The Suffragette

by Sylvia Pankhurst

  Mrs. Pankhurst was irritated. “I will ask Mr. Gladstone,” she said, “whether, in his opinion we should be treated as ordinary criminals, searched, stripped and put into cells as though we were drunkards and pickpockets?” “You must not put that question,” said the Magistrate. The case amused him, but he did not like the unpleasant side of it put forward.

  This concluded the evidence of the Cabinet Ministers, and as they were about to leave the court, Christabel graciously said, “May we tender our warm thanks to these two gentlemen who have done us the favour of coming forward to give evidence?” She then called a number of witnesses in support of her contention that the crowd on the night of the 13th was an orderly one and that no violence was done. Amongst these were Colonel Massy, formerly of the Sixth Dragoon Guards, Lady Constance Lytton, and Mr. Nevinson, a well-known leader-writer, and war correspondent. Mrs. May, another witness, said that in her opinion the word “rush” had been used on the famous handbill in a sense similar to that conveyed by the expression “A dash to the North Pole,” explaining, that though an attempt to reach the North Pole is described as a “dash,” it is, in reality, the slowest possible mode of travel. In the same way she imagined that the public had been asked to “rush “the House of Commons into passing a Votes for Women measure.

  Mr. Herbert Gladstone in the witness-box being examined by Miss Christabel Pankhurst, October, 1908

  Then came Miss Evelyn Sharp, well known as a writer of delightful stories for children, one of those frail wan-faced little people, who, whilst looking always as though a puff of strong wind would carry them away, yet manage to accomplish such quantities of work as fill the strongest with amaze, and at the same time have ever ready a fund of the brightest and cheeriest good humour. Now she told in the funniest and most winning way, that she had taken the fateful handbill as an invitation to go to the House of Commons and, if possible, not to turn back, and how, when she had found the police were determined to bar the way up Victoria Street, she had stooped and dodged between them in the middle of a scene which she described as being “like a rush at hockey.”

  Miss F. E. Macaulay, an historical student, then gave several instances of women having gone to the House of Commons for the purpose of presenting petitions in ancient days and said she considered that the Suffragettes were only reviving an ancient custom.

  Meanwhile the day had passed; the case had begun at ten and it was now seven o’clock. Except for half an hour at lunch time, there had been no interval and during all these hours, but for an occasional brief five minutes or so when Mrs. Pankhurst or Mrs. Drummond had taken a turn, Christabel had been constantly examining witnesses, remaining always eager, alert, and full of energy and resource. Several times she had applied for an adjournment, but Mr. Curtis Bennett was just as anxious to tire her out and thus finish the trial, as she was to prolong it. At last, at half past seven, he asked how many further witnesses she proposed to put into the box. She replied, “About fifty. We are sorry to take up the time of the court, but we are fighting for our liberty.” On hearing this, Mr. Curtis Bennett decided to adjourn the hearing of the case until the following Saturday, ordering that the defendants should be released on bail as before.

  So Christabel had won for the time being. Whatever the final result might be the defendants had three more days of freedom before them, and the case which by the long accounts of it that were appearing in every newspaper was interesting thousands of people in the Votes for Women movement, was to be carried on for another day. Criminal cases, many of them dealing with the foulest and most sordid crimes, are allowed to drag on for weeks and even months, whilst public time, public money, and public interest is lavishly expended upon them; we felt that we need not scruple then to prolong, as far as we possibly could, a trial dealing with great political issues. Moreover, our second Albert Hall meeting had been fixed for October 29th and we hoped that the defendants might be free to speak that night.

  When Saturday morning at length came round and the prisoners again took their places in the dock, it was at once evident that Mr. Curtis Bennett was determined to bring the case to an abrupt conclusion. Speaking in sharper and harsher tones than any we had heard from him before, he announced that he had decided only to hear two or three more witnesses whom the defendants might specially select, unless there were others who could give evidence relevant to the case in regard to a set of facts entirely different from any that had been raised. As this decision might take the defendants by surprise he would allow an adjournment of half an hour in which they might consider which of their witnesses they would prefer to call. Requests to state what class of evidence he would consider relevant, both from Christabel and Mrs. Pankhurst, the Magistrate met with a curt refusal to say anything further, and Christabel was not in form to overcome his objections as she had been on the previous days. Indeed we now saw with anxiety that the excitement and extra pressure of work of the last few weeks, coupled with the constant heavy routine entailed by her position in the Union and the great strain of conducting this case, had begun to tell on her and, for the first time in her life, we began to fear that she might break down. But even now she would not abandon the fight to prolong the case. It was impossible in half an hour to examine individually the hundreds of persons who had by this time offered to testify as witnesses, in order to find out which of them would prove most valuable to our case. The only thing to be done was to choose a few, almost at random, who possessed some special position or influence, and whom we also knew personally to be particularly sympathetic and observant.

  When the half hour had elapsed and the prisoners had again taken their places, Christabel first called Mr. James Murray, the Liberal Member of Parliament for East Aberdeenshire, who had so kindly come to the rescue when bail had been refused at Bow Street. He stepped into the box, a huge figure immaculately dressed and faultlessly groomed, and turned his big ruddy, good humoured face towards the three prisoners with a kindly smile. When asked by Christabel if he were present at the meeting in Trafalgar Square on Sunday, October 11th, he replied: “I was going into the National Gallery and saw a collection of well dressed people in the Square. I think your mother was speaking, but I could not hear anything. What struck me was that the crowd listening to her was composed of exactly the type of people who go to Church on Sunday in Scotland.” “Then they must have been very respectable,” said Christabel. “Did you get a copy of the Bill?” “No.” “I daresay you saw it in the papers?” “I saw a statement in the papers.” “How did you understand the word ‘rush’?” “I did not take the matter seriously at all.” Here Mr. Curtis Bennett interrupted curtly, “That really is for me, Miss Pankhurst, as I have told you.” “Did you resolve to accept the invitation?” Christabel asked. “I could not very well, you see,” said Mr. Murray smiling broadly, “because I was inside the citadel.” “He has the right of entry,” said Mr. Curtis Bennett with mock solemnity, and for the first time that morning with a twinkle in his eyes. “Were you near Westminster on the 13th?” was the next question. “I was in the House and sitting down to dinner when I got a telegram from your mother sent from the neighbourhood of Bow Street, asking me to go across there.” “This cannot be relevant,” said Mr. Curtis Bennett sharply, but Mr. Murray merely looked amused, and went on: “In coming here I drove in a hansom up Parliament Street. The whole place was like a besieged city except that we had police officers instead of soldiers. A little beyond Dover House the crowd was held back by a cordon, but I had not the slightest difficulty in getting through in a hansom. Afterwards I returned to the House by the Strand and the Embankment and had very little trouble in getting back.” “Was it a disorderly crowd?” “No, I think you could say an ordinary London crowd.”

  “Did you come to the conclusion that the persons who had called the meeting had done so with a desire to incite the crowd to disorder or damage? “It was Mrs. Pankhurst who spoke now. “No,” answered Mr. Murray, “I thought that if it were for any purpose at all it was to advert
ise the cause.” “You know something of the women who are conducting this agitation?” was Mrs. Pankhurst’s next question, and Mr. Murray said gallantly: “Yes, I have the greatest admiration for them; for their earnestness of purpose, ability, and general management of the whole scheme. “You know they have tried every other political method?” “Yes, and if they had been men instead of women they would not have been in the dock now — judging by the past.” “Do you agree with Mr. Lloyd George when he said that if the Government would give us what we are asking for this agitation would cease?” “I have no doubt it would. I go further than Mr. Lloyd George and I say you are entitled to it,” said the witness with fervour, and then, with a genial motion of farewell to the prisoners he withdrew.

  After Dr. Miller Macquire, the well known Army coach, a stout little man with a black moustache and a strong Irish brogue, and Miss Agnes Murphy, an Australian, a quiet-voiced, pale-faced lady had also given evidence, Mr. Curtis Bennett said that he would hear no more witnesses. Every attempt to overcome his decision failed and Christabel then applied for an adjournment in order that she and her companions might be in a position to do themselves full justice when they addressed the court. Everyone present anxiously hoped that this request would be granted, for it was evident that the woman who had hitherto conducted the defence so brilliantly, was almost worn out. The Magistrate, however, was determined to bring the case to an end, and he said, “You have had a long time to take this matter into consideration, you must either address me now, or not at all.” She protested that the case was being “rushed” through the court, and at this there was laughter and applause, for everyone recognised the play on the word “rush.” But Mr. Curtis Bennett said hotly, “Are you going to address me or not?” With a gesture of protest, Christabel Pankhurst then began to speak in her own defence. She held in her hand a sheaf of type-written notes, containing dates and quotations, but every word of her brilliant speech was extemporised. She spoke quickly, and with a passionate emotion which is usually foreign to her. When she referred to the nature of the prosecution and to the conduct of the Government in having denied the women the trial by jury to which the nature of their alleged defence entitled them and in having preferred to hustle their case through the police court where the drunkards and pickpockets are tried, it was with a thrill of indignation that spread through the court.

  She began by declaring that these proceedings had been taken “out of malice and for vexation,” and “in order to lame, in an illegitimate way, a political enemy.” In proof of this she cited the attitude of the Government towards the present women’s movement from its very beginning three years before. She drew attention to the fact, which had been sworn; to in the witness box, that Mr. Horace Smith had allowed himself to be coerced by the Government into settling, in conjunction with them, whether a certain lady charged in connection with this agitation, was guilty, and even the term of imprisonment which was to be inflicted upon her before the evidence had been heard.

  “Now, this policy of the Government of weighting the scales against us,” Christabel declared, “is not of interest merely to us, but to the whole community. In the course of British history we have seen many struggles for the purification of our judicial system…. It has been left to the twentieth century — to these so-called democratic days — to see our judicial system corrupted for party ends. I am glad that we have been able to perform the public duty and service of doing something to attack this evil while it is in the bud.…”

  Dealing with the form of the summons, she urged that, if she and her colleagues were guilty of any offence, it was that of illegal assembly, but the Government had not charged them with this offence, because they had wished to keep their trial in the police court and to prevent it from coming before a jury. “They believe, that by this means,” she said, “they will succeed in prejudicing the public against us. We know perfectly well that up till recently the general public shunned the police court as a disgraceful place. Well, I think that by our presence here we have done something to relieve the police court of that unenviable reputation. We have done something to raise its status in the public eye.

  “The authorities dare not see this case come before a jury,” she continued, “because they knew perfectly well that if it were heard before a jury of our countrymen we should be acquitted, just as John Burns was acquitted years ago for taking action far more serious, far more dangerous to the public peace than anything we have done. Yes, I say they are afraid of sending us before a jury, and I am quite sure that this will be obvious to the public, and that the Government will suffer from the underhand, the unworthy and the disgraceful subterfuge by which they have removed this case to what we can only call a Star Chamber of the twentieth century. Yes, this is a Star Chamber…. We are deprived of trial by jury. We are also deprived of the right of appeal against the magistrate’s decision. Very, very carefully has this procedure been thought out; very, very cunningly has it been thought to hedge us in on every side, and to deprive us of our rights in the matter! Though we are rendered liable to six months’ imprisonment, we are yet denied the privileges in making our defence that people liable to three months’ imprisonment enjoy. We shall be told in the House of Commons no doubt — we have been told the same thing before now — that we are only bound over, we need not go to prison, if we go to prison we have only ourselves to thank.… If the case is decided against us, if we are called upon to be bound over, it must be remembered that that amounts to imprisoning us, and that therefore the authorities cannot possibly escape their responsibility in sending us to prison by saying that we could be at liberty if we liked. Magna Charta has been practically torn up by the present Government…. We consider that it is not we who ought to be in the dock to-day, but the people who are responsible for such a monstrous state of affairs.”

  Then she went on to deal with the reasons for issuing the bill: “We do not deny at all that we issued this bill; none of us three have wished to deny responsibility. We did issue the bill; we did cause it to be circulated; we did put upon it the words ‘Come and help the Suffragettes to rush the House of Commons.’ For these words we do not apologise.… It is very well known that we took this action in order to press forward a claim, which, according to the British Constitution, we are well entitled to make. After all, we are seeking only to enforce the observance of the law of the land that taxation and representation must go together, and that one who obeys the laws must have a share in making them. Therefore, when we claim the Parliamentary vote, we are asking the Government to abandon the illegal practice of denying representation to those who have a perfect right to it.

  “I want here to insist,” she said, “upon the legality of the action which we have taken. We have a perfectly constitutional right to go ourselves in person to lay our grievances before the House of Commons, and as one witness — an expert student of history — pointed out to you, we are but pursuing a legitimate course which in the old days women pursued without the smallest interference by the authorities.”

  In regard to the meaning of the word “rush,” she pointed out that a large number of witnesses had been examined, and that all these witnesses had testified that, according to their interpretation of the word “rush,” no violence was counselled.

  “The word ‘rush,’” Christabel said, “appears to be very much the rage just now. We find that at a meeting of the League for the Preservation of Swiss Scenery, Mr. Richard Whiteing, discussing the question of Swiss railways, suggested that a general ‘rush’ to the Italian Alps might induce the Swiss to listen to reason. Well, I do not think that anyone here would suggest that Mr. Whiteing meant to offer any violence to the Swiss in his use of the word ‘rush.’ He meant to imply that a speedy advance should be made to the Italian Alps. Then we have Mr. McKinnon Wood counselling the electors to ‘rush’ the County Council, and get a lady elected to that body.

  “I want to submit that ‘rush’ as a transitive verb cannot mean ‘attack,’ ‘assail,’ ‘make
a raid upon,’ or anything of that kind.”

  In support of her contentions, Christabel quoted the definitions given by many dictionaries, including The Century Dictionary, Chambers’ English Dictionary, and Farmer and Henley’s Dictionary of Slang which gave amongst other meanings of the word “rush” “an eager demand,” “urgent pressure of business,” “hurry or hasten,— it may be unduly,” “to go forward over hastily; for example a number of Bills are ‘rushed’ through Parliament or a case is ‘rushed’ through a law court.” One of the definitions ran, “A ‘rusher,’ a go-ahead person,” whilst “on the rush” was said to mean “in a hurry,” and “with a rush, with spirit or energetically.”

  Christabel also displayed a little label which had been sent to her during the progress of the case. It stated, “Rush by first train leaving,” and was used in America for parcels required to reach their destination early. She reminded the magistrate of Mrs. May’s comparison of the phrase “rush the House of Commons” with “a dash for the Pole,” saying:

  “Everyone knows that you cannot get to the Pole in a hurry, but you can try to get there in a hurry, and that is what ‘a dash to the Pole’ means. Everyone knows that with a timid Government like the present, having at its service the entire Metropolitan Police Force, if one woman says she is going to rush the House of Commons, there will be an immense number of police to prevent her doing it. Nobody, then, having regard to the facts I have mentioned, thought the women would rush the House of Commons, but they knew that the women would be there to show their indignation against the Government, and I am glad to say that they were there. It may mean six months’ imprisonment, but I think it is worth it.