Any person, not being a member of either House of Parliament, while present in the Palace of Westminster during the sitting of either House who is guilty of disorderly conduct or acts in contravention of any rule or order of the House in respect öf the admission of strangers, shall be guilty öf misdemeanour and liable to summary conviction and imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine riot exceeding £100.
In bringing the Bill forward the Attorney General urged that though the House could already punish strangers who broke its rules by committing them to Newgate prison, their imprisonment there could only last whilst the House was sitting, so that those who committed an offence towards the close of the session would be too easily let off. Moreover the House had not the power to punish offenders without debate and for it to suspend its consideration of “high matters” in order to discuss the cases of persons, who, though he declared that no offence could be more serious than theirs, he yet characterised as unworthy in themselves of “further consideration than any ordinary police magistrate could give them,” was to play the game of the disturbers and to give them the maximum of advertisement with the minimum of punishment. When someone pointed out that all accused persons liable to six months’ imprisonment were entitled to trial by jury, he at once stated that he should prefer to reduce the proposed term of imprisonment to three months. Finally he recommended the Bill to the House as one that would “save its time and safeguard its dignity.”
Lord Balcarres urged that anyone charged under the Bill would have the right to subpoena the Speaker or the Chairman of Committee who had witnessed the occurrence complained of to give evidence at the trial. It would be impossible, he said, to say that Mr. Speaker must not be summoned because he represented “the quintessence of the collective wisdom of the House of Commons,” and “it would be a most deplorable thing if the Speaker and other officials and Members of the House were to be hauled into court for no other reason than to draw public attention to the Police Court proceedings, and to make sensational paragraphs in the evening papers.” Mr. Mooney, an Irish member, said amid great laughter, that he thought the Bill must have been drafted in the neighbourhood of Clement’s Inn, because of the advertisement which it would give “to certain propagandists,” whilst Mr. Hazleton declared that the Government were merely setting up an act of Parliament “as an Aunt Sally for every Suffragette to come along and have a shot at.”
Mr. Keir Hardie stated that in his opinion the Bill was only necessary because of the failure of members of the Government, and Members of the House to redeem their election pledges in regard to Women’s Suffrage, and that it was because women felt that they could no longer appeal to the honour of the House of Commons, that they had taken to extreme measures.
In his reply the Attorney General ignored this latter view of the case, but dealt at length with the right of summoning witnesses, pointing to the setting aside of the subpoenas to Mr. Asquith and Mr. Herbert Gladstone, in the case of Mrs. Baines’ trial at Leeds, as a proof that this could easily be done again to protect the officers of the House, and especially the “great officers” from being summoned. He promised that stringent provisions with this object should be added in committee, saying “I do not think the House need trouble itself with that objection.”
Evidently, therefore, the gradual sweeping away of every safeguard of a free people against coercion, which had been won for us by the suffering and sacrifice and ceaseless effort of generations of our forebears, was as nothing to the Government, in comparison with the staving off of the Women’s claim to vote. Now it was one of the fundamental rights of the accused person that they were proposing to tamper with, but the House would not agree. Sir Edward Carson, whilst expressing doubt as to the practicability of the Government’s proposals, protested emphatically against the suggestion that there should be a law of subpoena for the House of Commons different to that which prevailed in the rest of the land. Finally the Prime Minister rose to say that though, after the trouble that had been taken in drafting it, he did not like to withdraw the Bill altogether, he yet thought that further time should be given for consideration, and that the debate should be adjourned.
The Brawling Bill was never heard of again. Its final death-blow was dealt on April 27th, exactly a week after it had been discussed, when five Suffragettes effectively showed that no threat of a Brawling Bill could prevent them from demonstrating in the House of Commons by entering St. Stephen’s Hall and chaining themselves to the statues of five men — Walpole, Lord Somers, Seiden, and Lord Falkland, whose names are famous in the struggle for British Liberties in Stuart days. Having so chained themselves, the women addressed the visitors and Members of Parliament, explaining that they themselves were engaged in fighting for the liberties of one-half of the British people. With strong pincers the police succeeded in breaking the chains, but there was no prosecution and shortly afterwards the Speaker announced that both the Ladies’ and Strangers’ Galleries were to be reopened on certain conditions. Before being admitted each visitor must now subscribe his or her name and address to the following printed pledge:
I undertake to abstain from making any interruption or disturbance and to obey the rules for the maintenance of order in the Galleries.
Having signed the pledge, men visitors were to be absolutely trusted, but women were treated as having absolutely no sense of honour, for no woman was to be permitted to get even so far as the signing of the pledge, unless she happened to be related to a Member of Parliament and no Member was to be allowed to introduce any lady to the gallery unless he had previously won a place for her in the ballot.
On May 13th, the Women’s Social and Political Union opened in the Prince’s Skating Rink, Knights-bridge, a Votes for Women Exhibition in the purple, white and green. Mrs. Lawrence and the Committee of the Union were driven thither by a woman chauffeur in a motor car for which the Suffragettes had subscribed in order that they might present it to the Treasurer on her release from prison. The Rink was covered outside with a mass of waving flags in the colours, and inside these also predominated. The theme of the decorations which lined the walls of the great central hall was “They that sow in tears shall reap in joy and he that goeth forth and weepeth bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him.” And indeed in those bright spring days at the Skating Rink, though the victory of the franchise was not yet won, some of the fruits of the struggle were already present in the glad comradeship of the workers. Everyone seemed to be full of high spirits, and all were keenly interested in the success of the enterprise and, in spite of the strenuous militant tactics in which they were engaged and of all the propaganda work which they were accomplishing, every branch of the Union and every organising centre, had its stall laden with goods. Friends from all over the world had sent their contributions, and the Norwegian delegates to the International Suffrage Congress had a stall of their own in aid of the W. S. P. U. funds.
But this was no mere bazaar, for at every turn one was reminded of Votes for Women. Each day as one entered, a ballot paper was always pressed into one’s hand and every visitor to the exhibition was invited to record a vote upon some question of the moment ; the ballot box and everything connected with the voting being arranged just exactly as it is in Parliamentary Elections. At one end of the hall was a facsimile of a prison cell, in which sat a woman in second division prison dress who herself had actually been to Holloway and could explain exactly how the bed was rolled and the tins were cleaned. Side by side with this was the sort of cell which may be occupied by men political prisoners. Ranged along one wall were glass cases containing clever little cartoon models, prepared by sculptors in the Union and showing numerous representations of Cabinet Ministers in their various encounters with the Suffragettes. Amongst a host of others, there was Mrs. Pankhurst and her deputation at the door of the House of Commons with the Cabinet Ministers hiding fearfully behind a group of stalwart police.
Then there wa
s a picture gallery of Press photographs showing the history of the militant movement, and there were entertainments, all about Votes for Women, by those ardent Suffragists, the members of the Actresses Franchise League.
The exhibition lasted a fortnight, and at the end of the first week, came a great surprise, for a women’s drum and fife band, consisting of members of our Union, who had been practising in secret for months past, now dressed in a specially designed uniform of purple, white and green, formed up in the centre of the rink and with Mrs. Leigh as Drum Major, marched out playing the “Marseillaise,” and then went round the town to advertise the exhibition.
Hundreds of new members were made during the fortnight, and perhaps the smallest part of the whole achievement was that £5,564 was added to the W. S. P. U. campaign fund. Altogether it was decided that the Exhibition in the Colours was the smartest, brightest and cheeriest exhibition that anyone had ever seen. Strangers visiting it said, “What happy women you Suffragettes are; we never thought you were like that!” To those who read of this movement in future years it may seem strange that, in spite of the unremitting character of the struggle the Suffragettes, when not actually engaged in the fighting line, should have been so generally merry and light hearted. W. D. Howells, in his Venetian Life, and others, tell us that whilst Venice was dominated by Austria the whole town was under a cloud; the Italians gave no balls, dinners or entertainments, and even the great Opera House was closed. But the attitude of the Suffragettes was perhaps more in keeping with the English character. Have we not heard that though the Spanish Armada had long been expected, Drake and the other great sea fighters were playing bowls when the news came that it was in sight? And now, whilst the Exhibition2 was in progress the fighting campaign was going forward all over the country as briskly as ever.
The protests in connection with Cabinet Ministers’ meetings continued almost daily and, whilst the strictest precautions were taken to keep them out, the greatest ingenuity was displayed by them in obtaining an entry. At a meeting of Mr. Birrel’s In the Colston Hall, Bristol, two women were found to have hidden themselves amongst the pipes of the organ. When the same Minister spoke with Lord Crew at Liverpool, Mary Phillips, who had lain crouching for twenty-four hours amid the dust and grime in a narrow space under the organ, was there to remind them of Patricia Woodlock, the Liverpool Suffragette, who was then serving a sentence of three months’ imprisonment in Holloway gaol.
The band out for the first time, May, 1909
Meanwhile during the spring of 1909, eight by-election contests had been fought at Glasgow, Hawick Burghs, Forfar, South Edinburgh, Croydon, East Edinburgh, the Attercliffe Division of Sheffield, and Stratford-on-Avon.
The Scotch constituencies, with the exception of Glasgow, which is not typically Scotch, were the most difficult to fight, for the majority of the Scotch people have long been so rootedly Liberal that a very exceptional degree, not only of sympathy with the cause but of belief in the by-election policy, was needed to induce any of the electors to alter their old allegiance, and to allow a Conservative to be returned. Nevertheless the Liberal majority was in every case reduced. In Glasgow the seat which had been held by a Liberal was wrested from the Government by a Liberal majority of 2113. At Croydon the Liberal Candidate was also defeated by a greatly increased majority, for whilst in the general election it had been 638 it was now 3,948. The elections at Attercliffe and Stratford-on-Avon were perhaps the most striking of the series. In the former contest the Liberals strove to counteract the Suffragette influence in numerous ways, including the issuing of leaflets with such headings as, “WORKING MEN DON’T BE FOOLED BY MRS. PANKHURST,” and, “SUFFRAGETTE AND TORY LIES NAILED TO THE COUNTER.” In these documents they tried to lead the public to think that the police, and not the Government in power, were responsible for the Suffragist imprisonments. When the result of the polling was made known, it was found that the Liberal nominee had been placed third on the poll, having secured less than half the votes which had been cast for his party in the last election.
At Stratford-on-Avon, another Liberal seat, the Government candidate was again routed, this time by a majority of 2,627 votes.
* * *
1 Estimate given by the Liberal Daily Chronicle.
2 The Freedom League had also held a successful and interesting Green White and Gold Fair at the Caxton Hall.
CHAPTER XX
JUNE AND JULY, 1909
THE NINTH WOMEN’S PARLIAMENT. ATTEMPT TO INSIST ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF PETITION AS SECURED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS. ARREST OF MRS. PANKHURST AND THE HON. MRS. HAVERFIELD. MISS WALLACE DUNLOP AND THE HUNGER STRIKE. THE FOURTEEN HUNGER STRIKERS IN THE PUNISHMENT CELLS. MR. GLADSTONE CHARGES MISS GARNETT WITH HAVING BITTEN A WARDRESS. HER ACQUITTAL.
WHEN the authorities had first raised the threat of punishing women under the Statute thirteen, Charles II, for proceeding to Parliament in a body of more than twelve persons with the object of presenting a petition to the Prime Minister, the Suffragettes had decided to defy the Statute. We were indignant at the proposal to enforce against us in the supposed free and enlightened days of the twentieth century, a coercive law passed in a bygone time of great upheaval and of great tyranny. Moreover the police authorities had stated that if tried under this Statute of Charles II the Suffragette cases must be decided by a judge and jury instead of being hustled through the Police Court. Deputation after deputation of more than twelve women had therefore gone forth but though these women had again and again been seized and imprisoned for periods as long as that prescribed by that Act, the authorities still did not charge them under the Act of Charles II.
At last, as the seriousness of the whole position grew, our committee decided that it would be wisest to comply with the very letter of the law and to stand on the constitutional right of the subject to petition the Prime Minister as the seat of power. We were advised that the right of petition, which had been to some extent limited by the Act of Charles II, had existed from time immemorial. It had been confirmed by the Bill of Rights which became law in 1869, at the beginning of the joint reigns of William and Mary, as one of the securities for the liberties of the British people, the complete preservation of which had been a condition of the accession of that King and Queen. The Bill of Rights declares that: “It is the right of the subject to petition the King and all commitments, and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.” As the power of the King had now for all practical purposes passed into the hands of Parliament, the Prime Minister, as the chief Parliamentary official, had become the King’s representative and therefore the right to petition the Prime Minister clearly belonged to each and every member of the Community. This right, though it should always be zealously guarded, is of course most essential in the case of persons placed outside of the pale of the franchise.
A ninth Women’s Parliament having been called, Mrs. Pankhurst wrote to Mr. Asquith stating that a deputation from the Women’s Parliament would wait upon him at the House of Commons at eight o’clock on the evening of June 29th. She informed him further that the deputation could accept no refusal and must insist upon their constitutional right to be received.
Mrs. Lawrence’s Release Procession, April 17th, 1909
The Prime Minister returned a formal refusal to receive them but the women proceeded with their arrangements.
On Tuesday, June 21st, exactly a week before the day fixed for the Women’s Parliament, Miss Wallace Dunlop, visited the House of Commons with a gentleman who left her and went on into the lobby to interview a member of Parliament. She passed into St. Stephen’s Hall and sitting down on one of the seats there, unfolded a large block covered with printers’ ink. She was pressing this block to the stone wall, when a policeman rushed up, and dragged her hurriedly away, but there remained displayed upon the wall the words:
WOMEN’S DEPUTATION,
JUNE 29th.
BILL OF RIGHTS
It is the right of the Subject to petition the King and all commitme
nts and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
Miss Wallace Dunlop was taken to the police Inspector’s office opening out of the Palace Yard, but, after an impression of her notice had been solemnly made on a sheet of blotting paper, she was allowed to go. She had been pulled away too speedily to look at her own handiwork in St. Stephen’s Hall, and the policemen told her that it was “only a smudge.” Two days later, therefore, she set out to make a second attempt to stamp on the wall of St. Stephen’s her reminder to Parliament that the people’s liberties must not be violated. She was able to carefully affix her notice before a policeman appeared, but she was not to be let off this time. On June 22nd she was tried for wilfully and maliciously damaging the stone-work of the House of Commons. She urged in her defence that any damage which she had caused by affixing the notice was entirely outweighed by the great constitutional issue which it had been her intention to impress upon the Members of the House of Commons. “It is claimed by the prosecution,” she said, “that it cost ten shillings to erase the impression of the first notice and that it will cost probably a similar sum to wipe out the second. It seems to me that it would have been better if the authorities had spent no money at all but had let the impression stay.” She was found guilty and ordered either to pay a fine of £5 and £1. 1. 2 damages or in default to undergo one month’s imprisonment in the third division without hard labour.
The Suffragette Page 32
