. —
At Hammersmith, furniture was sold, the property of Miss Carson.
Open-air meeting. Speakers: Mrs. Armstrong, Mrs. Merrivale Mayer,
Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes.
. —
At Kilburn, a bookcase was sold, the property of Miss Green,
Hon.
Treas.
W.T.R.L.
Procession and open-air meeting. Speakers:
Dr. [Helen] Hanson, Mrs.
[Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr, Mrs. Kineton Parkes.
. —
At Mile End, a gold watch was sold, the property of
Dr. Elizabeth Wilks.
Procession from Aldgate Station to open-air meeting. Speakers: Mrs.
[Charlotte] Despard, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Kineton Parkes.
. —Brighton. Goods belonging to Mrs. Gerlach and Miss [Mary] Hare were
sold. Open-air meeting and public meeting in Lecture Hall at night.
Speakers: Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Miss Gertrude Eaton, Miss Hare,
Miss Nina Boyle, and the Rev.
J. Kirtlan.
Bournemouth. — Old silver was sold, the property of Miss Symons.
Open-air meeting. Speakers: Miss Howes, Miss Pridden, Mrs. Kineton
Parkes.
Henley-on-Thames. — A cow was sold, the property of Miss
Lelacheur. Open-air meeting. Speakers: Mr. and Mrs. Cobden Sanderson,
Mrs. Juson Kerr and Mr. Carlin.
. —Putney. The goods of Mrs. and Miss Richards were sold. Protest
meeting. Speakers: Miss Richards, Mrs. Juson Kerr, Miss Phyllis
Ayrtin, Miss Gilliat and Mrs. Cobden Sanderson.
Battersea. — Goods belonging to Mrs. [Helen Alexander] Archdale were
sold. Open-air meeting. Speakers: Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Miss Clemence
Housman, Miss Thomas.
Highbury. — 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.
Bromley. — Mrs. [Kate] Harvey,
Hon. Head of the
W.F.L.
Press Department, is again resisting payment of taxes, and has, in addition,
barricaded her house at Bromley. She hopes members of the Women’s Freedom
League will support her when the sale takes place, and if any members will
send their names to her, Mrs. Harvey will communicate with them direct as
soon as she knows the date and time of the sale. If possible, full
particulars will be published in next week’s Vote,
and information may be had from Headquarters.
On , Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes addressed a meeting of the members of the Fleet National Union on the principles of tax resistance, and a ballot was taken in order to instruct delegate how to vote at July Conference.
On , a drawing room meeting was given by Mrs. [Louisa] Jopling Rowe in her large studio, and she herself presided.
Speeches were made by Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Mrs. Kineton Parkes and Mr. Laurence Housman, the latter dealing in a most interesting and exhaustive way with the tax resistance movement from an historical point of view.
A very successful protest was made at Finchley on in connection with the seizure of property belonging to Miss [Sarah] Benett, late hon. treasurer of the W.F.L.
By courtesy of the auctioneer, Miss Bennet, was allowed to explain her reason for resisting payment of taxes.
A very successful open-air meeting was held afterwards.
Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn announced that Mrs. [Emma] Sproson, a member of the National Executive of the Women’s Freedom League, was serving a term of seven days’ imprisonment in the third division for refusing to pay her dog license.
This was the third time Mrs. Sproson had suffered imprisonment in connection with the militant suffrage agitation.
The Women’s Freedom League had taken up tax-resistance as a part of their propaganda three years ago.
Mr. Keir Hardie had stated in the House of Commons that twenty-five million pounds flowed yearly into the coffers of the national exchequer as a result of the indirect taxation of women.
If that money could be withheld, or if all women who were directly taxed would refuse to pay until they were enfranchised, they would not long have to wait for their political emancipation.
The speaker then dealt with the political situation as regards the Women’s Bill.
On , Miss Constance Andrews — our honorary organizer for the East Anglian district — was arrested and taken to Ipswich gaol, there to spend a week because she refused to pay her dog tax.
Here was a chance for the local branch, and they seized it.
I went down on , and we soon got all the preliminary arrangements made for a welcome to Miss Andrews.
The little town has been buzzing with suffragettes and their doings.
Everyone has been talking of Miss Andrews and our preparations to receive her.
Open-air meetings, bill-distributing, the carrying of trimmed posters, pushing the decorated coster’s barrow (covered with The Vote and posters) through the town, — all have served to draw the attention of the townsfolk to the fact that something unusual was astir.
Our two meetings on Cornhill were well attended, and the behaviour of the crowds was remarkably good.
On morning a very large crowd — described in the local press as “an immense gathering” — collected outside the prison to cheer Miss Andrews on her release.
Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard — “the grand old lady of the Women’s movement,” to quote again from the East Anglian Daily Times — drove up in an open cab, with Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett and Mrs. Bastian.
Shortly after her arrival Miss Andrews was released, a photographer standing on a wall opposite the prison gate being the first to give the news.
The outer gate opened, and as our ex-prisoner came out a lusty chorus of “hurrahs!” showed the sympathy of the crowd.
Mrs. Despard said a few words of welcome, and then we formed up in a little procession behind the Ipswich “Dare to be Free” banner, and walked to our rooms in Arcade-street, the cab with Miss Andrews in Mrs. Tippett’s place bringing up the rear.
The large crowd followed us all the way, and enquiring heads were thrust through open windows all along the route.
On our arrival at the rooms, we found a dainty breakfast set out for us at long tables, placed at right-angles to each other.
Japanese table napkins, floral decorations, placards on the walls, all were in the green, white and gold.
After breakfast Mrs. Hossack, from the chair, paid a warm tribute to Miss Andrew’s work.
Mrs. Despard, in her own inspiring way addressed the gathering after the enthusiastic singing of “For she’s a jolly good fellow,” and Miss Andrews gave us a vivid account of her life in prison.
Among other things, she said there were only four other women besides herself in prison.…
…Altogether we feel that Miss Andrews has done a great service to the local work by her protest and imprisonment, and made possible a splendid week’s work, which we hope will leave a lasting impression.
The 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.
Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s barricade is still unbroken.
Again congratulations.
Among the events of last week were:—
Drawing-room Meeting, , at Hans-crescent Hotel.
Hostess: Mrs. Alfred Nutt.
Chair: Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan.
Speakers: Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, and Rev. Hugh Chapman.
Drawing-room Meeting, , at 17, Kensington-square, W. Hostess: Lady Maud Parry.
Chair: Lady Maud Parry.
Speakers: Mrs. Cobden Sanderson, Mr. Laurence Housman.
Sale of goods, the property of Miss Maud F. Roll, on , at Rotherfield.
Speakers: Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Miss Honnor Morten, and Dr. C.V. Drysdale.
The release of Mr. Mark Wilks, under precisely the same circumstances as the release of Miss [Clemence] Housman — that is to say, after a futile imprisonment, a series of defiant suffrage demonstrations, and with no sort of official explanation — is a triumph for the Women’s Tax Resistance League, the W.F.L., and the various men’s association[s] that helped to conduct the protest campaign.
It is more than a triumph; it is an object lesson in how not to do things.
To incarcerate a helpless and innocent man for his wife’s principles, knowing that that wife was one of a movement that never strikes its colours, was foolish on the face of it.
(That it was also unjust is a matter which we recognise to be of little consequence in the eyes of those who make and administer our law).
But to let him out without rhyme or reason seems foolishness of so low a degree that it is only to be described as past all understanding.
One is reminded of the genial duffer who protested that he might be an ass, but he was not a silly ass.
Our highest authorities are not so particular about their reputations as the stage idiot.
The Pity of It.
Yet we are all set wondering what is behind it all.
Is it a contempt so great for the intelligence of the public on which they batten which makes our rulers so unconcerned about even the appearance of wisdom or consistency?
Or is it sheer contempt for women which makes them bully, badger, and torture in turns, and then dismiss the matter as of not sufficient importance to pursue?
It is too easy and flattering a solution to determine that ministers have been impressed by the women’s resolute defiance.
It hardly accounts for the milk in the cocoanut.
Nothing, for instance, would have been easier than to give Mrs. [Mary] Leigh and Miss Evans first-class treatment, and keep them in durance for months and years!
The release of the latter lady at the same time as Mr. Wilks points, we sadly fear, not to an intelligent appreciation of the gathering forces of progress and humanity, but a cruel and callous disregard of wisdom, righteousness, and decency.
If this be “representative” government, it is a sorry testimonial to the worth of the [sic] those represented.
Terminological…?
No tale appears too farcical to present to the tax-payers on behalf of the Government.
One explanation that has been seriously offered, with a view to relieving the Chancellor of the Exchequer from any odium that may be incurred by those responsible for the Wilks imbroglio, is as follows: “The Chancellor knew nothing of the case.
His official correspondence followed him during his recent Welsh peregrinations, missing him everywhere, and only catching him up on his return to London, where he at once ordered a meeting of the Board of Inland Revenue, on whose report (unpublished) he acted promptly.”
Now this is a little too thin.
Wanted, a Good Lie.
The political and militant organiser of the W.F.L., who pens these lines, has to confess with emotion that during recent wanderings in the fastnesses of the Land of George, certain correspondence, re-addressed to divers and sundry humble cottages in mean streets, did indubitably go astray.
But the political and militant organiser is not a world-renowned personage who on occasion has been reduced to the Royal necessity of travelling incognito.
The more than Royal progress of the Carsons and the Georges does not lend itself to these subterfuges; and we feel inclined to give the Chancellor the advice addressed by a too intelligent master to a schoolboy of our acquaintance, whose effort at explanatory romance was not convincing: “No, no, George, my lad; that doesn’t sound likely.
Run away and think of something better.”
In consequence of the release of Mr. Mark Wilks, a sprightly account of which appeared in The Evening Standard, the proposed demonstration on Trafalgar-square was not held by the Women’s Tax-Resistance League .
The main issues which have been brought forward by this new phase of the struggle are:— “That the present irregular method of administering the Income-tax and Married Women’s Property Acts amount to a penalty on matrimony; that the relief afforded to persons of limited income is unjustly and illegally filched from them; and that the Tax Resistance campaign has for one of its objects the determination to secure to the public one million and a half of money which is at present improperly diverted from the pockets of the people to the Government coffers.
It took a woman expert — Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie — to fathom the real meaning of the law as it is administered to-day; and it is some considerable time since she expressed the opinion, and was laughed at by male legal experts for so doing, that the situation which actually arose was possible.
At Bolton.
A tax-resistance meeting was held at Bolton on , at which Mr. Isaac Edwards presided, the speakers being Miss Hicks and Mrs. Williamson-Forrestier.
The meeting was a public one, explaining the policy and principle of Tax Resistance, and was well attended.
The goods of Mrs. Fyffe, hon. treasurer of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, member of committee of the Horsham and South Kensington Branches of the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies, and hon. secretary of the London “Common Cause” Selling Corps, have been seized for tax resistance, and will be sold on , at Whiteley’s Auction Rooms, Westbourne-grove.
A procession will form up at Roxburghe Mansion, Kensington-court, at and start at going to the corner of Westbourne-grove and Chepstow-place, where a Protest Meeting will be held.
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, and others will speak.
The procession will then go on to the sale.
It is hoped that as many members of the Freedom League and other Suffragists as can will support Mrs. Fyffe by walking in the procession and attending the sale.
Mrs. Fyffe, who is an ardent Tax Resister, was presiding at a meeting of the Kensington branch of the National Union (London Society) at her own house, when the bailiffs arrived to distrain on her goods.
It was a novel experience for the non-militant ladies!
Pleasant Amenities.
Mrs. Louis Fagan, summoned at West London Police-court for non-payment of taxes in respect of motor-car, man-servant, and armorial bearings, had quite a merry dialogue with the presiding genius, Mr. Fordham, who waxed — might one say waggish?
— during the encounter.
After refusing to discuss her “conscientious objections” — while in no way belittling them — he imposed a penalty of 20s. and 2s. costs in respect of the man-servant; £10 2s. costs in respect of the motor-car; and 2s. 6d. for the armorial bearings.
Mrs. Fagan represented that her conscientious objection included fines as well as taxes, and he expressed regret at having no alternative to offer save imprisonment.
“I shall sentence you to a month,” he said, “but you won’t do it, of course — you ladies never do.
If I really wanted you to have a month, I should have to call it five years!”
With such little pleasantries the affair passed off in the happiest manner; and Mr. Fordham was equally obliging in fixing the time for the distraint on Mrs. Fagan’s goods “at the earliest possible moment,” to suit the lady’s convenience.
The goods were seized on ; and 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.
Mr. Lansbury’s Chivalry
At a meeting held in the Hackney Town Hall on to demand the release of Mr. Mark Wilks, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks and the Rev. Fleming Williams, who were received with enthusiasm, both addressed the audience, and a resolution of protest was carried unanimously.
The stirring speech given by Mr. [George] Lansbury contained valuable hints for Suffragists.
“Parliament,” he said, “did not do more for the cause of the women because the women did not make themselves felt sufficiently.
If, instead of remaining Liberal, Conservative, or Socialists, they went on strike against the politicians, they would get what they wanted.
“Many years ago, Mr. Lansbury continued, he had believed in the honesty of politicians, and in the sincerity of political warfare, but much water had flowed under the bridges since then, and many new ideas had gone through his head.
What was of most importance to the women of this country was not politics — whether Tory or Liberal — but the emancipation of their sex.
“The imprisonment of Mark Wilks, though it might be a laughing matter to the daily Press, was no laughing matter for the man imprisoned.
It was a jolly hard thing for Mr. Wilks.
He believed that if the working-class women of this country could be got to realise that his was no mere fight for a vote, but a fight for their complete emancipation, they would soon get this sort of thing altered.”
Resistance in Scotland
The Glasgow Herald tells us that:— “Dr. Grace Cadell, Leith, has, as a protest against the non-enfranchisement of women, refused to pay inhabited house duty on a property belonging to her in Edinburgh.
Several articles of her furniture have been poinded to meet the amount of the tax, about £2, but so far the authorities have not taken these away.”
We are also expecting news of the distraint on Miss Janet Bunten’s property for the same reason.
Miss Bunten, Hon. Sec. of the Glasgow Branch, has already lost goods in this manner, and has also been sentenced to imprisonment for refusal to pay dog license or fine in default.
The other day a woman, an utter stranger to me, came into the office to seek advice.
She was a pale, worried little creature, and had a little blind child.
Her trouble was that she had had to leave her husband on account of his brutality — he seemed to be a thoroughly bad lot — and had returned to her parents with the child.
She never saw her husband, nor received any money from him, but he was getting her Income-tax repaid to him.
Her income was very small, and she needed it all for herself and her child, and asked how this procedure could be stopped and the money obtained for her own wants.
I could only tell her that nothing could be done, as the law held that her income belonged to her husband, on hearing which, she broke down and sobbed bitterly, saying she had thought that women might be able to help her.
These are cases one hears of every week, but the Press remains conveniently silently about such, and reserves all its sympathies for the “wronged” husband.
These repayments often amount to quite respectable sums, perhaps as much as £40 or £50, for a three years claim.
I must say that personally it is terribly distasteful to me, when I have recovered tax deducted from a married woman’s income, to be obliged to draw the cheques in favour of her husband, though morally the money is hers.
Yet this is what I am forced to do for my own protection, as, if I handed the money to its real owner, I should still have to pay it to the husband in addition.
He could sue me in the County Court for it, or I might perhaps be charged with “feloniously misappropriating” his money, if I dared to hand it to the wife.
The isolated case of Mr. Wilks is a relatively small matter when compared with numerous cases of defrauded wives.
Mr. Wilks, being released, will have saved £40 by imprisonment, and lots of these wives would joyfully do a few weeks in Holloway, if thereby they could save their money.
What we want to do is to get the law altered, and the Married Women’s Property Act recognised by the Crown, so that marriage shall not involve the brand of “idiocy” and a financial penalty for a woman.
But there seems to be a general impression abroad that the only injustice lies in Mr. Wilks being imprisoned, and not in the law being as it is; and that as he has been got out, that will be the end of the whole thing, and nobody need trouble about it or make any further fuss, unless and until another husband finds himself held liable for tax on his wife’s income, and put in prison for not paying it.
Whether people are Suffragists or Anti’s or neutrals, it is equally to their interest to get the law brought up-to-date.
The Anti husband of an Anti wife might quite as easily find himself in Mr. Wilks’ position, and “tax-resistance” has nothing to do with it, because Income-tax on a wife’s income may be demanded from a husband quite without his wife’s knowledge.
There is a case going on at the present time where 2s. 8d. is being demanded from a man for Income-tax on some Consols which the authorities state are held by his wife.
She has never been asked to pay it, and is not even aware that it is being demanded from him.
He disputes paying it on the ground that he has no evidence that she possesses any Consols, as he has never asked her anything about her means and never intends to do so.
He has formally appealed against the charge, and at the hearing of the appeal his wife’s name was not mentioned, nor her existence even referred to, as the Consols in question are legally deemed to be in his possession.
This husband will doubtless be put in prison in due course.
He contends, quite logically, that if he is held liable for the tax on one of his wife’s investments, he ought to be held equally liable for the tax on all of her other investments, and while the whole position remains so unsatisfactory and anomalous he will pay nothing and do nothing, but will remain simply passive.
At the hearing of the appeal two highly-paid Special Commissioners, drawing, I believe, at least £1,000 a year each, sat to consider the matter.
There was also present a Surveyor of Taxes, who had come up on purpose from Brighton at the public expense, the appellant and his legal representative (myself).
This gentleman and I wasted our valuable time, and the three Revenue officials wasted their time (and the public’s money) for upwards of an hour, discussing a matter involving 2s. 8d., and the existence or non-existence of some Consols which none of the persons present knew anything about.
There were also one or two clerks who took everything down; and altogether it was a most amusing demonstration of the methods of the Circumlocution Office, and the sublime art of How Not To Do It.
Numbers of married women invest their money in order to escape from the anomalies of the Income-tax Act, so some day we may see an equal number of husbands being called upon to pay tax on these investments (which they know nothing about), and ultimately getting locked up sine die.
When men in considerable numbers begin to feel the shoe pinching, probably some serious effort will be made to amend the law.
A number of members of the Women’s Tax Resistance and Men’s League rallied at Messrs.
Harding’s sale-rooms, Wilton-street, Victoria, , to support Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan in her protest on behalf of unrepresented tax-payers.
A diamond ring has been impounded, and was the first item on the catalogue.
Mrs. Fagan took advantage of the opportunity afforded to make a very telling statement of her position in respect of paying for the upkeep of unrepresentative government.
The ring was brought in by Miss [Gertrude?]
Eaton, and the “protestors” repaired to a handy pitch, where a street-corner meeting was held at which Mr. Sergeant presided, and Mrs. Fagan spoke again from a dog-cart decorated with the brown and black of the W.T.R.L. Mrs. Fagan called attention to the fact that she was not an habitual offender by stating that her recent appearance before Mr. Fordham was the first, and that it was the women who were not in such urgent need of the vote who were coming out to fight for the right to help the others.
Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes made one of her lucid and logical appeals, and the following resolution was passed:— “That this meeting protests against the seizure and sale of Mrs. Louis Fagan’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 those large sums of money shall be spent.”
The light relief was supplied by an irate dame who scolded Mrs. Fagan for not keeping to her place “in the home,” which brought down on her devoted but misguided head the remark that if that was how she felt, it was strange that she should not be there herself instead of at the meeting.
Sold at the Cross.
A “roup” was held at Mercat Cross of the seized goods of Dr. Grace Cadell, of Leith-walk, Edinburgh, who is also “out” against taxation without representation.
Dr. Cadell and her friends arrived on the scene of action in a decorated dray, and a large crowd assembled, which was addressed at the sale and at a subsequent meeting in Parliament-square, by the undaunted resister, and by Miss M. Burn Murdock.
To-Day’s Sale.
Mrs. Fyffe’s goods will be sold for Tax Resistance , at Whiteley’s Auction Rooms, Westbourne-grove, about A procession will start at from Roxburghe Mansion, Kensington-court, to Westbourne-grove, where a Protest Meeting will be held at the corner of Chepstow-place, and the speakers will be Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. Louis Fagan, Mrs. Kineton Parkes, Rev. Charles Baumgarten (Rector of St. George’s, Bloomsbury), and Mr. Laurence Housman, if he arrives in time from the North.
Mrs. Fyffe hopes that all who can will come and walk with her and attend the meeting and sale.
Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage.
…
At the monthly meeting of the Executive Committee of the Men’s League the following resolution was passed on the motion of Dr. Drysdale, seconded by Mr. J.M. Mitchell:—
“The Executive Committee of the Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage desires to record its sympathy with Mr. Mark Wilks in his imprisonment, and to point out that this imprisonment is the logical outcome of the law of coverture and of the non-recognition of women as responsible citizens.
In the interests, therefore, of men as well as women, it calls for the immediate enfranchisement of women, and for such alteration of the law as shall put women on an equality with men, as regards both the rights and duties of citizenship and responsibility before the law.”
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.”
Hon. Secretary: Miss
[Mary] Hare, 8, San Remo, Hove
Members of the Freedom League in Brighton and Hove are taking interest in
the Tax Resistance Meeting, to be held in the Hove Town Hall on Wednesday,
Mrs. [Caroline] Fagan and Mrs.
[Margaret] Kineton Parkes will speak, and Miss Hare will take the chair. It
is hoped that there will be a good attendance, as all are welcome.
On , 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.
On , Mrs. [Kate]
Harvey, of “Brackenhill,” Highland-road, Bromley, Kent, gave a most
successful drawing-room meeting to a new and appreciative audience. Mrs.
Harvey, who is a loyal supporter of Tax Resistance and had a quantity of her
household silver sold in , took this
opportunity of placing before her friends and neighbours the many reasons
which led her to take this action. Mr. Laurence Housman was the principal
speaker, and gave an address of deep interest and instruction on Tax
Resistance from a historical standpoint. Mrs. Louis Fagan presided, and made
an eloquent appeal for sympathy and support for this phase of the Suffrage
movement, and short speeches were also made by Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson
and Mrs. Kineton Parkes. Sales are expected in Reading and Holborn during the
coming week.
[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.
Nothing daunted, Mrs. Kate Harvey, of Bromley, has plunged into the fray again.
In default of payment, the tax-collectors have once more broken the barricades at Brackenhill, and ear-marked goods for a forced sale.
An ingenious plan of protection had been devised and carried out, and the King’s officers wrestled with the fortifications for two hours before an entry was effected by means of a battering-ram!
The sale will take place on , and all friends and members who will give their support at the protest should hasten to send their names in to Headquarters.
It is probable that the sale will be on the premises, as for some reason or other the authorities appear nervous about the prospect of a disturbance if the affair is held in a more public spot.
As the protests of Mrs. Harvey are now recognised and appreciated at their true value by the people of Bromley, we have no difficulty in interpreting the nervousness as a fear that too great a demonstration of sympathy for the “offender” might make the task of the officials even more thankless than usual.
Miss Lena Ashwell addressed a crowded audience at the Suffrage Club, St. James’s, , under the auspices of the Women’s Tax Resistance League.
Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan presided.
Miss Ashwell said that taxation was the thing on which men succeeded in getting the vote, yet women had been constantly told that they had nothing to do with taxation.
With her peculiar charm she gave account of her interview with Mr. Lloyd George when, with other members of the League, she stated her position under the Income Tax Act.
“I had heard that this most charming and unreliable of men had the power to convince you of his own point of view, whatever your previous attitude.
I therefore took the precaution to write down all I meant to say.”
But all that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say when pressed for amendments of the law, was that ‘the Treasury would lose by it!’ ” Miss Ashwell showed how hardly the Insurance Act dealt with the domestic servants, but it revealed a mass of misery among women hitherto unsuspected.
The Press accepted with callousness such facts as that a woman and child managed to live on 4s. a week.
“Women,” she added, “must organise as never before!”
On a drawing-room meeting was given at Harley-place by Dr. Handley Read and Dr. Constance Long, when Mr. Laurence Housman spoke on the necessity for Tax Resistance on the part of voteless women in order to make the Government realise the far-reaching spirit of revolt among all classes of women.
Speeches were also made by Dr. Constance Long, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parks, and Mr. Vernon Compton.
On , Mrs. Skipwith, who lent her drawing-room in Montagu-square and presided over the meeting, said she had twice resisted her taxes and felt that the protests had been very valuable to the Cause.
Miss Abadam was the speaker, and made a most earnest appeal to women to realise their enormous responsibility if they continued to subscribe money to the Government under existing conditions.
The December monthly meeting will be held on at the offices of the League, 10, Talbot House, 98, St. Martin’s-lane.
Miss Winifred Holiday will preside, and members who have successfully evaded payment of taxation will give their experiences.
Tea will be served at , and the meeting will begin at .
Members are invited to bring friends.
Government Methods Applied to Business: Lady Customer: “I wish to see some dress materials to choose from.” Shopkeeper: “Excuse me, madam. We do not permit our lady customers to ‘choose.’ You pay the bill — we supply the goods we think best for you.”
As the man entered the shop the tailor stepped forward and asked:
“How can I serve you, sir?”
“I want a good travelling suit; that is just the thing,” said the man as he pointed to a roll of cloth lying near, and one felt he had chosen something eminently serviceable; “what price would it be?”
“Four guineas, cash down,” replied the tailor.
The man paid the money; then the tailor deliberately folded up the cloth, put it away, took down another roll that was pre-eminently unsatisfactory and spread it out before the man.
“You have paid for a suit,” said the tailor, calmly, “and this is the suit I intend you to have for your money.”
The man was so astonished he could hardly stammer out, “But I do not want that cloth, it will not do at all!”
“Don’t worry,” said the tailor.
“I am doing the very best I can for you.”
“But your best is not my best,” argued the man.
“Nevertheless you must be satisfied,” said the tailor.
By this time astonishment had given place to annoyance.
“I have paid for the suit, therefore I will choose the material,” retorted the man hotly.
“You are not capable,” said the tailor, “you would injure my reputation if I allowed you to choose.”
Thinking the tailor must be mad, the man, with great patience, tried to make him more reasonable, for the suit was wanted badly, and there was nowhere else to go.
But the tailor turned a deaf ear to every persuasion and so persistently reiterated his cry of incapability that at last the man got angry and said:
“If you refuse to let me choose, I shall refuse to pay.”
Thereupon the tailor got angry and declared he would stick to the money whatever happened.
Naturally the man cried out against this injustice, and made every effort to obtain that which was his by right, whereupon the tailor made such a hullabaloo that the police rushed in and marched off to prison — the man!
Ridiculous?
Of course it is.
Impossible?
Oh, dear me, no; this sort of thing happens daily.
How?
Those who have been at Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s Tax Resistance Sales at Brackenhill, Bromley, and many others in all parts of the country at which women prefer the “spoiling of their goods” to paying for a Government they may not chose, have received practical answers to such a question.
The situation as it affects women who are asked to pay and look pleasant, is admirably set forth in Mr. John Leighton’s telling cartoon on our front page.
When it touches men it becomes “intolerable.”
Just or Unjust? — The much-discussed Insurance Act is to be yet more discussed, and a most interesting evening is assured on , when the Women’s Tax Resistance League will hold a debate on the subject at the Caxton Hall at Miss Margaret Douglas will maintain that the act is undemocratic and presses unjustly and heavily upon women; Sir Victor Horsley will oppose, and Sir Edward Busk will preside.
The Tax Resistance League has arranged many stimulating gatherings, and the coming one will justify its well-earned reputation.
Some links that have clanked past my browser in recent days:
Catherine McKenna has been documenting the filthy state of the streets in her neighborhood and now says she will refuse to pay council tax until the Croydon Council gets its act together and starts providing decent services in return.
