How you can resist funding the government → a survey of tactics of historical tax resistance campaigns → disrupt government auctions → British women’s suffrage movement

This is a chronological index to the articles in The Vote: The Organ of the Women’s Freedom League that I have reproduced at The Picket Line that concern tax resistance.

The Women’s Tax Resistance League is featured in the book We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.

Today’s tax resistance history lesson:

“NO VOTE, NO TAX.”
English Authoress Takes This Method of Promoting the Cause.

To the Editor of The New York Times:

Miss Beatrice Harraden, the author of “Ships that Pass in the Night,” has refused to pay her income tax, on the ground that “taxation without representation is tyranny.” After receiving the usual demands for payment, Miss Harraden was finally called on by a bailiff, who seized a clock to be sold to recover the money. The sale took place on April 22, at a public auction room. Many suffragettes were present, and banners with the motto “No Vote, No Tax” were prominently displayed. Miss Harraden made a speech in the auction room, stating her reasons as follows:

“I have refused to pay my income tax (1) because it is obviously unfair that a woman who earns her livelihood by the direct use of her brain should be called upon to pay the tax on her earnings and yet be denied any voice in the choice of representatives to Parliament, whose salaries she helps to pay by the direct use of her brain.

“(2) Because I consider that women should now use every opportunity in their power to protest against a Government which has persistently ignored, deceived, and tricked the constitutional suffragists working quietly for the enfranchisement of women, and has goaded the militant suffragists into crimes and deeds of disorder which would never have been committed but for the coercion of seven years of mismanagement and injustice.

“(3) Because I wish to protest against forcible feeding — now universally pronounced to be torture — and against the new ‘cat and mouse’ bill for dealing with hunger strikers. I protest against it as an emanation from a cruel brain and as an ignoble piece of legislation which is a dishonor to England.”

LILIAN M. HICKS,
Treasurer Women’s Tax Resistance League
London, England, April 28, 1913.

From the 1 May 1914 issue of The Vote:

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

Dr. Jessie Murray’s Protest.

On April 22 there was a most interesting open air meeting in Upper-street, Islington, when Dr. Jessie Murray, of Endsleigh-street, Tavistock-square, protested against the seizure and public sale of her carriage clock, owing to her refusal to pay Imperial taxes. Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes and Mrs. Tyson also spoke, and gained the attention of a large crowd by whom the usual resolution was unanimously passed.

Tax Resistance in John Burns’ Borough.

On Friday evening, April 24, Mrs. Beaumont Thomas and Mrs. Sutcliffe had goods sold by public auction, because of their refusal to pay King’s taxes. The sale took place at Warren’s Auction Room, Battersea Rise, and afterwards a procession with banners flying wended its way to Mosbury-road, where a protest meeting was held and a big crowd assembled. Miss Beaumont took the chair, and Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. Kineton Parkes, of the Tax Resistance League, explained the reasons of tax resistance and answered the questions asked. At the conclusion of the speeches cheers were given for the speakers, and a resolution was carried:

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

In the Country.

On April 22, goods belonging to Miss Rose were sold at Frinton-on-Sea, owing to her refusal to pay Imperial taxes.

From the 11 May 1912 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

The sales last week were as follows:—

April 29. — At Hammersmith, furniture was sold, the property of Miss Carson. Open-air meeting. Speakers: Mrs. Armstrong, Mrs. Merrivale Mayer, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes.

April 30. — 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.

May 1. — 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.

May 2. — 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.

May 4. — 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 May 2 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.

Here is another case where The Vote’s habit of omitting first names makes the researcher’s job difficult. Who is “Miss Carson,” for instance? I don’t know, and neither does Elizabeth Crawford’s The women’s suffrage movement: a reference guide, 1866–1928 or The women’s suffrage movement in Britain and Ireland: a regional survey, both of which follow The Vote’s lead and just call her “Miss.” That’s just one example. The names I’ve filled in in brackets, above, are educated guesses.

From the 3 June 1911 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance League.

On Tuesday, the 23^rd, 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 Monday, the 29^th, 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 May 29 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.

Another article in the same issue contained this note:

Emma Sproson

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.

Also from the same issue:

Miss Andrews Released.

On Saturday, May 20, 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 Monday, 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 Friday 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.

Marguerite A. Sidley.

From the 6 June 1913 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

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

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

Activities of the Tax Resistance League.

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

On Empire Day 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 May 26 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 the following day, 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 May 27, 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 May 30 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 Wednesday, May 14, 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.

From the 15 June 1912 issue of The Vote:

Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s Unbroken Barricade.

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 June 27.

From the 6 July 1912 issue of The Vote:

Poster Campaign

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

Also from the 6 July 1912 issue of The Vote:

John Hampden Statue at Aylesbury.

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

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

Tax Resistance: The Situation at Bromley.

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

“Outside the gate!

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

K[ate]. Harvey.

Meetings in the Market-square, Bromley.

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

More Tax Resisters.

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

Also from the 6 July 1912 issue of The Vote:

Watch the Authorities!

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

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

Local Demand.

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

Surveyor’s Demand.

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

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

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

Inland Revenue — Surveyor of Taxes.

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

(Signed) G.R. Simpson.

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

From the 8 July 1911 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance at Wolverhampton

by Frank Sproson.

The position in Wolverhampton in regard to tax resistance is certainly of interest to the supporters of militancy.

We do meet occasionally in the Suffrage movement, the woman with the pitiful tale: I should like to help you, but I dare not; my husband is against me. But it is, indeed, a revelation to meet an enthusiastic supporter with an equally sympathetic husband, who finds herself hampered, through the decisions of magistrates who hold the husband liable for the deeds of his wife.

Ever since I began to take a serious interest in politics I have believed in sex equality, and have never denied my wife the freedom that I myself claim, and, as I shall endeavour to show, it [is] because of this that I was convicted.

The humiliating position of the married woman, especially the working woman, is admitted by all Suffragists; but I never realised that she was such an abject slave so clearly as when I stood in the Wolverhampton Police Court, side by side with my wife, charged with aiding and abetting her to keep a dog without a license. The only evidence submitted by the prosecution (the police) that I actually did anything was that I presided at two meetings in support of the “No Vote, No Tax” policy of the Women’s Freedom League. That I said anything that was not fair comment on the general policy of militancy there was no evidence to show; if, then, on this point I was liable, then all supporters of militancy are equally so. But I do not believe it was on this evidence that I was convicted. No. The dog was at my house, and cared for by my children during my wife’s absence. In the eyes of the law, I was lord and master, so that my offence, therefore, was not that I did anything, but rather that I did not do anything.

I did not assert my authority, I did not force my wife into subjection, and however legal the magistrate’s decision may have been, it certainly was not just.

Emma Sproson

It was the spirit of rebellion against injustice displayed by Mrs. [Emma] Sproson that first won for her my admiration. This admiration is far too deep rooted to be suppressed by the decision of magistrates.

I admire the rebel against injustice, man or woman, because I know that it is to them that all real progress is due. A friend once said to me, when criticising my wife, “But what would happen if all other women did as she is doing?” I replied: “They would get the vote to-morrow”; and he saw it. The pity is that others do not.

Also from the same issue:

Mr. Churchill Questioned.

As no answer was received to our letter addressed to Mr. Churchill, steps were taken to get the matter raised in the House of Commons, and Mr. H[enry]. G[eorge]. Chancellor very kindly undertook to draft and put the questions. As originally drafted they were as follows:—

Monday, July 3.

Mr. Chancellor: To ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that after serving in Stafford Gaol a sentence of one week’s imprisonment in the third division passed upon her on May 23 last for refusing to pay a dog license, as a protest against her political disenfranchisement, Mrs. Sproson was on June 20 tried a second time for the same offence and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment in the first division; whether two trials and two sentences for one offence are lawful, and what steps he proposes to take in the matter.

Monday, July 3.

Mr. Chancellor: To ask the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in addition to a sentence of one month’s imprisonment passed upon Mrs. Sproson for passive resistance to taxation her husband was sentenced to one week’s imprisonment for aiding and abetting her, and leave to appeal refused to him, and whether, as his wife was held by the court to be sufficiently responsible to suffer the punishment named, he can see his way to prevent such manufacture of criminals and multiplication of punishments for single offences of a political character.

All questions have to be passed by the Speaker, and the first one was modified to read: “And whether he can see his way to take steps to avoid, in future, the infliction of two sentences for one offence.” The second one was censored. In doing this the Clerk at the Table was merely upholding the traditions followed in all Government Departments in their treatment of married women. Married women are treated as individuals so long as there are penalties to be inflicted, but to curtail their liberty or hamper their activities the Law of Coverture is brought into force.

Mrs. Sproson may be treated as the owner of a dog, be liable for the fine, and for non-payment of it serve first a week and then a month’s imprisonment. But Mrs. Sproson is a married woman under coverture, so the law secures a second victim in proceeding against her husband. If Mrs. Sproson happened to possess an income of her own she would not be treated as the owner of that, the amount must be added to her husband’s and he is held liable for income-tax.

This provides only another illustration that the whole Law of Coverture must be abolished in order to make it possible to improve the legal position of married women.

To the first question Mr. Churchill replied:—

The offence of which Mrs. Sproson was convicted on June 20 was not the same as that of which she was convicted on May 23. It is an offence against the law to keep a dog without a license, and after her conviction of May 23 Mrs. Sproson continued deliberately to break the law. The punishment was a fine which she was well able to pay if she had wished.

I may add that the dog she kept was a dangerous one and had bitten three children, and that in spite of a friendly warning from a neighbor, whose little girl had been bitten by it, she allowed him to run at large. As the law stands no person can be punished twice for the same offence, but where an offence is repeated the penalty is usually increased, and in this particular case the law imposes an increased penalty for the second offence.

As usual, the Home Secretary entirely overlooks the political motive for Mrs. Sproson’s action. He repeats the charge brought at the trial which was by no means proved, and omits altogether to say that the dog was dead before the trial came on. As the dog for which the tax was refused was the same dog, it is difficult to see where the one offence ended and the other began. In reply to our letter the following has at last been received:—

Whitehall, June 29, 1911.

Madam,— The Secretary of State, having carefully considered your application on behalf of Emma Sproson, who is now undergoing a sentence of imprisonment, I am directed to express to you his regret that he can find no sufficient ground to justify him, consistently with his public duty, in advising His Majesty to interfere in this case.

I am, madam, your obedient servant,

E. Blackwell.

We are now making efforts to get the sentences made to run concurrently. All friends who approach Members of Parliament should urge them to put this request before Mr. Churchill, as in this way Mrs. Sproson would have one week’s remission of her excessive sentence of five weeks.

Edith How Martyn.

N.B.— Mr. Sproson writes on Monday, July 3:— “I have just left Mrs. Sproson. I am glad to say she seems well, and is determined to do the full time which expires on July 21. I was only allowed to see her through a grating for fifteen minutes.” — E.H.M.

Also from the same issue:

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

On Tuesday last Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes addressed the members of the Brighton and Hove Suffrage Society, and also delegates from Worthing and Shoreham, on the subject of “Tax Resistance” in the Hove Town Hall. Miss [Maria?] Merrifield presided, and there was a long and animated debate at the conclusion of the lecture, led by Colonel Kensington, as to whether the National Union should or should not adopt the policy of tax resistance. A meeting was held on Wednesday evening in the drawing-room at Warren House, Guildford, by the kind invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Baker, and the following day Mrs. Kineton Parkes spoke at a garden party at Farnham.

The last of these meetings was held on Friday at Tunbridge Wells at the rooms of the Suffrage Society and presided over by Mrs. [Edith Kate] Lelacheur. Mrs. Kineton Parkes’ address was followed by a most animated and instructive discussion led by Madame Sarah Grand.

The council meetings to decide this question will be held at Edinburgh next week.

On Wednesday, June 28, also, a most successful protest against taxation without representation was made by Mrs. Muir, of Broadstairs, whose goods were sold at the Auction Rooms, 120, High-street, Margate. The protest was conducted by Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr; and Miss Ethel Fennings, of the W.F.L., went down to speak. The auctioneer, Mr. Holness, was most courteous, and not only allowed Mrs. Muir to explain in a few words why she resisted taxation, but also gave permission to hold meeting in his rooms after the sale was over. Prior to the sale a well-attended meeting was held in the Cecil-square, and Miss Fennings sold some copies of The Vote.

A short note in the same issue read:

Croydon.

…On June 30 we had the pleasure of a visit from Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn, who spoke upon Tax Resistance, and explained Mrs. Sproson’s refusal to pay her dog tax, and the undue and seemingly vindictive sentence of five weeks’ imprisonment that she is now undergoing.…

From the 15 July 1911 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

Glasgow.

Miss [Janet Legate] Bunten, the hon. treasurer of the Glasgow Branch of the Women’s Freedom League, has had some pictures seized by the authorities in consequence of her refusal to pay taxes levied without her consent. The date of the sale is not yet fixed. A protest meeting will be held, at which Miss [Anna] Munro will speak.

St. Leonards.

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 Tuesday, July 4, 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. Not the least satisfactory feature was the courtesy and respect shown by the authorities, the general public, and the Press towards the demonstrators. 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.

From the 20 July 1912 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s barricade at Brackenhill, Bromley, is still unbroken, demonstrating to all who pass by woman’s determination to withstand the tyranny of taxation without representation. The evening meetings in the Market Square continue to be most successful.

Mrs. [Marion] Cunningham, member of our Hayes Branch, had silver articles seized on July 13; they will be sold among other ordinary goods on July 25, at Uxbridge. No protest meeting will be held at the time, as at 2 p.m. few people can attend. Mrs. Cunningham hopes to hold a meeting on the Sunday following and preach a sermon on Tax Resistance.

From the 20 July 1917 issue of The Vote:

No Vote! No Tax.

On Friday, July 13, Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison’s goods were sold by auction in her own house at St. Leonards-on-Sea without her permission being asked or given, by the Public Auctioneer. Bidding was allowed to run up to £70 by a system known amongst auctioneers as “puffing.” Mrs. Darent Harrison protested against the sale taking place to pay the taxes of an unenfranchised woman. The proceedings appear to have been altogether irregular, the sale not having been advertised in the Press, the only notice given being a few posters sent to friends of the tax-gatherers. Further, no notice was given of the amount required to cover the claim.

From the 30 July 1910 issue of The Vote:

Some silver belonging to Dr. [Winifred S.] Patch, who is “sold up” every year owing to the fact that she refuses to pay taxes, was auctioned at Hard’s Auction Rooms, Junction Road, Highbury, on Monday. A protest meeting was held outside, when Mrs. Manson, Miss [Sarah?] Benett, and Miss Lightman spoke on the injustice of the Government denying women citizen rights while insisting that they shall pay for upkeep of the State. A tax resistance meeting will be held at 3 o’clock, when Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard will speak.

From the 5 August 1911 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

On Thursday, July 20, 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 Bradley’s-corner, where speeches were made from a carriage by Mrs. Cobden Saunderson, Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, Mrs. Florence Hamilton, Mrs. Clarkson Swann, and Miss Gertrude Eaton. The resolution was carried unanimously.

At the offices of the collector of Government taxes, Westborough, on Tuesday, 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.

A very successful tour has been made by our Caravan in Bucks., under the charge of Miss Muriel Matters and Miss Violet Tillard. Meetings were held in Great Missenden, Wendover, Aylesbury, Chesham, and Stoke Mandeville. During August the office will be open to receive letters and telephone messages for a couple of hours each morning.

From the 6 August 1910 issue of The Vote:

Tax-Resistance Meeting at Highbury.

A protest meeting was held at Highbury Corner on Saturday, as a result of the sale of Dr. [Winifred S.] Patch’s goods last week, owing to her refusal to pay taxes. Miss Guttridge was in the chair, and there was a good attendance. The speakers were Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard and Mr. Laurence Housman. Mrs. Despard, in the course of her speech, said that the Woman Suffragists were going to adopt measures of coercion towards the Government. They were going to “stop the traffic.” Mr. Laurence Houseman took up the phrase. He said, “Stop the traffic, and you have found the solution of the situation. Bad government makes government expensive.” He spoke of the spirit of liberty which is latent in every human being — the spirit of liberty which is always roused to its fullest force under tyrannical oppression. That spirit was awake in the women who are fighting for the Franchise to-day. He thought that most of the men of this country did not realise the spirit of that fight because they had come by their own votes too easily. They had practically been born to the Vote. They had come into it too long after their fathers’ fight for it to feel its true basis of liberty. He remarked that wherever Mrs. Despard went to-day the Government became an object of ridicule. She ought to be in prison, as she had refused to pay the Imperial taxes, but they were afraid to put her there — (laughter and cheers) — and she would not go to prison because she was more logical than the Government. If they gave her representation she would agree to taxation — the two must go together. It was disgraceful in a democratic country that women like Mrs. Despard, who have done noble work for the community in general, should be shut out from the Parliamentary administration of the people’s interests.

From the 31 August 1912 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance Protest

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 Saturday last.

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.

From the 9 September 1911 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

Articles of jewellery belonging to Miss [Kate] Rayleigh were sold on Thursday at the Chequers Hotel, Uxbridge, having been seized for non-payment of Imperial taxes. This is the second occasion on which Miss K. Raleigh, who is a member of the Tax Resistance League, has made a similar protest. 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. Mrs. Cobden Sanderson presided. Mrs. [Marianne] Clarendon Hyde, Miss [Alison] Neilans and Miss Raleigh addressed an attentive audience. A resolution was passed protesting against the sale, and calling on the Member of Parliament for the constituency to support the Conciliation Bill when it comes before the House next year. The various Suffrage Societies were well represented.

M.C.H.

From the 19 October 1912 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

A Successful Protest.

A number of members of the Women’s Tax Resistance and Men’s League rallied at Messrs. Harding’s sale-rooms, Wilton-street, Victoria, last Friday, 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 to-day, Thursday, October 17, at Whiteley’s Auction Rooms, Westbourne-grove, about 4 p.m. A procession will start at 2.45 p.m. 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.”

From the 2 November 1912 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

Members of the Women’s Tax Resistance League attended the dinner of welcome held at the Hotel Cecil to the Men’s International Alliance for Women’s Suffrage, and the League was represented at the Congress by Mr. Laurence Housman.

Reception to Dr. and Mr. Mark Wilks.

The Women’s Tax Resistance League wish to announce that they have decided to hold a public reception to Dr. and Mr. Wilks on the evening of Monday, November 11, at Caxton Hall, at 8 o’clock. They trust that all Suffrage Societies will support this effort, because not only do they wish to do honour to those who have made such a brave stand for tax resistance, but to use the occasion, as one of many others, to keep before the public mind the necessity for the alteration of the laws which affect the taxation of married women until the reform promised by Mr. Lloyd George is debated in the House of Commons.

Amongst the speakers will be Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, Mr. George Lansbury, M.P., Mr. F. Pethick Lawrence, and Mr. Mark Wilks. Tickets, 2s. each, including refreshments, may be had from all Suffrage Societies and from the office of the League, 10, Talbot House, St. Martin’s-lane.

The Case of the W.F.L. Hon. Treasurer.

On Wednesday last week the hon. treasurer of the Women’s Freedom League was summoned to appear before the Hampstead Petty Sessions Court, at the instance of the London County Council, for refusing to contribute to taxation in the form of dog license. Dr. Knight did not appear in person, and was represented by Miss Nina Boyle, of the Political and Militant Department, who was supported by Miss Andrews (National Executive Committee), Miss Hunt (assistant secretary to the League), Mrs. Spiller (hon. secretary of the Hampstead Branch), Miss Hicks, Mrs. Garrod, and other friends and supporters.

Mr. Dashwood Carter put the case for the London County Council, and Miss Boyle, invited by the chairman, Mr. Henry Clarke, to state Dr. Knight’s case, asserted that Dr. Knight was “not guilty,” as it was manifestly improper that she should be called upon to contribute to the upkeep of the Government when women were denied representation. The chairman declared that those were considerations into which they could not go, as they were there to administer the law; whereupon Miss Boyle, expressing her desire to put her case “with the utmost courtesy,” contended that as women not only had to pay for the upkeep of the Government, but also for the upkeep of police-courts, they considered themselves fully entitled to make use of them for the ventilation of their grievance.

The Bench, after a period of indecision, suddenly remembered that the Council had not proved its case; and a witness was hurriedly summoned. The prosecution incautiously admitted that since calling on Dr. Knight, a license had been taken out in respect of a dog, “but whether it was in respect of the dog at Hampstead, or another at Woodbridge (Suffolk), the prosecution could not say.”

Miss Boyle pointed out that if that were so, there was no proper case for the prosecution; and she would call attention to the grossly improper and slovenly fashion in which the case had been brought into court.

After much consultation, and on Miss Boyle stating that they were not there to contest the case, the Bench fined Dr. Knight £2, with 5s. costs, which, with extraordinary lack of understanding, the court then asked Miss Boyle to produce. On the assurance that Dr. Knight had not the least intention of paying fines to the Government, the sentence was altered, after more deliberation, to “seven days.”

The prosecuting counsel then greatly improved his case by saying that more witnesses could have been brought from Suffolk, but he had not brought them “because of the expense.” (Any law and any evidence, apparently, is good enough on which to convict voteless women.) Dr. Knight’s friends were thereby enabled to leave the court with another emphatic protest against the slovenly and slip-shod procedure in bringing a case.

Dr. Knight has heard nothing further from the Arm of the Law, and is now awaiting developments with her well-known composure.

In Glasgow.

According to The Manchester Guardian, a Sheriff’s officer in Glasgow on October 25, acting on behalf of the Crown, exposed to public sale a number of articles belonging to three women suffragists who as a protest had refused to pay their Imperial taxes. Two are members of the Women’s Social and Political Union, and one is a member of the Women’s Freedom League. A solid silver tea service, a gold watch and brooch, and a table and clock were sold. They were bought on behalf of the parties concerned. The women addressed the large crowd that assembled. Miss Janet Bunten is, no doubt, our member referred to, and next week we hope to publish particulars.

From the 9 November 1912 issue of The Vote:

Victims of Justice!

Our hon. treasurer is still at large, and members of Headquarters’ office, and those who kindly volunteer to help with the arduous duties wrestled with there, still have the pleasure of seeing Dr. [Elizabeth] Knight coming and going as usual, in perfect unconcern. The sentence of “seven days” has neither ruffled her serenity nor interfered with the even tenor of her way; and the discharge of her term appears to have receded into the dim and distant future. In this connection we may recall to the minds of our members that the threat of immediate arrest levelled at Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard some two years ago, for non-payment of taxes, has not yet been carried out! Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s barricade against the tax-collector also remains unbroken, and has in no way hampered her magnificent energy on behalf of the International Suffrage Fair.

Another article from the same issue:

The Organiser: An Impression

Probably not one of our keenest observers would, on a casual acquaintance with Mrs. Kate Harvey, discern a fraction of the capacity for organisation and business-like execution possessed by this unassuming woman. Even after many years’ personal knowledge of her and of her generous support of our League in so many ways, this splendid characteristic came as a revelation to me when I called at her residence in Bromley the other day.

The house itself has been in a state of siege against the tax collector for some months past, the windows bearing placards of the Tax Resistance League. Entrance, therefore, was not too easy, even for a comrade. The locked gates and the silence of the surrounding grounds gave an appearance of inertia, but what a contrast when once admission was gained! The whole house, which is a large one, seemed to have been converted into a warehouse and factory combined. Here was the great clearing house on which the success of our Fair depends.…

Also from the same issue:

Suffragists will rally in force to greet Mr. Mark Wilks and his wife, Dr. Elizabeth Wilks, at the reception, organised in their honour by the Tax Resistance League, to take place at the Caxton Hall, on Monday, November 11, at 8.0 p.m. The sympathy of teachers with Mr. Wilks’ protest and imprisonment is shown by the fact that the chair will be taken by Mr. R. Cholmeley, Headmaster, Owen’s School, Islington, N. For particulars see page 30.

Also from the same issue:

Mrs. [Ethel] Ayers Purdie’s splendid success at Sunderland, single-handed against the Board of Inland Revenue, will be given in detail next week. The Inland Revenue authorities, we understand, intend appealing to the High Court.

The goods of Mr. J.A. Hall, of “Glenamour,” on October 31, Waterloo-park, Lancashire, were sold for the second time against distraint consequent on his refusal to pay income-tax on house property belonging to his wife. The goods were bought in by a friend for the amount of the tax and expenses.

Mrs. Hall, who attended the sale in the unavoidable absence of her husband, explained — by the courtesy of the auctioneer — to the large company of sympathisers present that this action was taken as the most practical and emphatic protest possible against the stupid and unjust action of the Revenue authorities who despite the fact of the Married Woman’s Property Act under which she herself is liable for her own debts, had forced the issue under the Income Tax Act of 1842. This Act, whilst making the husband liable for the payment of any tax on his wife’s own income, leaves him absolutely without any power to obtain from her any information with regard to her income if she declines to disclose it.

Mrs. Hall emphasised the absurdity and unfairness of such an enactment, and said it was matter for considerable surprise that, quite apart from the merits of the woman’s question, men had not bestirred themselves to force the Government to remedy this utterly impossible state of things and make women, if they could, pay this or any other tax whilst withholding from them the Parliamentary vote.

From the 14 November 1913 issue of The Vote:

Saul Among the Prophets.

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.

Also from the same issue:

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 November 3 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.”

Also in the same issue was a call to militancy from Charlotte Despard (excerpt):

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.

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

The Sale That Was Not a Sale.

After many months of barricade, “Brackenhill” was broken into by the tax-collecting authorities, and “in the King’s name” the doors were battered in and Mrs. [Kate] Harvey’s goods were seized to cover the amount of taxes which she refuses to pay so long as no woman in the land has a voice in controlling the expenditure of the country. The tax-collector wanted these goods to be disposed of peacefully, and therefore insisted that they should be sold on the premises and not in a public hall, as on a previous occasion. On Saturday morning a band of Suffragist men carried placards through the streets of Bromley, on which was the device, “I personally protest against the sale of a woman’s goods to pay taxes over which she has no control,” and long before 3.30, the time fixed for the sale, from North, South, East and West, people came streaming into the little town of Bromley, and made their way towards “Brackenhill.” Punctually at 3.30 the tax-collector and his deputy mounted the table in the dining-room, and the former, more in sorrow than in anger, began to explain to the crowd assembled that this was a genuine sale! Mrs. Harvey at once protested against the sale taking place. Simply and solely because she was a woman, although she was a mother, a business woman, and a tax-payer, she had no voice in saying how the taxes collected from her should be spent. The tax collector suffered this speech in silence, but he could judge by the cheers it received that there were many ardent sympathisers with Mrs. Harvey in her protest. He tried to proceed, but one after another the men present loudly urged that no one there should bid for the goods. The tax-collector feebly said this wasn’t a political meeting, but a genuine sale! “One penny for your goods then!” was the derisive answer. “One penny — one penny!” was the continued cry from both inside and outside “Brackenhill.” Then men protested that the tax-collector was not a genuine auctioneer; he had no hammer, no list of goods to be sold was hung up in the room. There was no catalogue, nothing to show bidders what was to be sold and what wasn’t. The men also objected to the presence of the tax-collector’s deputy. “Tell him to get down!” they shouted. “The sale shan’t proceed till he does,” they yelled. “Get down! Get down:” they sang. But the tax-collector felt safer by the support of this deputy. “He’s afraid of his own clerk,” they jeered. Again the tax-collector asked for bids. “One penny! One penny!” was the deafening response. The din increased every moment and pandemonium reigned supreme. During a temporary lull the tax-collector said a sideboard had been sold for nine guineas. Angry cries from angry men greeted this announcement. “Illegal sale!” “He shan’t take it home!” “The whole thing’s illegal!” “You shan’t sell anything else!” and The Daily Herald Leaguers, members of the Men’s Political Union, and of other men’s societies, proceeded to make more noise than twenty brass bands. Darkness was quickly settling in; the tax-collector looked helpless, and his deputy smiled wearily. “Talk about a comic opera — it’s better than Gilbert and Sullivan could manage,” roared an enthusiast. “My word, you look sick, guv’nor! Give it up, man!” Then everyone shouted against the other until the tax-collector said he closed the sale, remarking plaintively that he had lost £7 over the job! Ironical cheers greeted this news, with “Serve you right for stealing a woman’s goods!” He turned his back on his tormentors, and sat down in a chair on the table to think things over. The protesters sat on the sideboard informing all and sundry that if anyone wanted to take away the sideboard he should take them with it! With the exit of the tax-collector, his deputy and the bailiff, things gradually grew quieter, and later on Mrs. Harvey entertained her supporters to tea at the Bell Hotel. But the curious thing is, a man paid nine guineas for the sideboard to the tax-collector. Mrs. Harvey owed him more than £17, and Mrs. Harvey is still in possession of the sideboard!

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

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

Also from the same issue:

Women’s Tax Resistance League

Excellent Meeting at Hastings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Vote, No Dog License.

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

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

Mrs. Harvey’s Thanks.

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

From the 7 December 1912 issue of The Vote:

Rally in Force!

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

Also from the same issue:

Tax Resistance.

The Bromley Barricade Broken.

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

Mrs. Tippett’s Protest at Stowmarket.

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

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

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

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

Anna Munro.

Also from the same issue:

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

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

From the 14 December 1912 issue of The Vote:

Mrs. Harvey’s Sale.

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.

Also from the same issue:

Tax Resistance.

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.

From the 19 December 1913 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

Sale at Petersfield.

Miss Cummins, who lives in the pretty little district of Froxfield, near Petersfield, had goods sold in respect of non-payment of King’s Taxes on Monday afternoon. Miss [C. Nina] Boyle and Miss [Jessie?] Murray attended the sale from Headquarters, and among local supporters were Miss Cummins and her sister, Mrs. Baddeley (W.S.P.U.), Mr. Powell, Mr. Roper, and others. 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. Perched on the parapet of the churchyard wall, Miss Murray opened the brief meeting, followed by Miss Boyle, both receiving unexpected attention. Mr. Powell then spoke a few effective words to the men present, calling upon them as voters to give effect to the women’s protest by approaching their member and warning him that Women’s Suffrage was a question to which he would be expected to give serious attention.

It would appear that, in spite of its remote position and quiet, uneventful life, Suffrage has made great way in the Petersfield district. There are some 250 Suffragists, and several influential secessions from the Liberal Association have taken place over the question.

Arrest and Release of Captain Gonne.

Captain Gonne, R.A., was arrested at his residence at Bognor, on Saturday, and taken to Lewes gaol for non-payment of Imperial taxes. Captain Gonne, whose wife is a member of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, refuses to pay his wife’s income-tax, because he supports her in the belief that there should be no taxation without representation, and because he wishes to do his share towards altering the iniquitous laws regulating the taxation of married women. He refuses to pay his own taxes as a protest against the Government’s broken pledges to women and their torture of women prisoners. The Women’s Tax Resistance League at once organised a campaign of protest, in which the Women’s Freedom League and other Suffrage societies would have joined, to hold meetings outside Lewes Gaol. On Monday night, however, he was set free; and the Women’s Tax Resistance League is now raising serious points in regard to the legality of the arrest and the treatment otherwise meted out to him. It is well known that Captain Gonne’s health has suffered severely of late, and his serious indisposition is attributable to the excessive violence of Liberal stewards at meetings which Captain Gonne has attended on behalf of the women’s cause.

The following correspondence has been sent us for publication by the Women’s Tax Resistance League:—

To the Home Secretary, Home Office, Whitehall, S.W.

Sir, — Will you kindly inform my committee why, having decided to release Captain Gonne, R.A., from Lewes Jail, you discharged him before it was possible for his family to send for him, as they were prepared to do, rather than expose him in his delicate state of health to a cross-country railway journey unaccompanied?

Did you not state in the House of Commons that prisoners were never released without such necessary precautions having been taken? — Faithfully yours,

(Signed) Margaret Parkes.

To the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Treasury-chambers, Whitehall, S.W.

Sir, — Are you aware of the fact that on Saturday evening last Captain Gonne, R.A., was arrested at Bognor for non-payment of Imperial taxes and conveyed to Lewes Jail, and that he was released with no reason given at 6 o’clock on Monday evening? Will you kindly supply the committee immediately with answers to the following questions, as we consider that it is most important to know the reason for such apparently unconstitutional procedure?

1. By whose authority was Captain Gonne arrested and upon what charge?
2. Is it not usual in such cases to levy distraint upon the premises in respect of which the taxes are due?
3. By whose authority were orders sent to the Governor of Lewes Jail for Captain Gonne’s release?
4. If the imprisonment was a just one, for what reason was he released in less than 48 hours?

Awaiting the favour of your reply. Faithfully yours,

(Signed) Margaret Parkes.

Magistrate Compliments a Woman Tax Resister.

Miss A[gnes Edith] Metcalfe, B.Sc., ex-H.M.I., was summoned at Greenwich Police-court on Tuesday, December 9, for non-payment of dog license. In a short speech she said that she refused on conscientious grounds to pay taxes while women had no vote. The magistrate congratulated Miss Metcalfe on the clearness and eloquence with which she made out her case. He regretted that the law must take its course, and imposed a fine of 7s. with 2s. costs, recoverable by distraint. The alternative was one day’s imprisonment. We would like to contrast this with Miss I[sabelle] Stewart’s case which was identical, but her sentence was £2 fine or fourteen days’ imprisonment.

Also from the same issue:

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes has just returned from Ireland, where successful public meetings were held in Dublin and Cork, and tax resistance resolutions passed. She attended, as delegate for the Women’s Tax Resistance League, the Suffrage Conference held in Dublin, and spoke upon the present position of Women’s Suffrage. She also took part in the public debate with the National League for Opposing Women’s Suffrage, on which occasion the Suffragists won by a large majority.

From the 11 April 1913 issue of The Vote:

Tax Resistance.

The Unsold Waggon at Ipswich.

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

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

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

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

Women’s Tax Resistance League.

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

Sales of the Week.

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

From the 15 May 1913 Toronto Sunday World:

Showered Soot on Struggling Suffs.

Joint Demonstration With Tax Resisters Not Glittering Success.

Hastings, Eng., May 14. — (Can. Press.) — A joint demonstration of the tax resisters’ league and militant suffragettes, held here today as a protest against the sale of the belongings of those who refuse 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 shop, where they held the mob at bay until the arrival of reinforcements. The women were then escorted to a railway station.

You can read about the response to this incident from within the suffragist ranks in a couple of reports in The Vote:

• 23 May 1913
• 6 June 1913

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 3 July 1884:

A London Woman Wants the Franchise and Refuses to Pay Taxes

London, July 2. — 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.

To-day 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 this evening 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 yesterday 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 19 September 1905 Camperdown Chronicle:

Feminine Resisters.

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 27 March 1907 Albany Advertiser:

Resistance Overcome.

London, Tuesday.

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:

…it is the only way I can see of publicly discrediting the practice of taxing women while withholding from them the rights of citizenship. If [ENSWS] could persuade a few women in every town in Scotland to … [allow] their furniture to be sold as a protest against the law which classes them with criminals and idiots as unworthy of a vote, their object as a Society would soon be attained.

The Advertiser of Adelaide also carried the story:

Suffragist Passive Resister.

Refuses to Pay Taxes.

Her Furniture Sold.

London, March 25.

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 yesterday in the presence of 5,000 people.

The Otago Witness added the details that “The amount of the tax was £18 9s, and the first article put up, a handsome oak sideboard, realised nearly double that amount.”

Moving on to 1911, by which time the Woman’s Tax Resistance League is in full swing, here is a note from the Barrier Miner of 25 March 1911:

New Plan of Obstruction by Suffragists

A boycott of the census is (says the “Daily Chronicle” of February 7) 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.

From the 2 September 1911 Hobart, Tasmania Mercury:

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.

From the 21 October 1911 Utica Herald-Dispatch:

Suffragist Sent to Prison.

London, Oct. 11. — 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.

Houseman was back in the news a few months later. From the 3 January 1912 Brisbane Courier:

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.

From the 24 January 1912 Sydney Morning Herald:

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.

From the 26 June 1912 Brisbane Courier:

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.

From the 21 September 1912 Syracuse Daily Journal:

Will Sacrifice Hubby on Votes to Women Altar

Discovery by Mrs. Mark Wilks Gives Suffragets Brilliant Idea.

Campaign of Sympathy

Wilks in Jail Because His Wife Refused to Pay Her Taxes.

London, Sept. 21. — 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 to-day. 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.

From the 3 December 1912 West Gippsland Gazette:

Wife’s Income.

History of Curious Case.

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 September 29).

To-morrow the Wilks campaign opens with a demonstration in Trafalgar Square. On Sunday there will be another mass meeting in Hyde Park, and on Monday 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 Thursday 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 yesterday 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 1908 and 1909 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 1910,” 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 13 November 1912 Barrier Miner):

“The Revolt of Man.”

Against Paying Wife’s Income Tax.

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 17 January 1913 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.”

From the 13 February 1913 New York Sun:

Dog Tax Strike Is Mrs. Snowden’s Plea

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 Tuesday 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.

From the 23 April 1913 Melbourne Argus:

Duchess as Tax Resister

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.

Here is another note on Russell’s resistance, from the 4 June 1913 Hobart, Tasmania Mercury:

Distraint was levied last month 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 19 August 1913 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.”

From the 12 October 1913 Brooklyn Daily Eagle:

Militants Now Say They Won’t Be Taxed

“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, October 5 — 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.

More on the Harvey case from the 27 November 1913 Melbourne Argus:

Tax Resister.

Siege of Suffragette’s House.

Bailiff Uses Battering-Ram.

London, Nov. 20.

Primitive but effective means were resorted to yesterday 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 1911 her goods were seized and sold for inhabited house duty, and last year 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.]

And a bit more, from the 29 December 1913 Adelaide Register:

Battering Ram Used.

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 17 January 1914 New York Herald:

Princess’ Jewels Are Seized for Fines

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.

Next, from the 3 February 1914 Adelaide Register:

Princess Fined.

Princess Sophia Duleep Singh, of Faraday House, Hampton Court, made her second appearance at Feltham Police Court, Middlesex, on Monday. 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/.

Finally, from the 5 March 1914 Adelaide Register:

Princess’s Protest.

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 Monday. 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 18 October 1914 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.”

The opening ceremonies at the London Olympics included a sort of dramatized whirlwind tour of British history, and Sprigged Muslin pointed out that the Women’s Tax Resistance League was represented in the parade:

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 a century ago. 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 March 1865, 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.”

Irish factions

In 1919, a Sinn Fein leader told a reporter that the group was pondering a tax strike, and predicted that “No Irish auctioneer would consent to act at [distraint] sales. Auctioneers would have to be imported from England. So would purchaser. Then Irish laborers would refuse to move the sold goods to the wharves and Irish sailors would refuse to carry it on their ships. England soon would find herself without the millions of pounds sterling that she now squeezes out of Ireland.”

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 Christmas Eve 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 Thursday 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 10 o’clock last Saturday morning 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 Friday last. 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 — Thursday, noon — 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 yesterday 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 Tuesday, July 4, 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 Thursday, July 20, 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 Tuesday, 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 on Wednesday, March 6, 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 April 17, 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 May 2 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 Saturday morning a band of Suffragist men carried placards through the streets of Bromley, on which was the device, ‘I personally protest against the sale of a woman’s goods to pay taxes over which she has no control,’ and long before 3.30, the time fixed for the sale, from North, South, East and West, people came streaming into the little town of Bromley, and made their way towards ‘Brackenhill.’ Punctually at 3.30 the tax-collector and his deputy mounted the table in the dining-room, and the former, more in sorrow than in anger, began to explain to the crowd assembled that this was a genuine sale! Mrs. Harvey at once protested against the sale taking place. Simply and solely because she was a woman, although she was a mother, a business woman, and a tax-payer, she had no voice in saying how the taxes collected from her should be spent. The tax collector suffered this speech in silence, but he could judge by the cheers it received that there were many ardent sympathisers with Mrs. Harvey in her protest. He tried to proceed, but one after another the men present loudly urged that no one there should bid for the goods. The tax-collector feebly said this wasn’t a political meeting, but a genuine sale! ‘One penny for your goods then!’ was the derisive answer. ‘One penny — one penny!’ was the continued cry from both inside and outside ‘Brackenhill.’ Then men protested that the tax-collector was not a genuine auctioneer; he had no hammer, no list of goods to be sold was hung up in the room. There was no catalogue, nothing to show bidders what was to be sold and what wasn’t. The men also objected to the presence of the tax-collector’s deputy. ‘Tell him to get down!’ they shouted. ‘The sale shan’t proceed till he does,’ they yelled. ‘Get down! Get down:’ they sang. But the tax-collector felt safer by the support of this deputy. ‘He’s afraid of his own clerk,’ they jeered. Again the tax-collector asked for bids. ‘One penny! One penny!’ was the deafening response. The din increased every moment and pandemonium reigned supreme. During a temporary lull the tax-collector said a sideboard had been sold for nine guineas. Angry cries from angry men greeted this announcement. ‘Illegal sale!’ ‘He shan’t take it home!’ ‘The whole thing’s illegal!’ ‘You shan’t sell anything else!’ and The Daily Herald Leaguers, members of the Men’s Political Union, and of other men’s societies, proceeded to make more noise than twenty brass bands. Darkness was quickly settling in; the tax-collector looked helpless, and his deputy smiled wearily. ‘Talk about a comic opera — it’s better than Gilbert and Sullivan could manage,’ roared an enthusiast. ‘My word, you look sick, guv’nor! Give it up, man!’ Then everyone shouted against the other until the tax-collector said he closed the sale, remarking plaintively that he had lost £7 over the job! Ironical cheers greeted this news, with ‘Serve you right for stealing a woman’s goods!’ He turned his back on his tormentors, and sat down in a chair on the table to think things over. The protesters sat on the sideboard informing all and sundry that if anyone wanted to take away the sideboard he should take them with it! With the exit of the tax-collector, his deputy and the bailiff, things gradually grew quieter, and later on Mrs. Harvey entertained her supporters to tea at the Bell Hotel. But the curious thing is, a man paid nine guineas for the sideboard to the tax-collector. Mrs. Harvey owed him more than £17, and Mrs. Harvey is still in possession of the sideboard!”
• “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] today 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 early 1830s 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 the 16^th May, 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 the late nineteenth century 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 the 1870s 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 1876, 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.”
• Many years before 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 1786, 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 1921 “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 1874, “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.”