We are accustomed to the story of the ass teaching the ancients wisdom; the modern version seems to be that the cow is on the side of the tax-resisters.
The story of what happened while Miss [Edith Kate] Lelacheur was attending a sale of a dog cart at Reading for the non-payment of the agricultural land tax on one of her farms might be deemed a practical joke on the part of the revenue authorities, but for the fact that the cow took the matter entirely into her own hands and flouted the bailiffs.
In the absence of Miss Lelacheur, a cow was seized for non-payment of other taxes; inquiry elicited the fact that “twice the bailiffs took the cow away and got it three miles or so along the road, but that then it bolted back.”
Finally they gave it up, and left Miss Lelacheur the distraining order — and the cow.
We wonder whether in due time Suffragists will have reason to worship the cow — taking a different point of view from the Hindus.
Meanwhile, we congratulate Miss Lelacheur on her tax resistance and on the noble support of her cow.
Later: We hear that force majeure has prevailed; the cow is to be sold — to a tax-resister, we hope!
Also from the same issue:
Tax Resistance.
Under the auspices of the Tax Resistance League and the Women’s Freedom League a protest meeting was held at Great Marlow on , on the occasion of the sale of plate and jewellery belonging to Mrs. [Mary] Sargent Florence, the well-known artist, and to Miss Hayes, daughter of Admiral Hayes.
Their property had been seized for the non-payment of Imperial taxes, and through the courtesy of the tax-collector every facility was afforded to the protesters to explain their action.
A quiet little group — a large crowd for Marlow — listened attentively to Mrs. Florence, Mrs. [Emily] Juson Kerr, Miss [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, and Miss [Alison] Neilans.
Mrs. Sargent Florence had been distrained upon more than once, and intends to continue her passive protest until women have the vote.
At the County Court, Woodbridge, Dr. Elizabeth Knight was charged with keeping a dog without a license and refusing to take out a license for her dog cart; Mrs. H[ortense].
Lane was charged also with refusing to pay the license for her trap.
Dr. Knight said she believed taxation and representation should go together; and Mrs. Lane, who was unable to attend, wrote to the Bench saying she refused to pay taxes as a protest against women’s political disability.
Mr. Eton White, the presiding magistrate, said his duty was to administer the law as it stood; therefore Dr. Knight was fined £2 10s. and costs, and Mrs. Lane £1 10s. and costs.
A protest meeting was afterwards held on Market Hill.
Mrs. [Lila] Pratt, hon. secretary of the Women’s Freedom League, Ipswich branch, presided, and an interesting crowd listened appreciatively to the speech of Mrs. [Emma] Sproson who explained the reason why women should adopt the policy of tax resistance and urged upon all women to make the position of the Government intolerable and untenable unless it conceded to women their common human right.
Silver belonging to Miss [Dorinda] Neligan, of Croydon, and Mrs. [Florence Gardiner] Hamilton, of Wendover, was sold for non-payment of taxes on , and vigorous protests made.
At Wendover, in the John Hampden County, an Anti-suffragist from London made a speech.
On , Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes addressed a meeting of the members of the Fleet National Union on the principles of tax resistance, and a ballot was taken in order to instruct delegate how to vote at July Conference.
On , a drawing room meeting was given by Mrs. [Louisa] Jopling Rowe in her large studio, and she herself presided.
Speeches were made by Mrs. [Caroline] Louis Fagan, Mrs. Kineton Parkes and Mr. Laurence Housman, the latter dealing in a most interesting and exhaustive way with the tax resistance movement from an historical point of view.
A very successful protest was made at Finchley on in connection with the seizure of property belonging to Miss [Sarah] Benett, late hon. treasurer of the W.F.L.
By courtesy of the auctioneer, Miss Bennet, was allowed to explain her reason for resisting payment of taxes.
A very successful open-air meeting was held afterwards.
Mrs. [Edith] How Martyn announced that Mrs. [Emma] Sproson, a member of the National Executive of the Women’s Freedom League, was serving a term of seven days’ imprisonment in the third division for refusing to pay her dog license.
This was the third time Mrs. Sproson had suffered imprisonment in connection with the militant suffrage agitation.
The Women’s Freedom League had taken up tax-resistance as a part of their propaganda three years ago.
Mr. Keir Hardie had stated in the House of Commons that twenty-five million pounds flowed yearly into the coffers of the national exchequer as a result of the indirect taxation of women.
If that money could be withheld, or if all women who were directly taxed would refuse to pay until they were enfranchised, they would not long have to wait for their political emancipation.
The speaker then dealt with the political situation as regards the Women’s Bill.
On , Miss Constance Andrews — our honorary organizer for the East Anglian district — was arrested and taken to Ipswich gaol, there to spend a week because she refused to pay her dog tax.
Here was a chance for the local branch, and they seized it.
I went down on , and we soon got all the preliminary arrangements made for a welcome to Miss Andrews.
The little town has been buzzing with suffragettes and their doings.
Everyone has been talking of Miss Andrews and our preparations to receive her.
Open-air meetings, bill-distributing, the carrying of trimmed posters, pushing the decorated coster’s barrow (covered with The Vote and posters) through the town, — all have served to draw the attention of the townsfolk to the fact that something unusual was astir.
Our two meetings on Cornhill were well attended, and the behaviour of the crowds was remarkably good.
On morning a very large crowd — described in the local press as “an immense gathering” — collected outside the prison to cheer Miss Andrews on her release.
Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard — “the grand old lady of the Women’s movement,” to quote again from the East Anglian Daily Times — drove up in an open cab, with Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett and Mrs. Bastian.
Shortly after her arrival Miss Andrews was released, a photographer standing on a wall opposite the prison gate being the first to give the news.
The outer gate opened, and as our ex-prisoner came out a lusty chorus of “hurrahs!” showed the sympathy of the crowd.
Mrs. Despard said a few words of welcome, and then we formed up in a little procession behind the Ipswich “Dare to be Free” banner, and walked to our rooms in Arcade-street, the cab with Miss Andrews in Mrs. Tippett’s place bringing up the rear.
The large crowd followed us all the way, and enquiring heads were thrust through open windows all along the route.
On our arrival at the rooms, we found a dainty breakfast set out for us at long tables, placed at right-angles to each other.
Japanese table napkins, floral decorations, placards on the walls, all were in the green, white and gold.
After breakfast Mrs. Hossack, from the chair, paid a warm tribute to Miss Andrew’s work.
Mrs. Despard, in her own inspiring way addressed the gathering after the enthusiastic singing of “For she’s a jolly good fellow,” and Miss Andrews gave us a vivid account of her life in prison.
Among other things, she said there were only four other women besides herself in prison.…
…Altogether we feel that Miss Andrews has done a great service to the local work by her protest and imprisonment, and made possible a splendid week’s work, which we hope will leave a lasting impression.
In spite of threats, Dr.
[Elizabeth] Knight and the other Headquarters members who have resisted the
Insurance taxation remain at large.
Dr. Knight’s sentence of one
month still hangs over her head; but no action has yet been taken against
Headquarters.
Mrs. [Emma] Sproson has renewed the fight in her own part of the world, and
is now challenging the Inland Revenue to make good their claim to tax her
small holding at Wolverhampton. It is possible that the authorities may hold
her husband responsible; but this is a point that remains to be settled.
Meanwhile, it is a matter for great satisfaction to have Mrs. Sproson back
again in the active fighting lines.
Mrs. [Emma] Sproson said she had only been a week out of Stafford County Prison, where she had served seven days in the third division for refusing to pay her dog-license.
Since then, three other summonses had also been served for the same reason — one upon her husband for “aiding and abetting.”
This was very serious indeed.
If the decision went against Mr. Sproson it would establish the principle that a wife could not keep even a cat without the consent of her husband.
Whatever happened the speaker was determined not to let either the police or the Government get the better of her.
There were times when militancy was absolutely necessary.
Tax resistance was a splendid form of protest when the person who resisted had no goods that could be distrained upon.
There was nothing for it but to put that person into prison.
This placed the Government in a very awkward position.
Public sympathy was always with the person who refused to pay taxes as a matter of principle, and the Government, in sending that person to prison, was regarded as an aggressor.
There were those who considered that suffragists were prepared to go too far in their determination to obtain that for which they were fighting.
But true reformers were willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of a principle; it was the false reformer who considered that there were limits to sacrifice.
Mrs. [Margaret] Nevinson said when they were at school they were taught that freedom had been won for England by such men as Hampden, who had resisted the payment of ship-money.
There was, however, no freedom for women.…
From elsewhere in the same issue:
Tax Resistance in Wolverhampton
“Love me, love my dog,” is an adage which we are not sure a wife is entitled to use.
When the authorities — the Wolverhampton police — first enquired into the ownership of my dog, my husband repudiated all claim; consequently, in default of taking out a license, I was committed to prison and served seven days in the third division.
On my release I made known my intention of continuing to refuse to take out a license.
The police are trying to assert their authority, and on Friday last served me with three summonses — one for keeping a dog without a license, a second for keeping a ferocious dog, and a third for keeping a ferocious dog without proper control; and a fourth was served on Mr. Sproson “for aiding, abetting and procuring one Emma Sproson to keep a dog without a license.”
The first charge is the same as the one for which I have already served seven days, thereby causing the authorities to assert that I was the responsible individual; the second and third are the grossest possible libel on poor “Gip,” and are brought forward as a means of hampering my protest.
The fourth is one which we as suffragists need to enquire into with the most careful consideration.
The police see that nothing can be got from me except such suffering as they shall impose on my person.
The public support I have received has evidently only had the effect of making the police determined to stop me somehow.
So the musty old law of coverture has been brought into action.
Under this law they say the husband can be coerced against his will into responsibility for the action of his wife.
He has distrainable goods, and these can be seized until he cannot resist the power of the law any longer.
Whether the authorities know quite well where they stand remains to be seen.
Their position may be made more clear to my readers than it is to themselves by the following questions which were put to me by Mr. Sproson:— If I took out a license without any regard to your opinions, what would you do?
I replied that I should get another dog.
If I killed your dog, what then?
I replied that I should get another dog.
If I told you you must discontinue keeping a dog or leave my roof, what should you do?
I replied — I should leave your roof, and I should cease to regard you as a husband and consider you a tyrant.
So the wise men of Wolverhampton have to decide whether a husband has the right to turn his wife from his house or to act as though she is a responsible human being who ought to have the same human rights as himself.
Many of my critics will say — it is pushing a protest to extremes to appear to think more of a dog than of a husband, home and children.
But I reply it is a principle that is at stake.
I once learnt a lesson which struck root right down into my nature, as Ibsen puts it, and this is that the worship of one fragment of the golden calf is as much idolatry as the worship of the whole calf.
There are many reformers — too many, perhaps — and what differentiates the true reformer from the false is the true sacrifices — all if need be not caring for consequences — the false always have their limit.
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.
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:—
.
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 last
for refusing to pay a dog license, as a protest against her political
disenfranchisement, Mrs. Sproson was on 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.
.
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
was not the same as that of which
she was convicted on . It is an
offence against the law to keep a dog without a license, and after her
conviction of 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, .
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, :— “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
. I was only allowed to see her
through a grating for fifteen minutes.” — E.H.M.
On 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
evening in the drawing-room at
Warren House, Guildford, by the kind invitation of Mr. and Mrs. Baker, and
Mrs. Kineton Parkes
spoke at a garden party at Farnham.
The last of these meetings was held on
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 , 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.
…On 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.…
Our Trafalgar-square Demonstration on , is to be a great success. It is being
advertised by the Caravan, which, covered with great banners, is parading
some of the principal thoroughfares all this week; it is accompanied by a
little band of chalkers and bill-distributers. The meeting is one of protest
against the biased administration of the law and its treatment of women, as
instanced in the two months’ imprisonment in the second division which Mrs.
Kate Harvey is now undergoing at Holloway because of her refusal to pay her
Insurance Tax and license for her manservant. We have a fine list of
speakers: Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard, Miss Nina Boyle, Miss Amy Hicks,
M.A., Miss Anna Munro, Mrs.
M[argaret].W. Nevinson, Mrs. [Anne] Cobden Sanderson, Mrs. [Emma] Sproson,
Mrs. Tanner, Mrs. [Isabel] Tippett, Mr. Harry de Pass, Mr. George Lansbury,
Mr. H.W. Nevinson, Mr. John Scurr and Mr. Mark Wilks.
Vote-sellers, literature-sellers, collectors, and
banner-bearers please be at the office
We hope every London member will
attend the demonstration and bring as many friends as possible.
The meeting outside Holloway Gaol, held from the Women’s Freedom League Caravan, was small and not
particularly sympathetic. The speakers — Mrs. Hyde, Mrs. Despard, and Miss
Boyle — were heard without very much interruption, but with little
enthusiasm. The meetings at Bromley, on the other hand, held by the Women’s
Tax Resistance and Freedom Leagues alternately, have been more than
satisfactory. Miss Hicks and Miss Boyle, on
and
nights, secured excellent crowds on
the Market-square, and were listened to with deep attention and quiet
courtesy. These meetings will continue throughout Mrs. Harvey’s imprisonment.
The caravan will continue its advertising campaign through London and the
suburbs until ’s meeting is
over; and the list of speakers for the demonstration is more than satisfactory.
The following resolution will be put to the meeting:—
That this meeting protests with indignation against the vindictive sentences
passed on Voteless Women, and especially that on Mrs. Harvey; and demands
that the Government accord equal treatment to men and women under the law
and under the Constitution.
The arrangements are as follows:—
Platform 1. — Facing National Gallery.
Chair:
Miss Anna Munro.
.
— Mrs. Despard.
.
— Mr. George Lansbury.
.
— Mrs. Cobden Sanderson.
.
— Mr. Harry de Pass.
.
— Miss Nina Boyle.
.
— Resolution.
.
— Collection and Questions.
Platform 2. — Facing Strand.
Chair:
Miss Amy Hicks, M.A..
.
— Mr. John Scurr.
.
— Miss Nina Boyle.
.
— Mr. George Lansbury.
.
— Mrs. Nevinson.
.
— Mr. Mark Wilks.
.
— Resolution.
.
— Collection and Questions.
Platform 3. — Facing Pall Mall.
Chair:
Mrs. Tanner.
.
— Mr. H.W. Nevinson.
.
— Mrs. Tippett.
.
— Mrs. Sproson.
.
— Mr. John Scurr.
.
— Mrs. Despard.
.
— Resolution.
.
— Collection and Questions.
The Chair to be taken at .
Mrs. Despard’s letter to the Home Office asking for Mrs. Harvey’s release has
elicited the reply that the Home Secretary can see no reason to intervene,
and that he does not admit that “Queenie Gerald” is not still serving her
sentence.
Mr. Harben has addressed the following letter to the Home Office:—
Newland-park, Chalfont St.
Giles, Bucks. .
Dear Sir,— May I be permitted to appeal to you to use your power to secure a
reduction of the sentence on Mrs. Harvey, who as a matter of principle has
refused to pay the contribution due under the Insurance Act.
Justice can always afford to be merciful; unfairness is bound to fall back
on cruelty for its support. While women are voteless in the hands of men,
the sense of injustice is bound to arise among them; and that is all the
more reason why a Government, which does not propose to remove that
grievance, should be doubly careful to be fare in all other respects. Yet
more persons have been imprisoned for political offences in the last four
or five years than at any recent period in our history; and while the
administration of the law is thus openly prostituted for political purposes,
there is growing up in the public mind a contempt for the law so widespread
that it has already had a damaging effect on public order, and will
certainly lead to more serious consequences still.
I would ask you, Sir, what good purpose can possibly be served by such a
sentence as this? Two months in the Second Division will cause considerable
suffering to Mrs. Harvey herself; but so far from being a deterrent to her
or anyone else, its effect will be exactly the reverse. The fact that the
offences of Mrs. Harvey and Queenie Gerald are on the same level before the
law will ring as a challenge to all decent men and women throughout the
country to remove the poison from the springs of justice at all costs, and
with the utmost speed. Were it not that cruelty to women has now become a
Government pastime, and that the terrors of Holloway are so obviously the
panem et circenses thrown to the creatures of Llanystumdwy,
it would be impossible to suppose that in England such a sentence could be
allowed to stand. ―I remain, yours faithfully,
Suffragette propaganda postcard: “These useful little Articles / the enemy appals / You’ll find them come in handy / When the Tax Collector calls.”
“No Taxation Without Representation.”
Miss Marie Lawson asks us to publish the following abridged account of her
“snowball” protest, and to correct one or two errors in
our last issue. “Latter” was printed
for “former” in the second paragraph, and an impression was conveyed that the
“snowball” letter was to be anonymous, which is not the case.
Mrs. K. Harvey, of Bromley, has been committed for two months in the second
division for non-payment of a Government Tax and for non-compliance with the
requirements of the National Insurance Act.
As a declaration against the tyranny of arbitrary taxation, Mrs. Harvey
adopted the time-honoured protest of passive resistance — the only form of
protest, short of actual violence, that is open to the women of this country.
She had to choose between passive resistance and cowardly acquiescence. She
chose the former and, as a result, now lies in Holloway Gaol.
You are urgently requested to assist the agitation for her release in two
ways:—
By sending a postcard to the Home Secretary, The Home Office, Whitehall,
S.W., protesting
against the severity of the sentence and demanding her immediate
release.
By copying this statement in full and forwarding it to at least three of
your friends.
Printed postcards for collecting signatures in support of the protest can
be obtained from Miss Lawson on receipt of a stamped envelope.
The protest meeting , in spite of the numerous counter-attractions offered to the public, must be chronicled as one of our successes.
The resolution
That this meeting protests with indignation against the vindictive sentences passed on voteless women, and especially that on Mrs. Harvey, and demands that the Government accord equal treatment to men and women under the law and under the constitution,
was carried from each platform, and the crowd appeared entirely sympathetic.…
Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard made the first speech…
A sentence of monstrous injustice had been passed on Mrs. Harvey.
She refused to pay the insurance tax.
Let her point out the inequality of the sentences passed on insurance resisters.
Mrs. Harvey was sued for a count of ten weeks, amounting to 5s. 5d. To this was added costs and special costs, till it mounted to £17. For refusing to pay a license for a man-servant she was further fined £22. But a man who defaulted for thirty-one weeks and, moreover, deceived his servants into the belief that all was straight, was fined 15s. We realise, therefore, that this is vindictive.
Mrs. Harvey was fined not for refusing to pay her tax but for being a rebel.
Mrs. Harvey was a woman who devoted her life to the help of others.
During the dockers’ strike she had taken into her own home three of the dockers’ children and cared for them as if they had been her own.
For the sake of justice — for the sake of our country’s reputation — she asked the people to help.
“I ask all men — workers or not — to send a card to Mr. McKenna, demanding Mrs. Harvey’s release.
Work for the time to come, when men and women shall stand together to make the world better, purer, happier and holier than that in which we are condemned to live.”
Mrs. [Anne] Cobden-Sanderson’s point was that Mrs. Harvey was worth of the vote as a human being.
She had worked for the great movement of universal brotherhood.
Even caddies were striking now against the Insurance Act.
But the caddies would have a vote one day, and Mrs. Harvey never.
She objected, naturally, to obey laws made without her consent; and if ever there was a law which touched women equally with men, and left them, in fact, in a worse position than men, that law was the Insurance Act.
Resistance to taxation is no new principle.
Mr. Harry de Passe, speaking next, said: “I only wish more people would protest against this insurance tax, which has been imposed against the people’s will.
The sending of a good woman to prison for refusal to pay makes it clear to us that we are living under a Government of compulsion.
It is this principle of compulsion that we must fight.
As for those who had the vote, let them not use it for the furtherance of bureaucratic legislation.
Let the privilege and monopoly everywhere be abolished, so that the people may come into their own and be delivered from the control of the expert.”
Miss Amy Hicks, M.A., who took the chair on No. 2 platform, said that Mrs. Harvey had been sent to Holloway Prison for two months for refusing to comply with the Insurance Act, and for refusing to pay the license in connection with her gardener, on the ground that taxation and representation ought to go together.
Miss Hicks then read the following message from Mr. [George] Lansbury, who was too unwell to speak at the meeting:—
“Please say that I hope every man and woman who really believes in freedom and justice will not rest until Mrs. Harvey is released.
It is perfectly monstrous that the law should be administered in the iniquitous manner it has been in her case.”
Mr. John Scurr said he had come to protest against the action of the Liberal Government in respect to women… Mrs. Harvey, in company with the rest of women, either taxpayers or working women, had not been consulted as to the National Health Insurance Act.
Although that Act has placed a poll tax of 3d. or 2d. on every woman who works or employs labour at all, they have neither been consulted as to whether they desired that tax, what the amount of that tax should be, or what should be the benefits given under the Act; therefore Mrs. Harvey contended that, as she had not been consulted, she under no circumstances was going to pay that tax.
(Hear hear.)
… They have given Mrs. Harvey two months in the second division — (shame) — because she refused to pay a fine three times more than that inflicted on any man, and they called this justice!
The same motion was also carried by another meeting:
Tax Resistance.
The meetings at Bromley continue to be satisfactory, and at night’s gathering in the Market-square the resolution carried on Trafalgar-square was put to the assembled crowd, and carried with only four dissentients.
A good many people, however, refrained from expressing an opinion either way.
The meeting was under the auspices of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, the speaker being Mrs. Emma Sproson, who is now, we are glad to say, once more able to take up Suffrage work.
Bromley gave her a cordial reception.
Another item in the same edition concerns another meeting about tax resistance:
Tax Resistance.
A most enthusiastic meeting was held in the Market-square, Bromley, Kent, on night in connection with the imprisonment of Mrs. Kate Harvey for non-payment of her insurance tax and license on manservant.
Mrs. Cobden-Sanderson, of the Women’s Tax Resistance League, was followed by two Californian ladies, Mrs. [Eliza] Wilks and Mrs. [Laura] Grover Smith, both of whom enjoy the vote in their own country and voted in the recent election for President Wilson.
Both the American speakers supported tax resistance as one of the best methods of protesting against the present injustices to women.
The crowd throughout was entirely sympathetic and vigorously applauded the speakers.
Popular sympathy is obviously with Mrs. Harvey.
Mrs. Wilks is a Unitarian minister, and has worked for the Suffrage for fifty years.
Two charges of contravention of the Revenue Act were made at the instance of the Officer of Customs and Excise against Dr. Grace Cadell, 145, Leith-walk, Edinburgh, the well-known Suffragette, in the Midlothian County Justice of the Peace Court this afternoon.
The Clerk of Court read a letter from Dr. Cadell, dated from London, stating that as she was not a person in the eyes of the law it was impossible for her to appear personally.
Mr. Henry Seex, Officer of the Customs and Excise, stated that Dr. Cadell kept two carriages, and only held a license for one.
She had been told about it, and refused to take out the license.
A fine of £2, with the option of ten days’ imprisonment, was imposed.
The second complaint was that she had armorial bearings painted on one of her carriages, and had taken out no license for the same.
She had had armorial bearings painted on her carriage for years, but this year she had refused to take out the necessary licenses.
When remonstrated with she had only replied that she was a Suffragette.
A fine of £3 3s. was imposed, which included the license, with the option of ten days’ imprisonment.
An editorial by C. Nina Boyle in the same issue gave a criticism of government and taxation that was more radical than just the basic no-taxation-without-representation argument common to women’s suffrage tax resistance:
“False and Fraudulent Pretenses.”
People who “obtain money by false and fraudulent pretenses” frequently find themselves in the dock answering for their unhandsome doings before a jury of their fellow-men.
The ordinary man is supposed to have a prejudice against being defrauded; the law is supposed to protect him against it; the public is supposed to approve of such prosecutions and to be ready to assist the law in its pursuit of the misdemeanant.
What causes surprise, under these suppositious circumstances, is to note the very large class of persons who obtain money by false and fraudulent pretenses who never reach the dock at all, and the apathy of that other class which never makes any attempt to put them there.
The class known vaguely but comprehensively as “the authorities,” for instance, is never put in the dock to answer for its abuse of public trust and squandering of public money.
Yet it has earned that guerdon as fully and as conscientiously as the absconding clerk, the bogus company promoter, the false trustee, and the confidence-trick man.
Why do not “the authorities” reap the same reward as those other malefactors?
We wonder why not?
Mrs. Harvey is in Holloway because she will no longer consentingly give her money to dishonest trustees to handle for her.
She has been adjudged “guilty” of a crime which is in reality no crime, but a public service.
She has set an example of watchfulness in the nation’s interests that others would do well to follow.
She not only will not pay for what she may not choose; she will not pay for inferior goods, for bad service, foisted on her without her consent, by false and fraudulent pretenses.
What is it we pay for? In the taxes and duties levied on the population right down to the poorest and humblest of all — who pay through their tea and sugar and the very necessaries of life — there is a vested right to a good return and to honest and able management.
These paid servants of ours — the Cabinet, the House of Commons, the Army and Navy, the Civil Service — represent the skilled labour of national employment.
Some of them get the highest skilled wages paid.
It is only the exception when skilled work is given in return for those wages.
The legal advisers of the Government, one way and another, draw some £45,000 a year.
The Attorney-General, besides his £7,000 a year, is entitled to charge a daily fee when put on to a job.
The other is only a waiting fee.
The result has been that one of the Government’s chief measures had to be withdrawn because it was not in order and did not comply with the rules; and a few days before the close of the Session a Government amendment of more than ordinary importance, affecting the shameful taxing of married women’s incomes, had to be dropped for the same reason.
These two measures both were of deep importance to women.
One was to have an amendment granting to women the rights of their citizenship; the other was to give them relief from an entirely illegal form of levying taxes on their incomes.
Both attempts at remedying injustice failed because of the incompetence of the Law Officers of the Crown.
Women are still to be refused the benefits of the Married Women’s Property Act when it comes to taxation, and over two millions of unlawful booty are still to be collected and disposed of by those guilty of false and fraudulent pretenses.
No wonder Mrs. Harvey goes to prison sooner than let them spend money of hers!
The President of the Board of Trade draws £5,000 a year.
He has under him inspectors who hold inquiries and make reports, and occasionally a Commission is appointed to make a special report.
Such a report was made, at great expense, about two years ago.
It was then pigeon-holed — a common fate of reports.
Then the Titanic went down, and another Commission sat.
This one cost upwards of £30,000. The Attorney-General cut in and drew his fees, and the Solicitor-General did likewise.
Then it transpired that there had been the former Commission and that its report had been pigeon-holed.
Had its report been carried out, the mortality from the Titanic disaster would in all probability have been less.
The public paid for both Commissions, both reports; and it paid more — the list of casualties.
The Board of Trade is conducting another inquiry now.
Major Pringle is inquiring into the Aisgill disaster, just as three years ago he inquired into the Hawes Junction disaster.
The recommendation made then was that electricity rather than oil-gas should be used for lighting.
The railway boards smiled courteously; the Board of Trade responded in kind; the same recommendation will now be made again.
Women and children have paid with their lives for the false and fraudulent dealings of the Board of Trade, whose duty it is to maintain and to introduce safeguards up-to-date for those who travel by land and by water.
Small wonder that some women are refusing to pay these “wicked and slothful servants.”
There was a fire at Messrs.
Arding and Hobbs.
Nine girl children were roasted to death on the roof or smashed to pulp on the pavement.
It transpired that young lads monkeyed around among the piled heaps of celluloid with gas-rings and blazing sealing-wax.
L.C.C. inspectors had said nothing; the manager pooh-poohed fire-drill as farcical.
No report of this scandalous neglect ever reached the L.C.C. through its inspectors.
There was another fire at John Barker’s. Five more girls frizzled to death in that outbreak; and it transpired that only a trifle over 500 of the thousands of London firms that keep young employees on the premises had complied with the L.C.C. regulations of , regarding precautions against fire.
Women are only allowed to vote in proportion of one to every seven men in local government; they cannot turn out these inspectors, and can bring but little influence to bear, for the elections are run on party lines.
The power above the L.C.C. is the Cabinet.
No London County Councillors have been put in the dock.
The Cabinet is composed of persons who at divers and sundry times perambulate the country with their cohorts of supporters and parasites, telling the gullible public, with an unparalleled effrontery of bluff, that in their hands the finances, interests, and persons of the community will be safe.
Other sets of politicians also go on circuit giving this a flat denial and upholding their own peculiar political pills and potions and panaceas.
Sometimes the winners call themselves Unionist, sometimes Liberal; they are equally false and fraudulent in their pretenses.
They draw large salaries for themselves, secure office, titles and pensions for their following; make shameless inroads for their own advantage into the public purse entrusted to their keeping, and misadminister the bulk with a recklessness only equalled by its ineptitude and inefficiency.
Commissions sit eternally, for no apparent object but to enable commissioners to draw fees.
The Housing Commission that sat at Birmingham denounced the “back-to-back” design; but houses are still built on the “back-to-back” plan in Birmingham.
The Poor Law Commission presented a Majority and a Minority Report.
Neither have been acted on, and Mr. John Burns is now upholding and extending the crying evils that the Commission sat to remedy.
The Commission on the Jury System sat for months and months; its report gave no relief to sufferers and no promise of justice; but even what it did recommend goes unheeded.
The Divorce Commission’s Report is waste paper; its only result, a private member’s Bill, with no ghost of a chance to obtain time or consideration, let alone a third reading.
The legal advisers help the Cabinet to frame laws, and the legal members of the House discuss and amend them, with the result that no one knows what they mean until other legal gentlemen, or the same ones, have been paid a second time to discuss them before a judge and jury, who must also be paid to say what they eventually do men.
The public pays three times over in this business of law-making; is it any wonder that some women are rising up to say they will pay no more until they have power to ensure more efficiency?
Nay, is it not far more amazing that they have not done so long ere this?
The Government is the Great Fraud of the age.
It and its supporters, with their false and fraudulent pretenses, cannot even govern.
No one will pretend, in this the twentieth century, that “government” is rightly interpreted as mere coercion, repression, or exhibition of force.
Government that is good, government, above all, that claims to be “representative,” must be based on the goodwill of those governed.
The Government does not exist for one set or one class or one portion alone.
No matter who elects it, no matter what its name, party or politics, all the community has an equal claim on it.
Unrest in any direction should enforce on a Government the duty, the necessity, of immediate attention to that unrest, and an endeavour to remove the cause in some fashion that will allay the unrest without causing undue friction elsewhere.
None of our governments do this.
It is the fashion in governing circles to allow unrest to simmer, boil over and create uproar and outrage; upon which police, military, and specially enrolled forces are most improperly burdened with the task of quelling riot and keeping order.
Governments that cannot govern, that delegate their proper functions to subordinate institutions, that prate of the voice of the people and the mandate of the people and the welfare of the people, but heed none of these things until driven to do so by outbreaks of violence; that keep office but neglect their work; that take pay and do not earn it, are an anachronism.
They obtain and keep their power by a system of false and fraudulent pretenses; and just as it is said in our little wars that “regrettable incidents” will continue to occur until one or two generals have been hanged, so lives will be sacrificed, children demoralised, and the people robbed wholesale, until some of the “managing directors” of our national firm make their appearance in the dock charged with obtaining money by false and fraudulent pretenses, or some other charge that will properly describe their crime.
Meanwhile women should not pay their national contributions; Mrs. Harvey will not do so; the goods are not worth the money.
“We began with a Mud March; I wonder whether we shall end with one!”
So said a marcher afternoon; the relentless rain and the merciless mud gave point to the observation.
Neither rain nor mud deterred the women from their protest procession long ago, nor did they have any daunting effect on in the march from Kingsway to Holloway.
The change in attitude of the onlookers was extraordinary and emphasises the educative influence of such demonstrations.
No word of scorn or ridicule was heard on ; such words have passed; little but amazement remained, amazement at the courage shown in trying weather conditions.
Truly it was a brave show.
Bands and banners lend splendid aid on such occasions, but the gratifying sight was to see the solidarity and co-operation of many societies.
The Women’s Tax Resistance League led the way, and were followed by the Women’s Social and Political Union, the Women’s Freedom League, the New Constitutional Society, and Actresses’ League, the Fabian Women’s Group, and, finally, the men’s societies; the Men’s League for Women’s Suffrage, the Men’s Political Union for Women’s Enfranchisement, and the Men’s Committee for Justice to Women.
Faithful friends these, whose help is always available, and one could not help noticing that some of the men were bringing up their small sons in the way they should go!
Let us hope that the boys will not have to do much more marching for the Suffrage Cause!
An hour of it!
Who can describe the determination and courage needed?
But we arrived, and in a very few minutes the chairman, Miss Christabel Pankhurst, was in her place on the cart, surrounded by the speakers.
One’s eyes were rivetted by the sight of the tall, self-possessed lady, quiet and undemonstrative, who scarcely twenty-four hours before had been inside those prison walls.
The singing and the enthusiasm were to reach her in her cell, but the action of the authorities in releasing Miss Housman enabled her to be the seen instead of the unseen centre of the demonstration.
Her words, too, carried great weight.
Humorously she contrasted the treatment of men voters and of voteless women: agents to do everything for the men, motors to take them to the polling booth.
Turning to the prison, Miss Housman exclaimed dramatically, “Holloway is woman’s polling booth; it is there that I have been able to register my vote against a Government that taxes me without representation.”
Only words of courtesy were heard concerning all the officials with whom Miss Housman had come into contact, and she was cheered to the echo when she declared that, glad as she was to be outside Holloway, she was ready to go back again to win the fight for the recognition of woman’s citizenship.
“If that great act of justice, the Conciliation Bill, fails to carry next year, there will be not merely one but hundreds of women in prison to make the nation realise that justice is not being done.”
Thus spoke Mr. Laurence Housman, whose pride in his sister’s devotion to the woman’s Cause was shared by those who listened.
Women were only doing what men had gloried in doing in times past, he added, they were struggling for constitutional liberties; women, too, had caught the spirit of democracy.
Mrs. Despard, heedless of the drenching rain, made an appeal which touched the hearts of all who heard it; she rejoiced in the victory won by Miss Housman’s courageous act of self-sacrifice, and said that tax resistance was drawing women together in a bond as strong as death.
She laughed to scorn the idea that men had all the chivalry and clear-sightedness, women the tenderness and self-sacrifice; neither sex had a monopoly of these qualities, but she looked for the coming of the new day when man and woman should stand side by side as equals.
Miss Adeline Bourne, speaking for the actresses, amused the audience by insisting that if women united in a protest such as Miss Housman had made, the Government would be powerless to deal with them.
Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes, who succeeded Miss Pankhurst in the chair as soon as the resolution had been moved, gave some remarkable facts as to the predicament of the officials with regard to women tax resisters; amazing differences of treatment were recorded for the same offence, as also the practical sympathy of some who have to carry out a disagreeable duty towards women resisters.
The resolution, which was passed unanimously and with enthusiasm, ran as follows:
That this meeting, held at the gates of Holloway Gaol, congratulates Miss Clemence Housman on her refusal to pay Crown taxes without representation, a reassertion of that principle upon which our forefathers won the constitutional liberties which Englishmen now enjoy, and also upon the successful outcome of her protest.
It condemns the Government’s action in ordering her arrest and imprisonment as a violation of the spirit of the Constitution and of representative government; and it calls upon the Government to give votes to women before again demanding from Miss Housman or any other woman-taxpayer the payment of taxes.
Miss Housman’s communication to the Home Secretary, asking for information as to a definite term of imprisonment, contains so able a statement of her point of view that it should be widely known.
It runs thus:—
That she has resolved to abide by the conditions by law appointed for a woman who, lacking representation, has personally fulfilled a duty — moral, social, and constitutional — by refusing to pay taxes into irresponsible hands.
But, while willing to satisfy the requirements of the law at the expense of her personal liberty to any extent, she learns that no limit has been set to these claims either by statute or by judgment, and she believes that it rests with his Majesty’s Secretary of State for the Home Department to rectify what she feels to be a grievance not intended in such a case as hers.
She begs, therefore, that he will be so good as to define her term of imprisonment, and she desires this not on personal grounds only, but that, thereby, the comparative cost and value of a woman’s liberty and a man’s vote may be officially recorded for the understanding of others, women and men.
A large and enthusiastic crowd listened in Hyde Park on morning to Mrs. Clarkson Swann, who explained fully the Conciliation Bill now before Parliament, and to Mrs. Emma Sproson, who has recently served six weeks in Stafford Jail for non-payment of her dog-tax.…
Special mention must be made of one of the many Suffrage Societies which sprang into existence during the decade before the outbreak of war.
With the Freedom League originated the idea that in view of the dictum that taxation and representation must go together, a logical protest on the part of voteless women would be to decline to pay Imperial taxes until they should have a share in electing Members of the Imperial Parliament.
From onwards, Mrs. [Charlotte] Despard had adopted this form of protest, with notable results.
In the following year, some of her goods were seized, but difficulties occurred, as one auctioneer after another refused to have anything to do with selling them.
When one was finally found, the sale was attended by a large number of Mrs. Despard’s followers, who succeeded in holding up the proceedings until requested by her to desist.
When her piece of plate was at last put up for sale, the bidding was very brisk, and the article was eventually knocked down to a certain Mr. Luxembourg for double its estimated value.
This gentleman insisted on returning it to Mrs. Despard, who accepted it on behalf of the Women’s Freedom League, among whose archives, suitably inscribed in memory of the occasion, it holds an honoured place.
In subsequent years, various devices were adopted with the object of compelling Mrs. Despard’s submission.
Thus she, for whom prison had no terrors, was threatened with imprisonment in default of payment; she was summoned before the High Court, when, in her absence, judgment was pronounced against her.
On only two other occasions, however, was distraint levied.
, a separate society, with the above title, was formed, with Mrs. [Margaret] Kineton Parkes as secretary, for experience showed that a special knowledge of the technicalities of the law was necessary, and special machinery had to be set up.
Those who addressed themselves to this business were rewarded by the discovery of curious anomalies and irregularities of the law where women were concerned.
Thus, for instance, it was revealed that whereas married women are not personally liable to taxation (the Income Tax Act of never having been brought into line with the Married Women’s Property Acts), nevertheless payment of taxes was illegally exacted of them whenever possible.
With the assistance of the expert advice of Mrs. [Ethel] Ayres Purdie and others, many cases of injustice and overcharges were exposed and circumvented, Somerset House officials being mercilessly worried.
Imprisonments for Non-Payment of Taxes
It was in , that the first imprisonments in connection with this particular form of protest took place.
Miss [Constance] Andrews of Ipswich was sent to prison for a week for refusing to pay her dog’s tax, and about the same time, Mrs. [Emma] Sproson of Wolverhampton served a similar sentence for the same offence.
The latter was, however, rearrested, and sentenced this time to five weeks’ imprisonment, being placed in the Third Division in Stafford Gaol.
She thereupon entered on the hunger strike, and on the personal responsibility of the Governor, without instructions from the Home Office, she was transferred to the First Division, where she completed her sentence.
Imprisonments in various parts of the country thereafter took place with some frequency, but whenever possible this extreme course appears to have been avoided, and resisters’ goods were seized and sold by public auction, the officials reserving the right of adopting whichever course they deemed most suitable.
By this means, auctioneers’ sale rooms, country market-places, corners of busy thoroughfares, and all manner of unlikely spots, became the scene of protests and demonstrations.
Miss Housman’s Imprisonment
The case which excited the most interest was that of Miss Clemence Housman, sister of the well-known author, who, having stoutly declined to pay the trifling sum of 4s. 6d. (which by dint of writs, High Court Procedure, etc., in due course mounted up to over £6), and not having goods which could be seized, was arrested by the Sheriff’s Officer, and conveyed to Holloway, there to be detained until she paid.
A storm of protest arose, meetings being held at Mr. Housman’s residence in Kensington, outside Holloway Gaol, and in Hyde Park on .
After a week’s incarceration, Miss Housman, who had been singularly well treated in the First Division, was unconditionally released, and on inquiring of the Solicitor of Inland Revenue how she stood in the matter, she was informed that it was closed by her arrest and subsequent release.
By way of celebrating victories such as these, the League held a John Hampden dinner at the Hotel Cecil in , when some 250 guests assembled and listened to speeches from prominent Suffragists of both sexes, when we may be sure that the moral of the story of John Hampden was duly pointed, and many a modern parallel was quoted.
A novel feature of the evening’s proceedings was the appearance of a toast mistress, in the person of Mrs. Arncliffe Sennett.
Mr. Mark Wilks’ Imprisonment
In an incident occurred which illustrated both the anomalous position which married women occupy under the law and also the impossibility of enforcing the law where consent is withheld.
Dr. Elisabeth Wilks, being one of those who held with the Liberal dictum that taxation and representation should go together, had for some years past refused to pay her Imperial taxes, and on two occasions a distraint had been executed on her goods, and they had been sold by public auction.
Then it struck her that her “privileged” position under the law would afford her protection from further annoyance of this kind, and being a married woman, she referred the officials to her husband.
When application was made to the latter for his wife’s income tax return, he told the harassed officials that he did not possess the required information, nor did he know how to procure it.
After some delays and negotiations, the Treasury kindly undertook to make the assessment itself, charging Mr. Wilks at the unearned rate, though Mrs. Wilks was well known to be a medical woman, whose income was derived from her practice.
After over two years of correspondence and threats of imprisonment, since Mr. Wilks sturdily refused to produce the sum demanded, he was arrested on and conveyed to Brixton Gaol, there to be detained until he paid.
Still he remained obdurate, while friends outside busied themselves on his behalf.
Protests poured into the Treasury offices, Members of Parliament were inundated with the like, deputations waited on everybody concerned, and public meetings on the subject were held in great number.
The result was that, at the end of a fortnight, Mr. Wilks was once more a free man.
Other Tax-Resisters
Legislators had recently provided women with additional reasons for refusing to pay taxes.
In the National Insurance Act became the law of the land, and defects in that Act as far as it concerned women, which were pointed out at the time, have become more and more apparent every year that the Act has been in force.
Some few modifications were made in their favour, but they had no effective means of expressing their views.
Again, by means of a Resolution, which occupied a few hours of discussion on , Members of Parliament voted themselves a salary of £400 a year, and only one member, Mr. Walter McLaren, raised his voice to protest against the fresh injustice which this proposal inflicted on women, who were not only subject to legislation in the framing of which they had no voice, but were further called upon to pay those who thus legislated for them…
The Revenue authorities did not repeat the experiment of arresting any women resisters on whom it was not possible to levy distraint, with the result that the Women’s Tax-Resistance League claimed to have a growing list of members who paid no taxes, and who, in spite of repeated threats of imprisonment, were still at large.
Distraint for non-payment was, however, frequent, with the result that up and down the country, and as far north as Arbroath, the gospel of tax-resistance was carried, and secured many adherents, including members of the enfranchised portion of the community, some of whom, in their official capacities, gave public support to the rebels.
Many auctioneers of the better class refused to sell the goods of tax-resisters, and it is on record that one who had done so sent his fee as a donation to the League.
Two members of the League, Mrs. [Isabella] Darent Harrison of St. Leonard’s and Mrs. [Kate] Harvey of Bromley, barricaded themselves in their houses, and succeeded in keeping the officials who came to make the distraint at bay, the former for a period of several weeks, and the latter for a period of no less than eight months.
In both cases, an entry was eventually made by force, but much public sympathy was evinced in both cases, and crowded meetings of protest were held in the largest local halls available.
It is interesting to record that on , a statue was unveiled in the market-place of Aylesbury to the memory of John Hampden, who in the time of Charles Ⅰ. had refused the ship money which that monarch had illegally levied on his subjects.
The sum involved was the trifling one of 20s., but, rather than pay it, John Hampden suffered himself to be imprisoned.
He was subsequently released without a stain upon his character, and a statue to this rebel stands in no less hallowed a spot than the House of Commons, of which assembly he was a Member.
An application on the part of the Women’s Tax-Resistance League of the twentieth century to be officially represented at the unveiling by Lord Rothschild of the statue erected to his memory in Aylesbury was met with a refusal.
That the spirit which animated this seventeenth-century fighter was not, however, dead was evident when, at the conclusion of the official ceremony, a little procession of tax-resisters, supported by men sympathizers, approached the statue and silently laid a wreath at its foot…
Tax Resistance
Throughout tax resisters continued to defy the revenue officials, with varying results.
Among those who resisted paying their taxes for the first time may be mentioned [Mary Russell] the Duchess of Bedford, Miss Beatrice Harraden, Mrs. Flora Annie Steele, and Miss [Ethel] Sargant, the last-named of whom presided over a section of the British Association later in the year, being the first woman to fill such a position.
Mrs. Harvey successfully withstood another siege in connection with her inhabited house duty, and her goods, when eventually seized, failed to realize the sum required by some £8, for the uproar created in the auction-room by sympathizers was so great that the auctioneer abandoned his task.
Mrs. Harvey also refused to take out a licence for her gardener (by name Asquith), or to stamp his Insurance card.
For these two offences she was sentenced to two months’ imprisonment, in default of a fine, but was released at the end of one month, in a very weak condition of health, which was in no way attributable to her own “misconduct.”
There were many other cases of resistance to the Insurance Act, it being an open secret that the Freedom League did not insure its employees.
Captain Gonne, who refused to pay his taxes as a protest against the treatment to which women were being subjected, was also arrested, but was released within a few hours, the reason being, so it was claimed, that in arresting him the revenue officials had been guilty of a serious technical blunder.
Several other resisters besides Mrs. Harvey barricaded their houses against the tax collector, and at Hastings the demonstration arranged in connection with the sale of Mrs. Darent Harrison’s goods led to an organized riot, the result being that the local Suffrage Club brought an action against the Corporation for damage done, which they won.
Undeterred by warnings that it would be impossible to hold a public meeting in Hastings in support of tax resistance, the League nevertheless determined to do so, and, as a matter of fact, everything passed off in a quiet and orderly manner, Lady Brassey being in the chair.
In subsequent years, this policy of open and constitutional rebellion on tax resistance lines has been maintained by Mrs. Darent Harrison.
