong.
He thought the Court should not offend the Crown.
The Alderman’s anxiety about the Crown produced roars of laughter, which rendered a great deal of his eloquence unintelligible.
A member called Howell, opposed the resolutions, because they would give a tone to the country; three fourths of which, he said, was opposed to Reform.
This gentleman also excited great merriment.
Alderman Marshall and Mr. Hughes Hughes spoke against the third resolution.
Mr. Hughes thought it very possible the next Administration might be as zealous for the People as the last.
Mr. Hughes was too dull for laughter — he was only hissed.
The two first resolutions were carried unanimously; about twenty hands, including those of the three dissenting Aldermen and Mr. Hughes Hughes, were held up against the third.
The Livery of London met ; when strong resolutions were voted, and addresses to the House of Commons, calling on that body to stop the Supplies, agreed to.
Several speakers declared that, as far as in them lay, as individuals, they would do what they could to stop the Supplies, as they would pay no further taxes till the Reform Bill was passed.
On , the instant the intelligence of Ministers having resigned reached Manchester, a petition was agreed on to the House of Commons, praying them to grant no Supply until the Bill was passed unmutilated.
In four hours, it was signed by 25,000 people; and three gentlemen — Messrs.
R. Potter, J. Filden, and Shuttleworth — left Manchester for London with it.
The following notice has been placarded all over the town of Manchester—
“Court Intrigue
Has, for the present, prevailed over the voice of twenty-four millions demanding reform. The King has refused to support his Patriotic Ministers, and they have resigned.
What is to be done now?
Let the People petition the Commons to refuse the Supplies and let them form Associations pledged to discontinue the use of all Taxed Commodities. These are the peaceable means of destroying the Boroughmongering domination.
It will depend upon the Usurpers whether other measures need be resorted to.”
It had been intended to have a public meeting in Bristol on , but the resignation of Ministers produced a sensation in that town which could not be controlled so long.
On , accordingly, the Mayor having refused the Guildhall, the Reformers, headed by Mr. Herapath, the President of the Political Union, met in the Assembly Room, Prince’s Street.
It was instantly filled; and after some considerable delay, principally from a fear that some alleged breach of the peace should give the military, who were under orders to act, pretense to interfere, an adjournment took place to Brandon Hill.
The number of persons that assembled was about 7,000. We need not give the resolutions, for they are the same as in all the meetings that have been held on the same occasion.
A spirited letter from Mr. O’Connell was read at the meeting.
The people of Brighton met on , to the number of 2,000 or 3,000, on the subject of the Bill.
Resolutions in favour of a creation of Peers were unanimously passed.
The meeting declined petitioning the House of Peers, “because, as at present constituted, they had no confidence in it.”
At the Reform meeting at Bury, on , Mr. Eagles, one of the speakers, noticed Lord Eldon’s doctrine respecting the non-payment of taxes—
“It had been said by the Earl, that indictments could be framed to compel those who refused to pay taxes; now, if the Earl of Eldon, or Sir Charley Wetherell, or any other lawyer, were ingenious enough to frame an indictment, he should like to know where they would find a jury who would convict their countrymen of a conspiracy against themselves?”
The King’s dinner for the town of Salford is countermanded, in consequence of the disclosures of this week.
On the news of the late division reaching Leicester, the people could only be kept quiet by a promise from the Political Union to call out the whole town en masse, to meet and deliberate on the present alarming state of the country.
A third article in the same issue covered the meetings of the Birmingham Political Union, before and after news of the resignation of the Ministers came out.
Excerpts:
The ground chosen was the foot of Newhall Hill, where the gradual slope, not less than the extent of the area, is peculiarly favourable for a meeting of such vast magnitude.
The space immediately occupied by the meeting measured about 17,000 yards; and it is calculated, from the manner in which they stood, was amply sufficient for at least 100,000; but the entire number that attended was not less than 150,000, including in this number those that crowded the heights in the immediate neighbourhood, as well as the roofs of the surrounding houses, and every point from which even a bird’s eye view of the exhilarating spectacle could be obtained.
The bustings were pitched at the lower part of the field, so that they were not only in view of the entire meeting, but the voices of the speakers were audible to much the greater portion of it.
Every arrangement that the utmost sagacity of the Council could devise, had been employed to give regularity and order to the numerous bands that continued for several hours to pour in from the surrounding country.
The following has been given as an authentic statement of the names and numbers, of the various parties that entered Birmingham on this eventful occasion—
“Grand Northern Division, headed by Mr. Fryer, the banker, including Wolverhampton, Bilston, Wednesbury, Sedgley, Walsall, Willenhall, Darlaston, West Bromwich, and Handsworth.
The procession extended over four miles; there were upwards of 150 banners and 11 bands of music.
— Grand Western Division — including Stonebridge, Dudley, Harbourn, Cradley, Lyewater, Oldbury, Rowley, and Halesowen.
The procession extended two miles, and was accompanied by 9 bands of music and 70 banners.
Grand Eastern Division — including Coventry, Warwick, Bedworth, Kenilworth, Leemington, Solihuil, &c., with 8 bands and 30 banners.
Grand Southern Division — including Worcester, Bromsgiove, Redditch, Studley, Droitwich, and Alcester, with 6 bands of music and 12 banners.
The preceding estimate is exclusive of the inhabitants of Birmingham and its immediate vicinity.
Upwards of 200 bands of music were in attendance, and from 700 to 1,000 banners waved over the assembled throng.”
At half-past twelve, silence was proclaimed throughout the mighty host by the sounding of a bugle; and Mr. Attwood, on the motion of Mr. Edmonds, assumed the Chair.
He was surrounded by Napoleon Czapski, a Polish nobleman; Count Rechberg, Secretary to the Austrian Embassy; H. Acland, Esq., James West, Esq., Arthur Gregory, Esq., H. Boulthee, Esq., W. Allsop, Esq., of Derbyshire, Stubbs Whitick, Esq., R. Fryer, Esq., the Hon. Godolphin Osborne, Esq., and a great many other gentlemen from the town and neighbourhood.
One of the speakers, Joseph Parkes, is quoted as alluding to tax resistance:
[“]I do not touch on the chances of a refusal to pay taxes; I would not now hold out to the Lords unnecessary threats or terror; but I warn them that John Hampden dwells in the breasts of three-fourths of the inhabitants of these islands, and will inspire them with patriotism and self-sacrifice.
The image of John Hampden, with his deeds inscribed, will be the worship of the People of England, Scotland, and Ireland, if occasion require.[”]
(Loud and repeated cheers.)
An article in issue included an account of Captain Williams’s speech at a reform rally in Kensington:
“Couriers are already flying to announce the tidings to the tyrant of Russia, who is yet reeking with the unavenged blood of Poland — to the wily Austrian — the perfidious Prussian — the bigoted Ferdinand — the guilt-covered Miguel.
Nothing can arrest his daring career, but intimidation, or, to use an imported word, ‘agitation.’
It was by this instrument the Irish beat him down, and wrung from him Catholic Emancipation.
Let us wield the same weapon, and he shall again capitulate.
The House of Commons will stop the Supplies.
We are told of a dissolution of Parliament; let it come to that, and it will be seen what a grand blow there will be struck throughout the empire.
It is recommended to pay not taxes; let every man adopt that expedient — I for one will pay none.…”
And a Mr. Brougham was quoted addressing a meeting in Southwark as follows:
[“]Something had been said about the people not paying taxes.
A resolution to that effect would be highly illegal; but people might individually refuse without rendering themselves amenable to the law.
Now this was an affair easily arranged.
If a tax-gatherer were to call upon him, and ask him to settle his little bill for taxes, he might say to him in reply, ‘I have got a Bill of my own, Sir, which I should like to have settled; and, unless you settle mine satisfactorily, you must never expect me to settle yours.’[”]
The King asked the anti-reform Duke of Wellington to try to form a government, which he was unable to do, so then the King asked pro-reform Earl Grey to return and also promised to create as many new Lords as it would take to get the Reform Act passed.
It passed in June.
The last of the Spectator’s articles that came to my attention comes from its issue:
Lord Milton’s avowal of his intention to refuse the payment of taxes, in case of a successful opposition to the passing of the Reform Bill, has given rise to a controversy between the Morning Herald and the True Sun.
The Herald severely censures Lord Milton’s conduct, upon moral grounds, which (leaving the argument of constitutional right to the disputants who have been discussing it) we conceive to be wholly fallacious.
It must be considered what were the circumstances in which Lord Milton made his remarkable declaration.
The country was in a state of extreme and imminent peril.
A great measure, the object of the dearest wishes of all classes of the community, devised by the King and his Ministers, and carried by the Representatives of the People, was thwarted in the House of Lords, by an opposition so pertinacious, that the Ministers, finding themselves unable to fulfill their pledge to the Nation, resigned their places.
This astounding event, and the still more astounding intelligence that the functions of Government were on the point of being committed to the very men who had then successfully defeated the People’s hopes, produced a storm of indignation in every quarter of the country.
Nor was this a storm of words merely.
The whole mass of the People was preparing for deeds of tremendous import.
The Bank of England in a couple of days was drained of a million of specie; runs on the country banks threatened ruin to them and to the thousands whose property was in their hands; the House of Commons was about to stop the machine of Government by stopping the Supplies; and the People, by tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands, were prepared to demand their rights, and to resort to the ultima ratio, that of conscious power, for compelling them.
In such an unheard-of situation of things, what would have been the inevitable consequence of the insane Anti-Reformers being allowed to persist, for three days longer than they did, in their factious opposition?
The storm would have burst in thunder more terrible than ever was heard within our shores.
Its course would, indeed, have been brief — the whirlwind would have swept away the Opposition and its authors; but still its career might have been desolating.
We know that the portentous aspect of things — the indications that, such a storm was impending in the air — were the very circumstances that averted it.
Among the Anti-Reformers themselves, the heart of the boldest quailed within him.
He yielded to the force of necessity; he allowed the tide of Reform to flow unresisted; and calmness was instantly restored.
What prevented the extreme consequences that were impending?
It was the terror produced by the indications of their approach.
Every indication, then, which contributed to heighten this most salutary terror, was a benefit to the country; and every one who bore his part in those indications, was a public benefactor.
Among these indications, was the threatened refusal of the People to pay taxes; and Lord Milton, by his emphatic declaration, gave it, from his station and character, a decisive power and effect.
Instead, therefore, of Lord Milton, in the Herald’s words, setting “an example to the People, the effect of which would have been to reduce society to its first elements, and put in hazard the institutions of the country,” he set them an example of a line of conduct which actually did the very reverse.
The True Sun got caught up in another tax resistance kerfluffle the following year.
But I’ll save that for another time.
Here are a couple of archival bits concerning the tax resistance campaign against taxpayer-funded sectarian education in Britain.
To those who, like ourselves, are full of sympathy and admiration for the Nonconformists, and who believe that the English people owe them a deep debt of gratitude for maintaining a high and noble standard of action not only in things spiritual but in things political, the attitude of paradoxical violence that they have adopted over recent educational developments is a cause of deep regret.
To speak plainly, it is pitiable to see good and self-respecting men so far carried away by rhetorical clap-trap as to imagine that they are compelled by conscience not to pay rates for the same objects for which they were quite willing to pay taxes.
We admire intensely men who will sacrifice everything for conscience’ sake.
It is to such men that England owes her greatness.
But the more we admire that steadfastness and independence in our past history the more we must dislike to see it parodied and made ridiculous by the followers of Dr. [John] Clifford.
If such enactments as the present Bill are to produce resistance to the law, and if the spirit which inspired [John] Hampden’s resistance to ship-money is to be invoked every time that the majority decides against a minority on a question of educational administration, what would be left for us to do if real oppression were to take place?
Consider for a moment what has happened.
Up till now the Nonconformists have been regularly paying taxes which in part have gone to schools in which religious doctrines disliked by Nonconformists have been taught.
They have never thought of going to prison in order to resist those taxes.
Now, however, they tell us that it is a matter of conscience to them to break the law and not pay rates part of which will go to schools in which religious doctrines which they dislike are being taught.
There is no attempt to prove that the new Act has in any way altered the situation for the worse as regards the Nonconformists.
On the contrary, it has to be admitted by all sincere persons that the new Act changes the situation for the better, not for the worse, as far as the Nonconformists are concerned.
Their conscientious scruples, that is, are less, not more, infringed upon by the new Education Act than by the old.
The only difference is between rates and taxes.
The Nonconformist who means to resist with Dr. Clifford cannot avoid being the sport of a paradox.
He must argue that it is perfectly right to pay taxes which help to teach a religion not his own, but so wrong to pay rates for that purpose that he will resist the law rather than do so.
Next, from the New York Press of , a much more flattering portrait (excerpts):
Parade of the Passive Resisters up the Thames Embankment in London
There are now 70,000 Passive Resisters, and so far 7,100 of them have been summoned to court to show cause why their goods should not be sold for taxes in support of a religious creed in which they do not believe, and some 350 of such sales have been held.
Each sale breeds new “Resisters,” and the movement has been growing steadily ever since it was begun, , under the leadership of the Rev. Dr. John Clifford, former president of the National Council of Free Evangelical Churches, pastor of the Westbourne Park Church in London, and probably the foremost Baptist in England.
The Rev. Dr. John Clifford, Leader of the “Passive Resisters”
Suppose a large population of the day schools of the United States were supported and managed by one religious denomination, with teachers of that denomination and with instruction of all the pupils in that one creed.
Then suppose the government enacted a measure taking over those schools and — without changing the sectarian religious instruction o[r] the requirement that the principal teachers should be of the one denomination — should call upon the general taxpayer to support those schools.
Wouldn’t there be a beautiful row before many hours had passed?
Wouldn’t the taxpayers of every other faith except the favored one rise to a man and tell the Government what they thought about it, in terms that couldn’t be mistaken?
Well, they move more slowly over here, and the favored church is, of course, the Established Church, to which, nominally, half the people in England belong.
Yet the American parallel will serve to give an idea of what a big, significant and deep-seated conflict is now going on in this country, despite the fact that outsiders hear little of it.
What in the United States is called the Episcopal Church is in England the Established Church, and all the others — Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, what you will — are bunched together in the Episcopal mind under the sweeping title of “Nonconformists” or “Dissenters.”
They are looked upon with some condescension socially and theologically.
Only the other day a clergyman, touching from his pulpit on the present controversy, said magnanimously that he hoped — yes, he hoped — that Nonconformists would not be excluded from heaven!
They form the great body of the solid, obstinate, hardworking, law-abiding “middle class,” as it is called on this side of the ocean.
What might be dubbed their cathedral is the famous City Temple, from whose pulpit Dr. Joseph Parker thundered for so many years, and which of late has been the scene of several excited gatherings addressed by such noted pulpit orators as the Rev. F.B. Meyer, the Rev. R.J. Campbell, who succeeded Dr. Parker; Dr. Clifford and other leading Nonconformists, all arrayed against the Government.
Some of them were doubtful about Dr. Clifford’s scheme of refusing to pay taxes to the enemy, but all were united in saying that the Government must either repeal the hated Education bill or be overthrown.
The great Liberal party of Gladstone, disunited over the Boer War, came together again in fighting the Government on this act, and now hopes to get back into power as much because of the Education bill as because of Chamberlain’s tariff scheme.
The size of the struggle becomes apparent when one realizes that half the churchgoers in England are arrayed against the other half.
A careful census conducted by a London daily newspaper shows that in actual worshipers the Anglican Church in London does not outnumber the Nonconformists, while in the country districts the Established Church falls short of the Dissenters.
Estimating the respective strengths according to the numbers of communicants, both in London and the provinces, the Nonconformists are outnumbered.
The latter, however, are not disturbed at this, for they declare that every man who is nothing claims the Anglican Church, and they say, as well, that the figures include the “twicers” — that is, those who attend two services each Sunday.
Most of the Nonconformists decided at first to pay the hated tax and take it out in voting against the Government when they got the chance, but the “martyrdom” of the 7,000 who have been warned that they are to be sold up, and the steadfastness of the 70,000 who intend to be sold up, bring on converts to such an extent that no one can tell where the affair will end.
“It is my opinion,” said Dr. Clifford to the writer [Curtis Brown], “that nothing but a general election, bringing a change of Government, will stop this fight.
As long as the Tory party remains in power we have little chance of getting anything permanent, but the Liberal leaders have pledged themselves to two things, which, if granted, will probably suspend the campaign for a time.
These are popular control over the support of the public schools and the abolition of sectarian tests for teachers.
Until these, at least, are granted, the Passive Resisters movement will continue to grow — how much I do not pretend to predict.”
Although almost nothing has been written in the United States about this big contest, letters from sympathizers across the ocean are beginning to pour in by every mail.
In New York and Boston committees have been formed, and funds are being solicited to send across the ocean.
The Rev. Dr. Hill of Valley Falls, N.Y., is the head of the American movement, and nearly all the contributions reach England through him.
Drs. Lorimer and Haw of New York are associated with Dr. Hill, while the Rev. Dr. McArthur of Boston is furthering the cause in that city.
For the benefit of American readers Dr. Clifford summed up the Passive Resistance creed in these words: “We contend that no taxpayer should be obliged to support schools in which dogmatic and ecclesiastical instruction contrary to his belief is taught, nor to help pay teachers who must undergo a denominational religious test before they are allowed to practice their profession.
It is precisely the same spirit which caused the Pilgrims to emigrate to America in , for just as the Government was trying to force a state religion upon the people then, so it is trying to strengthen that religion now by proselytizing the children of Nonconformist parents.”
One of the most unconventional of the auction sales was held recently in a suburb of Birmingham.
A Nonconformist minister who had refused to pay that portion of his taxes which was to be devoted to the support of schools of another faith surprised the officers who visited him to seize his goods by inviting them into his little front parlor, summoning his family and reading the Psalm in which appears the words: “Surely, He shall deliver them from the snare of the fowler and from the noisome pestilence,” and then, asking officers and all to kneel in prayer, in the course of which the pastor besought special grace for the dear friends who had called upon him that afternoon.
After this ceremony the “dear friends” carted off the pastor’s piano.
At Sutton some of the goods of a minister 90 years old were sold off, and in Berwick a Methodist minister was sentenced to seven days’ imprisonment for “passive resistance.”
At Fulham the Mayor himself was among the number summoned to court for withholding the educational part of his tax.
He told the Magistrate that he felt his position keenly, but, come what might, his conscience would not let him pay any portion of a tax for sectarian teaching.
Near Bristol a woman who owned a little farm, and who had tendered all of her tax except the two dollars which was to be devoted to the local sectarian school, was told that part payment could not be accepted, and the horse and cart on which she was depending for a living were seized for the payment of the whole sum.
Friends finally bought in the property for her, but the Government had the last word by charging for a week’s board for the horse.
In another place some vases for which the “resisters” had paid $50 were knocked down to a stranger for the $2.50 of taxes which had been withheld.
In most cases, however, the goods have been bought in by friends of the “resisters” and returned to the original owner, who would thereafter find some way of recouping his rescuers without damage to his conscience.
At one sale in fashionable Brighton the auctioneer was so much in sympathy with his victims that he refused to accept any fee, and sold the goods to friends of the owners for the precise sum required to satisfy the warrant.
Strangers present on the lookout for bargains found it impossible to make themselves heard when they offered more than the friendly bidders.
That auctioneer became a local hero, and was the chief guest after the sale at a meeting in which the local parson proposed to the crowd to send him to Westminster to see what price he could get for a damaged Tory Cabinet.
Eighty would-be martyrs at Ipswich were highly disgusted on the morning of the intended sale of their goods to find that some anonymous benefactor had paid their taxes for them the night before.
A meeting was actually held afterward, at which some of the would-be “resisters” protested against the action of the “ill-disposed” unknown person.
At Northwood the refused tax for six persons made a total of $14, and the goods sold to meet this tax were bought in, as usual, by friends.
But a heavy police guard had been necessary to protect the auctioneer, and the fees of the police and the auctioneer and other expenses made a total of nearly $100. All of the persons concerted were so poor that they could not meet this additional sum, and in consequence a further sale was held, in which the six “resisters” were well-nigh cleaned out.
An officer who called to seize the goods of a “resister” at Stoke-on-Trent was confronted at the door by a hearse, in which the coffin of the “resister’s” son was being placed.
The house was barred to the officer, so he went around to the stable and seized the saddle which had belonged to the dead boy.
Although, as a rule, the local Nonconformist ministers have attended the sales and have exerted themselves to the utmost to keep the sympathizers from doing anything more than chaff the man whose unpleasant duty it was to sell the goods, yet some of the auctioneers have been pretty badly mauled, and one or two have had to run for their lives without effecting sales.
One of them was saved from unpleasant experiences by a Methodist preacher, who laid down on the floor above the room in which the sale was being held and quieted the crowd by an address through a trap door.
Some of the local magistrates before whom the “resisters” have to appear in response to summonses let themselves be fairly submerged by the floods of oratory that break loose on such occasions, but one of the, W.S. Gilbert — none other than the librettist of Gilbert and Sullivan fame — distinguished himself by cutting short the oration of the first “resister” who came before him.
“This court shall not be made an arena for declaiming against an act of Parliament,” quoth the author of “Pinafore.”
The “resisters” have a powerful voice in the House of Commons with the brilliant young Lloyd-George as the leader, and they have a big representative in the financial world in R.W. Perks, who is the English adviser and backer of C.T. Yerkes in the underground railroad schemes.
They have also established a weekly newspaper, The Crusader, and appear to be gaining steadily in confidence that sooner or later they will turn Arthur Balfour and his Cabinet out of office.
Open-Air Auction of Passive Resisters’ Goods.
Dr. Clifford Addressing the Crowd from the Auctioneer’s Stand
The “Radical Reformers” were groups that were pressing for democratic reforms in England — things like universal male suffrage and secret ballots.
They had a largely middle-class, reform-based bent, in contrast to more radical and working-class groups that were also operating at this time.
But the radicals weren’t going down without a fight.
Below I’m going to reproduce some excerpts from a report on a meeting of Radical Reformers in Carlisle that was held on , as described in the Carlisle Patriot.
These show that tax resistance was one of the ways the Radicals were planning to escalate the conflict:
A hand-bill was issued a few days previous, announcing the meeting, and stating its object to be the coming to a resolution of abstaining as much as possible from exciseable articles, in order that, by circumscribing the revenue, the governing powers might be deprived of the means of oppressing the people, and withholding from them their just rights.
…[P]arties of radicals marched into Carlisle… [and] commenced their march through some of the principal streets… to the music of drums and fifes…
[Among the placards they carried was] A board to which were appended, a tea-kettle, a coffee-pot, a snuff-box, a tobacco-box, a broken wine glass, two short old black pipes, a quart and a pint pot, and a broken ale glass.
These were all empty and turned up-side-down, as indicative of uselessness, now that the radicals are determined to abstain from taxed commodities.
The Chairman… stated that this meeting was held… to induce all friends of radical reform to abstain from using certain exciseable articles, until the people had obtained the desired radical reform in the British House of Commons.
(Cheering.)
Mr. M‘Kenzie, a pressman in the Carlisle Journal Office, then commenced an address which he had in the poll of his hat, ready written.
… Were the enormous sums raised by taxation employed only in measures of necessity, the people would bear their privations with philosophical firmness.
But when they see vice revelling in the wages of corruption, they cannot tamely submit to their sufferings.
What do you think of last year’s taxation, amounting to the sum of 58 millions, a sum ten times as great as when the present king ascended the throne — besides the many millions of debt hanging as a millstone about the necks of the people?
To support this system almost every article of consumption is taxed beyond endurance.
Tea pays a duty of 100 per cent.
Salt, which every poor man must use, and which is indispensable to health, is taxed 3000 per cent.
— 30s. upon every shilling’s worth that comes out of the pit.
(Shame, shame.) Those are only a few of the means resorted to to uphold the present system.
But the people must stand firm, and be true to themselves, and put their foes under their feet (cheers); they must put the pandemonium or corruption and oppression to the route; and to do this the more effectually they must withhold the taxes, by refusing to consume articles on which high duties are placed.
To effect this, meetings have been held throughout the country, at which all have unanimously agreed to use as little as possible of such things as tea, tobacco, spirits, wine, &c.; in consequence, the duties of the last quarter fell a long way behind those of the corresponding quarter last year, itself a failing one.
A string of resolutions will be submitted to you, the same in substance as was lately agreed to by 40,000 of your countrymen at a recent meeting in the North.
They have boldly come forward, and are determined to stand by the resolutions, to shew themselves worthy descendants of [Robert the] Bruce and [William] Wallace.
Now, gentlemen, will you not do the same?
(Yes! yes!) Will you not as firmly abide by the resolutions?
(We will!) Every one that refuses to do this, is unworthy to be the countryman of [John] Hampden, [Algernon] Sydney, and [William] Russell.
(Bravo, and cheers.) We must make a long pull, a strong pull, and a pull all together.
(Bravo.) We must manfully drag the monster corruption into day, and put a final period to all our miseries.
(Loud cheering.)
Mr. [James] Weems now stepped forward.
… Let all present abstain from the use of exciseable articles, in order to keep the revenue down, for no pay no soldier, therefore the people must withhold the means, and thus pull down the present abominable system — and it shall come down! a few months only will finish the job!
(Loud cheering.) He would now retire in order to permit the reading of the resolutions, which done, he designed to make a few remarks upon them.
The following resolutions were then read by Mr. Liddell, bootmaker:–
That this meeting views with grief and sorrow an accumulated load of poverty, starvation, and wretchedness, heaped on this once happy land; and that this state of suffering is not confined to one class of society, but extends less or more over all (except those who live on taxation); that this misery is the result of an enormous load of taxation imposed upon the people by those who style themselves their rulers, but who have only plundered the defenceless people of their all, to render themselves despotic and rule by the law of the sword.
That the ruling faction could not have carried on their iniquitous measures, had it not been for the ignorance of the people, because tyranny ceases to exist the moment man is enlightened, therefore it is the duty of every man to procure useful information respecting his sacred rights and liberties, that as a man he may defend them against every encroachment, from whatever quarter it may come, for which important purpose men should associate in small numbers for their mutual instruction and improvement, that thus a race of enlightened men may arise who shall demand their rights as men, in a tone that will make tyranny tremble and hide its guilty head.
That the people have, in a great measure, themselves to blame for their sufferings, because they have inconsiderately wasted much of their money in the consumption of exciseable articles, whereby they have kept themselves in poverty and ignorance, to the support of despots, who keep a large standing army in time of peace to prevent the people from obtaining their constitutional rights, all which is a direct violation of the Great Charters of British Liberty.
That the exciseable articles particularly referred to, are tea, which pays a duty of cent. per cent. or just one half, consequently, every five ounces of tea consumed by any family, pays a soldier a day’s wages to prevent the people obtaining their rights and liberties; tobacco and snuff pay threpence an ounce, so that five ounces of these articles pay a soldier a day’s wages; spiritous liquors pay 11s. per gallon, or better than fourpence per noggin, consequently, every four noggins [approximately a pint] that a man drinks, he not only abuses his own constitution, impairs his finances, benumbs his understanding, and paralizes all the noble faculties of his soul, but pays a hireling soldier to keep him in subjection to a cruel and merciless task-master.
Ale, which pays duties equal to spirits, may be viewed in the same light, as being equally destructive to the morals, the finances, and tends to the support of tyranny.
That every Radical Reformer should put on a firm resolution to abstain from the use of the above articles until he obtain a radical reform in the House of Commons.
The happiest results may be expected from this line of conduct; he will always be in a sound state of mind and body, he will improve his mind by reading and reflection, and afford to his radical brethren good evidence that he is earnestly desirous to promote radical reform, and that to obtain this important end he can sacrifice his own propensities.
And lastly, that which is of infinite importance to the good cause, he will keep out of the pockets of the borough-monger faction a great part of that revenue on which they depend to support themselves in their usurped authority.
That as Radical Reformers are generally oppressed and injured by those who oppose their constitutional claims, it is indispensably necessary that they endeavour to assist and support each other in their respective trades, callings, or professions, and that they should deal as much as they possibly can with each other, thus aiding, assisting, and encouraging one another in the good and great cause of universal freedom.
That although the faction in power may trump up green bag plots [referring, apparently, to a case in which the government planted agents provocateurs in Radical meetings to promote violent acts which were then used as justification for extra-legal crackdowns, much as is commonly done by the U.S. government today — Here’s a pamphlet by Radical Reformer Henry Hunt on “The Green Bag Plot.”], in order to form a pretext for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, and may obtain such suspension and under its operation may send many innocent men to jail, harass and plague men infinitely better than themselves, yet they cannot thereby pay that enormous load of debt they have contracted, neither can they compel the Reformers to pay the interest thereof by compelling them to swallow their abominable exciseable articles, therefore, Reformers may comfort themselves with the idea that the debt and all its consequences hang over the heads of the borough-mongers notwithstanding indemnity or suspension bills.
[and so forth]
Mr. Weems again came forward… The [third] resolution informs us, that the people have themselves to blame for their sufferings.
This is in a great measure true, because they have tamely given their money in the support of a hireling army, backed by which, their oppressors have been enabled to grind them to the earth.
But this day, let us give them good earnest that we will do so no more; let them see that our eyes are opened; that in future we mean to be more circumspect; and prevent the borough faction from oppressing us, by keeping our money for our own use; — and probably we shall want it, too, to provide for our own defence (very loud cheering), because by that thing called magna charta, every one has a right to have arms, and should have them.
(Cries of, And we will have them!) And I hope on that day no cowards will be found (cheers), but that all will be ready to spend the last drop of their blood in handing down our rights.
(Loud cheers).
— The next resolution informs us of various exciseable articles from which our oppressors derive their greatest support.
Many of these cannot be done without; but such as can be done without, should be given up.
Spirits, for instance, which injure not the pocket alone; they destroy the constitution and paralize the soul.
By giving up these silly articles, we afford evidence that we are hearty in the cause, and are willing to sacrifice our appetites for the general good.
If we cannot suffer in a trifle, how are we to stand in the field of battle?
(cheers.) We shall be liable to run away.
(True, true.) If we wish to afford evidence that we shall stand firm in the day of battle, we must take for our example, Sydney, Hampden, Bruce, and Wallace.
(Applause.) — The next resolution, that every radical reformer put on a firm determination to abstain from these exciseable articles, I have no doubt all will acquiesce in.
… Do the resolutions meet with your approbation?
(Yes!) If so, signify the same by three cheers.
— (Loud Cheering.)
After the dispersal of the meeting, the Lady-Radicals proceeded, in a body, to the house of one of the sisterhood, in Shaddongate, where they enjoyed a comfortable cup of either mint tea, or acorn coffee.
As the evening advanced, some of the leading radicals forgot their morning-vows of abstinence, and were not backward in their potations at different public houses.
The “exciseable articles” agreed so ill with one of the most conspicuous of the leading men, that in bouncing about, just by way of practising the true liberty of the subject, he broke 20s. worth of glass, — thus adding we know not how much to the resources of the enemy!
At one point the Reformers raised a toast to “Cobler Jem, who is a noble example to all reformers.”
A footnote explained that:
This said Cobler Jem is a well-known character in Carlisle, and was in the habit of consuming eighteen-pence or two shillings worth of snuff weekly.
This quantum he has taken for 50 years (we are within the mark), which, at 1s. 6d. per week, to say nothing of interest, amounts to the round sum of £195!
Add to this, that his wife has snuffed nearly the same quantity!
Yet, wonderful to tell!
— but what cannot the principles of radical reform effect?
— Cobler Jem and his lady have thrown away their snuff-boxes!!!
John Clifford, leader of the Passive Resistance movement
Continuing from where I left off , here are a few more examples of the newspaper coverage of the tax resistance campaign against provisions of the Education Act, a long-term, widespread campaign with mass participation that proved very influential to other tax resistance campaigns that followed.
First, some excerpts from the Western Times:
Passive Resistance.
An Enthusiastic Meeting at Stratton.
A large and enthusiastic meeting to hear an address on this subject by the Rev. S.B. Lane, of Brighton, was held the Lecture Hall, Stratton, .
The audience consisted chiefly of men who came from the district round, Mr. J.P. Baker presided and he was supported on the platform by the Rev. S.B. Lane, Rev. J. Seldon (Kilkhampton), Rev. E. Craddock (Holsworthy), Rev. F. Rabey (Bude), and Mr. Williams (Schoolmaster Kilkhampton).
After a hymn and prayer by the Rev. J. Seldon, the Chairman said they had met to welcome Mr. Lane and to give passive resistance to the wretched Education Act which he said was bad from the crown of its head to the sole of its foot.
It was an unfair Bill, it imposed tests, and the country would not rest until it was wiped out of the land.
He hoped the audience had come with an open mind and he trusted some would be convinced.
He (the Chairman) was prepared to go to prison, if need be, rather than pay the rate.
The Rev. S.B. Lane said they wanted no bitter feelings against anyone, what they wanted was religious equality.
Some of them were passive resisters.
He was glad to see some Churchmen present, he wanted deal with the question fairly.
He (the Speaker) formed one of the deputation to Mr. Balfour when Dr. Fairbairn said to Mr. Balfour that they would not submit.
He would not have agreed to the compromise On questions being invited, an Elector enquired if he refused to pay the rate, whether he should lose his vote.
The Chairman thought there was no fear of losing the vote.
It depended upon the overseer whether he would take part of the rate or not.
Mr. Williams (Wesleyan Schoolmaster, Kilkhampton) said in England and Wales he would debarred from 16,000 schools.
In Cornwall, 162 schools, and within six miles seven schools were closed against him.
Why?
Because went to chapel.
“Is that right?”
he asked, and added.
“I shan’t pay!”
The Rev. E. Craddock moved “That this meeting strongly denounces the Act and earnestly seeks its early repeal, and sympathises with those who refuse pay the sectarian rate on conscientious grounds.”
This was carried with no dissentients.
Hearty votes of thanks were passed to Mr. Lane and the Chairman.
Invitation was given to join the Passive Resistance League, names to be given in to Mr. Williams.
The first reports of reprisals begin to come in: from the Aberdeen Journal:
Objectors to the Education Act
Distress Warrants Granted.
Two Baptist ministers, a coal merchant, and a Dissenting schoolmaster, were summoned at Stroud (Gloucester) Police Court for not paying their rates.
They pleaded that they conscientiously objected to pay the full rate because part was devoted to the maintenance of sectarian schools.
The chairman advised the defendants to pay under protest.
The bench could only carry out the law.
Distress warrants were issued.
An article by the Rev. A. Gray in the Burnley Express included a tribute to John Hampden, and this note about how the campaign was proceeding in Wales:
Wales is leading the van in this great fight against the Education Bill of .
The “rock of offence” in their eyes, as well as in ours, is the teaching of denominationalism at the public expense.
At Cardiff, on , a Welsh National Convention was held, “which was remarkable for the determined spirit manifested thereat.”
As is well known most of the Welsh County Councils have determined to administer the Act in “the spirit and along the lines of the motto, ‘no rate aid without public control.’ ” Mr. Lloyd-George made a great speech at the evening meeting, in which he counselled ratepayers to adopt Passive Resistance in “those areas where the county councils are determined to administer the Act in the interests of denominationalism.”
“In these infected areas where the councils had betrayed the people, let the people withhold the rate from them.”
The Sheffield Daily Telegraph had an anonymous letter opposing the passive resisters that included a comment about Quaker war tax resistance that caught my eye:
Formerly our Quakers rebelled in like manner against war taxation.
They had far better grounds, for war not absolutely defensive is no actual or imaginary injustice; it is confessedly unchristian.
But Quakers are more sensible in these days.
Their opinions are known, and they pay their war tax with that reservation.
That paper also covered additional cases of passive resisters being taken to court.
“Considerable interest was evinced in the cases, as the two defendants were well known, being the Rev. T. Collins, resident Primitive Methodist Minister for the Patrington Circuit, and the other Miss Lilla Talbot, daughter of the late Mr. E. Talbot, Methodist minister.”
Distress warrants were granted against each.
At Alnwick on , George William Thompson and the Revs. John Oman, John Otty, and Ernest Oliver, Nonconformist ministers, were summoned for refusing to pay the Education Rate.
— Mr. Joel, barrister, who prosecuted, said some people sought the martyrdom, which might be the object of those proceedings.
— Mr. Thompson said he had no desire to be a mock martyr, but those proceedings were the only remedy the law allowed him of expressing disapproval of the rate.
— The other defendants objected to pay the portion of the rate devoted to education purposes, on the ground that it inflicted gross injustice on Nonconformists.
— The magistrates made an order on all the defendants to pay the rate demanded.
The News and General Advertiser brought this news:
Berwick Passive Resistance League.
This League met in the Baptist Church on , the Rev. R[obert] Leggat presiding.
The Chairman explained that the meeting had been called for the purpose of taking into consideration what measures should be adopted when the demand notes were issued by the overseers, which would take place within the next few days.
He was given to understand that the overseers had already discussed whether they had to instruct their collector to take the rates less the Education rate, or whether they should insist on having the full pound of flesh.
The discussion, he understood, had been a very animated one, and lasted for over an hour, practically degenerating into a wrangle between Church and Dissent.
It had been ultimately agreed by 4 to 2 to refuse anything except the whole rate.
The Churchwardens had voted solidly for this motion which meant of course that they would put the Nonconformists to as much expense and trouble as possible.
On the other side of the river the demand notes had already been issued, and some persons had paid the full rate in ignorance of the fact that the Education rate was included in the Borough rate.
It would be well that they should understand that this new rate was not specified on the demand note, but was included under the heading of the Borough rate.
Mr George Martin said that as the Council had the appointment of overseers it would be for the community to see at the next election whether churchwardens as such should be appointed overseers.
The Rev. Lamb Harvey said that the Education rate was 4d. in the £ rental, and the rate for sectarian schools would therefore be about 1d. in the £ so they should recommend to members of the League that they should tender payment of all with the exception of the 1d. in the £ rental for sectarian schools.
It was also agreed to issue a further manifesto making plain the position of the League, and the reasons which had led them to adopt this attitude.
The manifesto followed that article.
It lays out their complaints about being forced to pay for sectarian schools and says “we earnestly invite all lovers of religious liberty and even-handed justice to join us in refusing to pay this rate.”
The Hull Daily Mail covered a meeting presided over by parliamentarian Robert W. Perks, in which he slammed the Education Act and had this to say about the passive resistance campaign:
He deprecated the idea that people should always submit to Parliamentary enactments, that a law abound the property and conscience of the people.
That was not English, it was not in accordance with British history.
He believed the Education Rate was an unjust and an immoral tax, and he did not believe it would be defended upon any righteous ground.
When the bailiffs came to his house they would have to worm it from him by distraining upon his goods (applause).
The Burnley Express and Advertiser of covered a meeting of the Burnley and District Passive Resistance League which was attended by about 400 people.
The meeting entertained the following resolution:
That this meeting protests against the so-called Education Act, , because it is unconstitutional in character, and seriously violates the principles of religious liberty, and hereby pledges itself to make every effort for its early repeal, and meanwhile gladly recognises the patriotic action of those who are prepared to resist the payment of that portion of the rate which may be levied for dogmatic teaching in rate-aided schools.
A G.W. King moved the resolution and added: “There was one weapon left with which they could deal out some heavy blows against the Act, and that was the weapon of passive resistance.”
The Rev. T. Seaton Davies seconded the resolution.
He spoke of what he called the marvellous growth of the passive resistance movement, and said the passive resisters were becoming a force which would have to be reckoned with.
On the whole he thought they had gained rather than lost in popularity by the sneers of their enemies and the criticisms of their friends.
“Alderman White, M.P.” spoke next, and in part, “replied to the charge made against the passive resisters that they were revolutionists and anarchists, and remarked that it did not matter whether the education rate was 1d. or £100, he would resist it.”
What he felt as the most serious part of that business was this, that the Protestantism of the nation was very largely at stake in that matter, for none of them knew what the insidious influence of High Church was, how it was burrowing underground in many ways.
Therefore, he said that one means in his judgment of keeping that thing alive was to resist paying the rate, as it was necessary for the maintenance of their Free Church principles, and for their Protestantism, to do so, and many of them felt they could not do less, whatever the consequences were.
They alone could do it.
It was the Free Churches which must do it.
It was not a single combat, but a war.
In entering upon that position they were entering upon a long struggle which could end only in the disestablishment of the Church — (applause) — which was the sole cause of putting the educational clock back.
Being on the right in that matter, they were bound, in the long run, to gain the victory.
(Applause)
Below this was an accompanying article:
“Resistance” at Padiham
On the executive of the Free Church Council met at Mount Zion Baptist school, the Rev. D. Muxworthy presiding, and it was decided to form a Passive Resistance League for the town, and a public meeting will follow, probably next week.
We are informed that a deputation has waited upon the accountant and assistant overseer (Mr. R.T. Whitehead), with reference to the deduction of that portion of the poor rate which is put down for education purposes — 3d. in the £, and the president of the Free Church Council states that the answer was that resisters could pay the rate with this reservation, and that the law would have to recover this separately.
On , the Rev. G.W. Bloomfield, pastor of the Mount Zion Baptist Chapel, preached on passive resistance, and gave the following reasons for refusing to pay the education rate, having already refused… [the usual grievances follow]
An editorial in the Coventry Herald decrying the passive resistance movement, put the danger in these terms:
Not only is resistance to the law being made or contemplated, but, in some cases at least, the particular methods taken to encourage it constitute an additional defiance of the law, amounting to legal conspiracy.
There may be nothing illegal in passive resistance, in itself considered; legal authorities have been cited to that effect.
In such cases the law executes itself; those who refuse their money have to part with their goods; they pay in the end.
A peaceful acquiescence in this solution of a legal liability exemplifies the theory of passive resistance.
In a by-gone generation Quakers took this attitude in regard to war taxes; but they did not seek to emphasize their action by public demonstrations, or to make it spread beyond their own borders.
What is called passive resistance to the Education Act is, for the most part, of another character; it is organised, and, practically, missionary.
The author quotes from a letter by James Guinness Rogers that appeared in the London Times, in which that nonconformist minister and disestablishment activist warned that “Passive resistance may be regarded… either as a piece of political strategy, or as an act of supreme loyalty to conscience, and the two cannot be confounded without serious misunderstanding as to the issue at stake.”
The editorial adds this note about the “missionary” strategy of the resistance movement:
We have in Coventry a Passive Resistance League for the city and district.
A week ago, the number of members was stated at 150, and it is believed to be increasing.
There was recently a public meeting in Queen’s Road Chapel, at which a manifesto, setting forth the case against the Act, was approved.
This manifesto, addressed “To the People of Coventry,” is about to be distributed from house to house; eighteen thousand copies have been printed.
Attached are two forms; one is for those who desire to be added to the list of passive resisters; the second is for persons “who unable to decline” to pay the education rate (compounders and others presumably) desire to show their sympathy with those who refuse it and their willingness to contribute to an indemnity fund.
Sympathisers with the manifesto are invited to fill either of the forms, and to send the same to one of twenty-five gentlemen whose names are given; the twenty-five include nine Nonconformist ministers.
This is “passive resistance” up-to-date.
Next, from the Gloucester Citizen:
Passive Resistance.
The Mayor of Wisbech declares that he will suffer distraint of goods rather than pay the education rate.
It is thought that the distrained goods of some “passive resisters” at Matlock Bath will be taken to some distant town and sold.
Mr. Lloyd-George, M.P., speaking at Stratford on , extolled the passive resistance movement, and incidentally expressed the opinion that Mr. Chamberlain had started his new idea of taxing the people’s food for the purpose of withdrawing public attention from the iniquitous Education Act.
On , Prime Minister Balfour released a lengthy letter to the press in which he attacked the arguments against the Education Act and in particular the Passive Resistance campaign against it.
This suggests that the government had begun to become alarmed.
The gauntlet was taken up by the reverend A.S. Hollinshead, who devoted his sermon to “Christ and Cæsar” — insisting that this time Caesar had gone too far and it was the duty of Free Churchmen to refuse.
On a meeting in Cheltenham of “large attendance, including a number of ladies in the gallery” discussed the question: “Shall we resist?”
A report was given in ’s Cheltenham Chronicle.
Balfour’s letter was derided, but also held up as a sign that the movement was making headway in becoming a genuine thorn in the side of the powers that be.
The Rev. Walker Blott, during whose speech a collection was taken on behalf of expenses, explained the basis on which the Cheltenham and District Passive Resistance Union had been formed.
The refusal of the Cheltenham overseers to make a simple concession that they might easily have made showed that they would have no consideration in the battle; but they did not yet know how far persecution would be carried.
They wished to collect funds sufficient to enable them to support the poorest townsmen in the struggle, and also to distribute literature (cheers).
The reverend Hirst Hollowell included the following in his remarks:
Here the speaker referred to the action of several Christian ladies in Suffolk who had boldly entered the precincts of a police-court and stated before the magistrates their reasons for refusing to pay this rate.
… Not only were people refusing to pay this rate all over the country, but were going before the magistrates, and that very day the Government had commenced business on behalf of the Churches of Rome and England.
At Worksworth, in Derbyshire, the auctioneer had commenced to flourish his hammer, for there they were taking the lead in this historical refusal to pay the rate.
Nine o’clock was the time secretly fixed for the first sale by public auction of a passive resister’s goods and chattels; but men heard of it, and drove 14 miles to the nearest telegraph station, messages being dispatched in all directions.
One reached Dr. Clifford, who left London by the newspaper train at 5.15 in order to be present (loud cheers).
Six hundred men faced the auctioneer, and not a public bid was given (loud cheers); but someone privately bought the articles seized and restored them to their owners.
Then a huge crowd surrounded Dr. Clifford, who spoke to them for over an hour in the rain (loud cheers).
He believed they were on the eve of one of the greatest triumphs for liberty England had ever seen: and he trusted that in the preceding battle and sacrifices the harassed and brilliant town of Cheltenham would take a foremost and glorious place (loud cheers).
The meeting continued:
The Chairman then put the resolution– “That this meeting approves of the formation of a Passive Resistance Union for Cheltenham, and resolves to give it hearty support.”
— The meeting rose to support it, and on those against it being also asked to stand up, Mr. Alf.
Mann and Mr. Bradfield proved to be the only dissentients.
The Rev. J. Foster, in moving a vote of thanks to the speakers, expressed the hope that they should have 500 or even 1,000 pledged passive resisters (applause).
… He warned people to ask before paying their rates if anyone had already paid the sectarian proportion for them, and to make a further deduction if necessary.
The Rev. J. Lewitt seconded, saying that he had never paid an ecclesiastical rate in his life, and that by God’s help he never would do so (applause).
The motion was heartily carried, and the meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the chairman.
And that takes us through …
George White, member of Parliament and passive resister
We’re now in of our survey of the newspaper coverage of the “passive resistance” campaign against taxpayer-funded sectarian education in Britain.
To start off with, a brief article from the Gloucester Citizen:
Passive Resistance.
M.P.’s Presentation Watch Sold.
Among the goods disposed of on at a sale of effects seized from passive resisters at Tettenhall was a gold presentation watch belonging to Mr. C.E. Shaw, M.P. for Stafford.
The watch was purchased by Mr. Shaw’s coachman for £7.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells published a compromise proposal in the London Times — something similar to the “peace tax fund” proposal that often gets floated in war tax resistance circles:
Let a clearing house (of the nature of a railway clearing house) be established in connection with the Board of Education.
To this clearing house let every county and local authority notify with regularity the amount of rate it is intending to levy for primary schools; specifying how much of this is required for provided or Council schools, and how much for non-provided or voluntary schools.
Let each ratepayer who is conscientiously opposed to paying any rate towards the support of voluntary schools be allowed (on making a declaration to this effect) to earmark his rate “for the support of provided schools only.”
Let the amount thus earmarked be notified also to the clearing house.
An adjustment of the rates levied in different localities can be easily made at the clearing house; so that, however numerous might be the strained consciences in some districts, a transference of rate-payers’ money not so earmarked would prevent any difficulties being experienced.
The Manchester Courier, and Lancashire General Advertiser noted the summons of 24 resisters in Keighley, including “three ministers, two ex-mayors and magistrates, and a Parliamentary candidate.”
Finally, The Hastings and St. Leonards Observer, in its edition, covered a local passive resistance movement rally.
Excerpts:
Passive Resisters.
Assemble at the Royal Concert Hall.
Mr. New Declares the Cause Is Advancing by Leaps and Bounds
The Act Must Be “Mended or Ended.”
“Take Joseph Chamberlain’s Life!”
Fiery Political Oratory.
The local Passive Resisters held a public meeting at the Royal Concert Hall on .
There was a large attendance.
Three most eloquent speakers orated, but the gathering could hardly be compared with the Resistance Demonstration held , just after the first sale of goods seized in respect to non-payment of rates by Resisters.
…Ladies predominated alike on the platform and in the body of the hall.
The Chairman [Rev. C. New]… congratulated them once more on that large gathering, and he felt it was rather remarkable that whenever they had a meeting on the Education Act they could easily fill the largest building in the town, and this was one of the proofs of the very strong hold the movement had on the sympathies and interest of the general public.
(Hear, hear.)… [T]hey could congratulate themselves on the persistent, unbroken progress of the movement, though some persons, who only read the Times and the Daily Telegraph, and never saw those papers which recorded the actual facts, might say otherwise.
They would learn from the latter that there were bound up in the movement 20,000 men and women: then they had what was going on in Wales under Mr. Lloyd George — (cheers) — and as soon as ever the London Council issued the demand note in connection with the administration of the London Act the number of Resisters would be increased by 10,000.… Within one hour of that building, and they knew their local trains did not take them very far in an hour — (laughter) — while on one side they had the sea, they had no less than ten strong and determined Passive Resisters’ centres.
(Hear, hear.)
In their own town he was glad and proud to say that the number of Resisters had during increased by about 60 per cent., or rather more than that.
They had had serious losses through migrations from the town, but he was thankful to say he did not know of any backslider or of anyone who was less determined than ever he was to refuse to pay the rate.
(Cheers.)… One warning he would give with regard to possible danger: they were hopeful of the result, being confident that they were on the winning side, and they did so, not simply because of the signs they saw but because they were convinced they were on the right side.
(Hear, hear.)
But they must mark the fact that the victory was not yet won, it was by no means won: the end might be a great deal further off than they were apt to suppose, and it was imperative that they should steadfastly persist.
They might be sure that the victory could never be won by half-heartedness, or spasmodic effort, or by occasional impulsive energy, but only by strong, persistent, unconquerable conviction.
They could not afford to relax their vigilance in the slightest degree, or to leave undone anything that could be done.
If they persisted they would win; but if they failed to persist the prospect of victory would vanish.
(Cheers.)
The Rev. Dr. Wenyon [said, among other things]… He had spent much of his life in China, and there the question arose whether converts to Christianity should continue to pay taxes for the support of idol worship.
The Wesleyan, London, and Church Missionary Societies’s Committee at home said they must not, and the Chinese became Passive Resisters.
(Hear, hear.)
He came home and he found himself confronted with the same position, and what could he do but resist?
(Cheers.)…
Mr. George White, M.P. spoke next.… For some time he had had to complain that, although one of the first to move in the matter, he had been “left out in the cold.”
He had, however, just handed a telegram to his friend, Mr. Horne, which informed him that he would have the privilege of being distrained upon on .
(Loud applause.)… Last week, when he appeared before a Bench of Magistrates, and the case was about half through, a friend of his, a Magistrate, spoke to a brother Justice, a Conservative, who said: “It’s not a bit of good going on; the Act must be repealed.”
(Hear, hear.)…
For the record, the “Take Joseph Chamberlain’s Life!” promised in the headlines was in reference to a “take my wife… please!”-style joke.
A man walks into a bookstore and the clerk suggests a book: “Take The Life of Joseph Chamberlain” and he answers “I would, but I never had the opportunity.”
The speaker (George White) was saying he felt the same way about then-Prime Minister Balfour.
Continuing:
The Rev. Sylvester Horne… [said] The fact of the matter was, unless the Nonconformists fought the battle, and fought it out, it would not be fought.
That was why they were there.
Referring to the recent Church Census in London, he said, to use a vulgar phrase from the Tottenham Court-road, those were the people he had got his knife into, the people who were counted as going to Church, but who did not count when the real fighting came on.
Where were they?
Folding their arms and leaving it to Alderman O’Connor to go to jail — (applause) — and to Mr. White and others whose convictions were dearer to them than property.
(Applause.)
Those kind of people named their children Oliver Cromwell — (laughter) — or John Hampden.
(Renewed laughter.)
They lived in a house usually called Bunyan House or Wesley Villa.
(Laughter.)
He did not reserve all his admiration for the men of 300 years ago.
Those people were so heartily in favour of the Reformation, but when they wanted a reformation in their own day, where were they?
He did not think they ought to reserve all their enthusiasm for Oliver Cromwell; let them keep a pocket full for John Clifford.
(Loud applause.)… He was hoping to live long enough to add another chapter to the history of the Free Churches by writing a history of the movement.
(Applause.)
Places they had never heard of had sprung into everlasting distinction, Sudbury down in Suffolk, where they turned out every Guardian for not behaving well, and put Passive Resisters in — (applause) — and there had been a most glorious state of things in Sudbury ever since.
(Laughter.)
What about West Ham?
(Applause.)
No one could imagine it was a romantic or poetic neighbourhood.
But West Ham had been producing heroes, and if they could get heroes from West Ham they could get them out of anywhere.
(Laughter, and applause.)
Go down to the Isle of Wight.
Anyone would tell them that the saintliest person there was the dear old lady who wrote the hymn they all sang as children, and Mrs. [Jemima] Luke had made up her mind that at the age of 91 she would go through the police-court — (applause) — because she said her white hair should never go down in dishonour to the grave.
(Applause.)
Jemima Luke would be summoned to court for her resistance in .
Special mention must be made of one of the many Suffrage Societies which sprang into existence during the decade before the outbreak of war.
With the Freedom League originated the idea that in view of the dictum that taxation and representation must go together, a logical protest on the part of voteless women would be to decline to pay Imperial taxes until they should have a share in electing Members of the Imperial Parliament.
From onwards, Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard had adopted this form of protest, with notable results.
In the following year, some of her goods were seized, but difficulties occurred, as one auctioneer after another refused to have anything to do with selling them.
When one was finally found, the sale was attended by a large number of Mrs. Despard’s followers, who succeeded in holding up the proceedings until requested by her to desist.
When her piece of plate was at last put up for sale, the bidding was very brisk, and the article was eventually knocked down to a certain Mr. Luxembourg for double its estimated value.
This gentleman insisted on returning it to Mrs. Despard, who accepted it on behalf of the Women’s Freedom League, among whose archives, suitably inscribed in memory of the occasion, it holds an honoured place.
In subsequent years, various devices were adopted with the object of compelling Mrs. Despard’s submission.
Thus she, for whom prison had no terrors, was threatened with imprisonment in default of payment; she was summoned before the High Court, when, in her absence, judgment was pronounced against her.
On only two other occasions, however, was distraint levied.
, a separate society, with the above title, was formed, with Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes as secretary, for experience showed that a special knowledge of the technicalities of the law was necessary, and special machinery had to be set up.
Those who addressed themselves to this business were rewarded by the discovery of curious anomalies and irregularities of the law where women were concerned.
Thus, for instance, it was revealed that whereas married women are not personally liable to taxation (the Income Tax Act of never having been brought into line with the Married Women’s Property Acts), nevertheless payment of taxes was illegally exacted of them whenever possible.
With the assistance of the expert advice of Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie and others, many cases of injustice and overcharges were exposed and circumvented, Somerset House officials being mercilessly worried.
Imprisonments for Non-Payment of Taxes
It was in , that the first imprisonments in connection with this particular form of protest took place.
Miss [Constance] Andrews of Ipswich was sent to prison for a week for refusing to pay her dog’s tax, and about the same time, Mrs. [Emma] Sproson of Wolverhampton served a similar sentence for the same offence.
The latter was, however, rearrested, and sentenced this time to five weeks’ imprisonment, being placed in the Third Division in Stafford Gaol.
She thereupon entered on the hunger strike, and on the personal responsibility of the Governor, without instructions from the Home Office, she was transferred to the First Division, where she completed her sentence.
Imprisonments in various parts of the country thereafter took place with some frequency, but whenever possible this extreme course appears to have been avoided, and resisters’ goods were seized and sold by public auction, the officials reserving the right of adopting whichever course they deemed most suitable.
By this means, auctioneers’ sale rooms, country market-places, corners of busy thoroughfares, and all manner of unlikely spots, became the scene of protests and demonstrations.
Miss Housman’s Imprisonment
The case which excited the most interest was that of Miss Clemence Housman, sister of the well-known author, who, having stoutly declined to pay the trifling sum of 4s. 6d. (which by dint of writs, High Court Procedure, etc., in due course mounted up to over £6), and not having goods which could be seized, was arrested by the Sheriff’s Officer, and conveyed to Holloway, there to be detained until she paid.
A storm of protest arose, meetings being held at Mr. Housman’s residence in Kensington, outside Holloway Gaol, and in Hyde Park on .
After a week’s incarceration, Miss Housman, who had been singularly well treated in the First Division, was unconditionally released, and on inquiring of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue how she stood in the matter, she was informed that it was closed by her arrest and subsequent release.
By way of celebrating victories such as these, the League held a John Hampden dinner at the Hotel Cecil in , when some 250 guests assembled and listened to speeches from prominent Suffragists of both sexes, when we may be sure that the moral of the story of John Hampden was duly pointed, and many a modern parallel was quoted.
A novel feature of the evening’s proceedings was the appearance of a toast mistress, in the person of Mrs. Arncliffe Sennett.
Mr. Mark Wilks’ Imprisonment
In an incident occurred which illustrated both the anomalous position which married women occupy under the law and also the impossibility of enforcing the law where consent is withheld.
Dr. Elisabeth Wilks, being one of those who held with the Liberal dictum that taxation and representation should go together, had for some years past refused to pay her Imperial taxes, and on two occasions a distraint had been executed on her goods, and they had been sold by public auction.
Then it struck her that her “privileged” position under the law would afford her protection from further annoyance of this kind, and being a married woman, she referred the officials to her husband.
When application was made to the latter for his wife’s income tax return, he told the harassed officials that he did not possess the required information, nor did he know how to procure it.
After some delays and negotiations, the Treasury kindly undertook to make the assessment itself, charging Mr. Wilks at the unearned rate, though Mrs. Wilks was well known to be a medical woman, whose income was derived from her practice.
After over two years of correspondence and threats of imprisonment, since Mr. Wilks sturdily refused to produce the sum demanded, he was arrested on and conveyed to Brixton Gaol, there to be detained until he paid.
Still he remained obdurate, while friends outside busied themselves on his behalf.
Protests poured into the Treasury offices, Members of Parliament were inundated with the like, deputations waited on everybody concerned, and public meetings on the subject were held in great number.
The result was that, at the end of a fortnight, Mr. Wilks was once more a free man.
Other Tax-Resisters
Legislators had recently provided women with additional reasons for refusing to pay taxes.
In the National Insurance Act became the law of the land, and defects in that Act as far as it concerned women, which were pointed out at the time, have become more and more apparent every year that the Act has been in force.
Some few modifications were made in their favour, but they had no effective means of expressing their views.
Again, by means of a Resolution, which occupied a few hours of discussion on , Members of Parliament voted themselves a salary of £400 a year, and only one member, Mr. Walter McLaren, raised his voice to protest against the fresh injustice which this proposal inflicted on women, who were not only subject to legislation in the framing of which they had no voice, but were further called upon to pay those who thus legislated for them…
The Revenue authorities did not repeat the experiment of arresting any women resisters on whom it was not possible to levy distraint, with the result that the Women’s Tax-Resistance League claimed to have a growing list of members who paid no taxes, and who, in spite of repeated threats of imprisonment, were still at large.
Distraint for non-payment was, however, frequent, with the result that up and down the country, and as far north as Arbroath, the gospel of tax-resistance was carried, and secured many adherents, including members of the enfranchised portion of the community, some of whom, in their official capacities, gave public support to the rebels.
Many auctioneers of the better class refused to sell the goods of tax-resisters, and it is on record that one who had done so sent his fee as a donation to the League.
Two members of the League, Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison of St. Leonard’s and Mrs. [Kate] Harvey of Bromley, barricaded themselves in their houses, and succeeded in keeping the officials who came to make the distraint at bay, the former for a period of several weeks, and the latter for a period of no less than eight months.
In both cases, an entry was eventually made by force, but much public sympathy was evinced in both cases, and crowded meetings of protest were held in the largest local halls available.
It is interesting to record that on , a statue was unveiled in the market-place of Aylesbury to the memory of John Hampden, who in the time of Charles Ⅰ. had refused the ship money which that monarch had illegally levied on his subjects.
The sum involved was the trifling one of 20s., but, rather than pay it, John Hampden suffered himself to be imprisoned.
He was subsequently released without a stain upon his character, and a statue to this rebel stands in no less hallowed a spot than the House of Commons, of which assembly he was a Member.
An application on the part of the Women’s Tax-Resistance League of the twentieth century to be officially represented at the unveiling by Lord Rothschild of the statue erected to his memory in Aylesbury was met with a refusal.
That the spirit which animated this seventeenth-century fighter was not, however, dead was evident when, at the conclusion of the official ceremony, a little procession of tax-resisters, supported by men sympathizers, approached the statue and silently laid a wreath at its foot…
Tax Resistance
Throughout tax resisters continued to defy the revenue officials, with varying results.
Among those who resisted paying their taxes for the first time may be mentioned [Mary Russell] the Duchess of Bedford, Miss Beatrice Harraden, Mrs. Flora Annie Steele, and Miss [Ethel] Sargant, the last-named of whom presided over a section of the British Association later in the year, being the first woman to fill such a position.
Mrs. Harvey successfully withstood another siege in connection with her inhabited house duty, and her goods, when eventually seized, failed to realize the sum required by some £8, for the uproar created in the auction-room by sympathizers was so great that the auctioneer abandoned his task.
Mrs. Harvey also refused to take out a licence for her gardener (by name Asquith), or to stamp his Insurance card.
For these two offences she was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, in default of a fine, but was released at the end of one month, in a very weak condition of health, which was in no way attributable to her own “misconduct.”
There were many other cases of resistance to the Insurance Act, it being an open secret that the Freedom League did not insure its employees.
Captain Gonne, who refused to pay his taxes as a protest against the treatment to which women were being subjected, was also arrested, but was released within a few hours, the reason being, so it was claimed, that in arresting him the revenue officials had been guilty of a serious technical blunder.
Several other resisters besides Mrs. Harvey barricaded their houses against the tax collector, and at Hastings the demonstration arranged in connection with the sale of Mrs. Darent Harrison’s goods led to an organized riot, the result being that the local Suffrage Club brought an action against the Corporation for damage done, which they won.
Undeterred by warnings that it would be impossible to hold a public meeting in Hastings in support of tax resistance, the League nevertheless determined to do so, and, as a matter of fact, everything passed off in a quiet and orderly manner, Lady Brassey being in the chair.
In subsequent years, this policy of open and constitutional rebellion on tax resistance lines has been maintained by Mrs. Darent Harrison.
