Between the time of my return to England in 1901, and 1904, when I began my first public protest against the payment of income tax, while I still had no political representation, my mind was slowly maturing and my heart opening out on the subject of many social questions, besides that of the political vote. But my two children were at school and I lived mostly in the country or stayed with my mother at Hove, so there was little chance of working in London. But I was able, soon after the new Local Government Act, allowing women to sit on Parish and Urban District Councils, came into force to do some organising in Sussex for the Local Government Society in Tothill Street, and this work, undertaken voluntarily, gave me a great insight into the working of the Act. I visited during that time every class of person who was likely to be interested in the working of the Act, from cottagers to Bishops, and learnt how everyone was looking forward to better water supplies and better lighting for the villages, not to speak of parish halls, libraries and baths, of which the Act was full of suggestions; but, alas, when talking things over with those experienced in Local Government, I soon became convinced that it was merely the skeleton of an Act, whose dry bones must be clothed with money, if its provisions were effectually to be carried out. However, I obtained in the end promises from two or three women to stand for the Councils, though at the same time I had more than one angry interview with Chairmen of Councils who threatened to resign if women were ever elected; for they asserted it would be quite impossible to discuss questions of drainage with women present. After this experience I felt how deficient my knowledge of drainage, ventilation and kindred subjects was and I took a course of studies at the Health Society in Berners Street. I would recommend the course to any young woman who has a home of her own to look after, even if she does not contemplate sitting on a Council. I have never regretted having acquired the special knowledge that the course offers, either when there has been illness in the home, or when taking a new house, when I have surprised the landlord by pointed enquiries into drainage, cisterns for drinking water, flues of chimneys, etc....

I had already, during the Boer War, refused willingly to pay income tax, because payment of such tax went towards financing a war in the making of which I had had no voice. In 1904 and 1905 a bailiff had been put in my house, a levy of my goods had been made, and they had been sold at public auction in Hammersmith. The result as far as publicity was concerned was half a dozen lines in the corner of some daily newspapers, stating the fact that Mrs. Montefiore’s goods had been distrained and sold for payment of income tax; and there the matter ended. When talking this over in 1906 with Theresa Billington and Annie Kenney, I told them that now we had the organisation of the W.S.P.U. to back me up I would, if it were thought advisable, not only refuse to pay income tax, but would shut and bar my doors and keep out the bailiff, so as to give the demonstration more publicity and thus help to educate public opinion about the fight for the political emancipation of women which was going on. They agreed that if I would do my share of passive resistance they would hold daily demonstrations outside the house as long as the bailiff was excluded and do all in their power outside to make the sacrifice I was making of value to the cause. In May of 1906, therefore, when the authorities sent for the third time to distrain on my goods in order to take what was required for income tax, I, aided by my maid, who was a keen suffragist, closed and barred my doors and gates on the bailiff who had appeared outside the gate of my house in Upper Mall, Hammersmith, and what was known as the “siege” of my house began. As is well known, bailiffs are only allowed to enter through the ordinary doors. They may not climb in at a window and at certain hours they may not even attempt an entrance. These hours are from sunset to sunrise, and from sunset on Saturday evening till sunrise on Monday morning. During these hours the besieged resister to income tax can rest in peace. From the day of this simple act of closing my door against the bailiff, an extraordinary change came over the publicity department of daily and weekly journalism towards this demonstration of passive resistance on my part. The tradespeople of the neighbourhood were absolutely loyal to us besieged women, delivering their milk and bread, etc., over the rather high garden wall which divided the small front gardens of Upper Mall from the terraced roadway fronting the river. The weekly wash arrived in the same way and the postman day by day delivered very encouraging budgets of correspondence, so that practically we suffered very little inconvenience, and as we had a small garden at the back we were able to obtain fresh air. On the morning following the inauguration of the siege, Annie Kenney and Theresa Billington, with other members of the W.S.P.U., came round to see how we were getting on and to encourage our resistance. They were still chatting from the pavement outside, while I stood on the steps of No. 32 Upper Mall, when there crept round from all sides men with notebooks and men with cameras, and the publicity stunt began. These men had been watching furtively the coming and going of postmen and tradesmen. Now they posted themselves in front, questioning the suffragists outside and asking for news of us inside. They had come to make a “story” and they did not intend to leave until they had got their “story.” One of them returned soon with a loaf of bread and asked Annie Kenney to hand it up over the wall to my housekeeper, whilst the army of men with cameras “snapped” the incident. Some of them wanted to climb over the wall so as to be able to boast in their descriptions that they had been inside what they pleased to call “The Fort”; but the policeman outside (there was a police man on duty outside during all the six weeks of a siege) warned them that they must not do this so we were relieved in this respect, from the too close attention of eager pressmen. But all through the morning notebooks and cameras came and went, and at one time my housekeeper and I counted no less than twenty-two pressmen outside the house. A woman sympathiser in the neighbourhood brought during the course of the morning, a pot of home-made marmalade, as the story had got abroad that we had no provisions and had difficulty in obtaining food. This was never the case as I am a good housekeeper and have always kept a store cupboard, but we accepted with thanks the pot of marmalade because the intentions of the giver were so excellent; but this incident was also watched and reported by the Press. Annie Kenney and Theresa Billington had really come round to make arrangements for a demonstration on the part of militant women that afternoon and evening in front of the house, so at an opportune moment, when the Press were lunching, the front gate was unbarred and they slipped in. The feeling in the neighbourhood towards my act of passive resistance was so excellent and the publicity being give by the Press in the evening papers was so valuable that we decided to make the Hammersmith “Fort” for the time being the centre of the W.S.P.U. activities, and daily demonstrations were arranged for and eventually carried out. The road in front of the house was not a thoroughfare, as a few doors further down past the late Mr. William Morris’s home of “Kelmscott,” at the house of Mr. and Mrs. Cobden-Sanderson, there occurred one of those quaint alley-ways guarded by iron posts, which one finds constantly on the borders of the Thames and in old seaside villages. The roadway was, therefore, ideal for the holding of a meeting, as no blocking of traffic could take place, and day in, day out the principles for which suffragists were standing we expounded to many who before had never even heard of the words Woman Suffrage. At the evening demonstrations rows of lamps were hung along the top of the wall and against the house, the members of the W.S.P.U. speaking from the steps of the house, while I spoke from one of the upstairs windows. On the little terrace of the front garden hung during the whole time of the siege a red banner with the letters painted in white: “Women should vote for the laws they obey and the taxes they pay.”

Tax resistance and resistance to enumeration under the Census of that year were mild forms of militancy now in vogue. The Women's Freedom League had hoisted the standard of "no vote, no tax" in the early days of its formation, and Mrs. Despard and others had suffered a succession of distraints, to the accompaniment of auction sale protest meetings. In November, 1910, the WSPU first adopted the same policy, and the Women's Tax Resistance was formed about this time. In May, 1911, two women were imprisoned for refusal to take out dog licences. A little later, Clemence Housman, sister of the author-artist, Laurence Housman, was committed to Holloway till she should pay the trifling sum of 4s. 6d., but was released in a week's time, having paid nothing.

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.

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.

Two years ago (1909) Miss Clemence Housman took a house, for which she was taxed inhabited house duty to the amount of 4s. 6d. This, since she was denied all Parliamentary representation, she refused to pay.

In July of this year Miss Housman received a letter from the Board of Inland Revenue, stating that legal proceedings had been taken for the recovery of the inhabited house duty, amounted to 4s. 6d. and that unless the tax, plus the costs and out-of-pocket expenses, amounting to £4 18s. 6d., were paid steps would be taken for her arrest and imprisonment.

Mr. Laurence Housman said that women had awakened to a great sense of political responsibility, and in their fight for enfranchisement they were bound to win. It was impossible to go on denying the vote to the majority of the people of any country when once they possessed that spirit of self-government.

In our last issue we published copies of the correspondence between Miss Clemence Housman and the Inland Revenue Department relating to her refusal to pay her taxes until such time as women are enfranchised, and we stated that her arrest was imminent. On Friday morning (30th September) the blow fell; she was arrested and conveyed to Holloway Prison, where she is still in detention. As a debtor, she is entitled to first-class treatment, including the right to retain her own clothing; on the other hand, the law sets no term to the period of her incarceration.

The principle for which Miss Housman is contending is not now. It is the same old principle for which John Hampden risked his liberty in the seventeenth century, and for which other notable champions of representative government have suffered at different periods of history. But with each new section of the population who was awakened to a sense of their exclusion from citizenship, and who, in consequence, refuse any longer o pay taxes levied without their consent, the problem takes on new forms. The old arguments of opposition are furbished up again: the "divine rights of kings" becomes the "divine rights of men". Damn nature is invoked once more to support the ancient order which is passing away. But all to no purpose. One gentle woman such as is Clemence Housman can dispel by a brave act all their sophistries, and demonstrate over again the truth of the saying that government without the consent of the governed is impossible.

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 Englishman now enjoy, and also upon the successful outcome of her protest. It condemns the Government's actions 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 payments of taxes.

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 seen instead of the unseen centre of the demonstration. Her words, too, carried great weight. Humorously she contrasted the treatment of men voters and voteless women: agents to do everything for the men, motors to take them to the polling booth….

Turning to the prison, Miss Housman exclaiming dramatically. "Holloway is women'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 women'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 to 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.

Up to Thursday Miss Grace Chappelow, of Hatfield Peverel, against whom a commitment order for fourteen days' has been issued by the Witham Bench in default of paying 14s. costs in a dog case heard by the Bench, had not been arrested. Outside her house is exhibited a large bill. "I am going to prison." The police have reasoned with the young lady, and tried to persuade her to pay the amount, and so avoid being taken, but she refuses, and has declared her intention to the police to be taken to prison. Unless the money is paid she will probably be removed to Ipswich prison shortly.

On Monday morning Miss Grace Chappelow, of Nounsley, Hatfield Peverel, was arrested by the Witham Police, and was subsequently removed to Ipswich Prison to undergo fourteen days' incarceration in default of paying 14s, as ordered by the Witham Bench, in a case where her dog was concerned. Miss Chappelow, who is a noted suffragette, had gained additional notoriety by her declaration to a daily newspaper that she would not pay, but would go to prison. Yesterday morning P.s. Brand and P.c. Attridge drove over to Miss Chappelow's house in the police cart. The commitment warrant was produced, and the young lady, without offering the slightest resistance, was arrested. She was placed in the cart between the two police officers and was driven to Witham Police Station, where the necessary formalities were gone through, and then P.s. Brand with a female attendant, escorted Miss Grace Chappelow to Ipswich Prison.  

Three members of the Women's Tax Resistance League have their goods sold during the week: Mrs Skipwith of Woking, for refusal to pay Property Tax, on April 3; Miss Bertha Brewster for non-payment of Inhabited House Duty, and Miss Raleigh for refusal to pay Imperial Taxes, on April 5.

I am unable conscientiously to pay money to the state, as I am not allowed to exercise any control over its expenditure, neither am I allowed any voice in the choosing of members of Parliament, whose salaries I have to help to pay. This is very unjustified. When the women of England are enfranchised and the State acknowledges me as a citizen, I shall, of course, pay my share willingly towards its upkeep, if I am not a fit person for the purposes of representation, why should I be a fit person for taxation?

So I came home one day, early in 1917, to find a bailiff sitting in my flat. The bailiff was a real gentleman. He obviously hated his job, and since he must have retired long ago I shall do him no harm here by saying that he let me discover this by asking me not to let " them" know in Carey Street that he was at all friendly with me. It was not easy for either of us to remain enemies, boxed up as we were in the same room all day - I had let my largest room to a war worker - and very soon he was telling me about his son in the Army and I was converting him to votes for women. Under the circumstances it was difficult for him to stay the whole twenty-four hours in my apartment, although, when I pointed this out to one of the officials who came round, he replied stiffly, "Everything is proper under the Act," which gave me an idea for a French farce that I have never carried out. But the bailiff had finer feelings, and he made it as pleasant as he could for me by getting his meals elsewhere and going home at night and for weekends. To enable him to do this I promised him that I would remove nothing from the flat, and he was good enough to say that my simple word was enough for him. When at last the day came, quite six weeks later, on which they were to remove my furniture, he arrived in a state of deep distress at his usual hour after breakfast. I asked him if there was anything to be done about it, and he averted his face, as if ashamed to speak.

Tax resistance by members outside London continued apace with well-attended public meetings organised at the sale of goods in a number of areas." The most spirited of these protests was undertaken by Kate Harvey, a close friend of Charlotte Despard, at her home in Bromley, Kent. In May 1913 she managed to barricade herself into her home against officials attempting to collect the heavy fines imposed on her for her refusal to pay taxes. Accounts of the subsequent sale of her property reported large numbers of sympathizers crowding into the auction and bidding one penny for all the items put up for sale. In the League's Annual Report for 1913 it was recorded as "one of the most effective protests we have ever made!", and noted with satisfaction that the Government had made a loss of 7/- on the proceedings."