The Suffragette: The History of the Women's Militant Suffrage Movement, 1905-1910

by E. Sylvia Pankhurst

The Appeal of Pankhurst and Haverfield v. Jarvis. The Freedom League Pickets. Mrs. Pankhurst Returns from America. Mrs. Leigh's Action Against the Home Secretary and the Governor and Doctor of Winson Green Gaol, Birmingham. Miss Davison's Action Against the Visiting Justices of Strangeways Gaol, Manchester. Ill Treatment of Miss Selina Martin and Miss Leslie Hall at Walton Gaol, Liverpool. Lady Constance Lytton Imprisoned in Walton Gaol as Jane Warton.

Whilst Mrs. Pankhurst was still in America, the case in which she, Mrs. Haverfield and the ninety-two other women were concerned, which had been hanging over since the summer, was heard in the Divisional Court on December 1st. It will be remembered that the Suffragettes had sought to put into practice the constitutional right to petition the Prime Minister as the representative of the Government and of the King. They held that this right was especially defined by two Acts, the Bill of Rights which declares that, "It is the right of the subject to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal," and the Statute 13, Charles II, which states:

That no person or persons whatsoever shall repair to His Majesty or both or either Houses of Parliament upon pretence of presenting or delivering any petition, complaint, remonstrance, or declaration or other address, accompanied with excessive number of people, nor at any time with above the number of ten persons; upon pain of incurring a penalty not exceeding the sum of £100 in money or three months' imprisonment without bail or mainprise for every offence; which offence to be prosecuted at the Court of King's Bench or at the Assizes or general quarter sessions within six months after the offence committed and proved by two more credible witnesses. Provided always that this act or anything therein contained shall not be considered to extend to debar or hinder any person or persons not exceeding the number of ten aforesaid, to present any public or private grievance or complaint to any Member or Members of Parliament....

Though the women had complied with every provision of the Act, Sir Albert de Rutzen had decided at Bow Street that they had broken the law. In appealing against that decision in the Divisional Court, Lord Robert Cecil contended that in this country there was, and always had been, a right of petition and he urged that this right was a necessary condition of all free and indeed of all civilised Government. He pointed out that the right of petition had three characteristics; in the first place it was the right to petition the actual repositories of power; in the second place it was the right to petition in person, and in the third place it must be exercised reasonably.

In support of his contention that petitions might be presented in person he quoted several historic instances including a petition of women to Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester in the reign of Henry IV, many petitions to various powerful personages from all sorts of men and women in the time of the Civil Wars and the disputes immediately preceding them; and petitions to the Lord High Steward asking for the conviction of Strafford. In addition to these he cited numbers of petitions presented in 1640, when deputations came to the House of Commons and the Members were instructed to go out and interview the petitioners and hear what they had to say; a great petition of 1680 as well as the petitions from the Gentlemen of Kent in 1701; that of the Silkweavers in 1765; and that of the Trade Unionists in 1834; all of which were presented in person. Throughout our history it was clear, he declared, that petitions had been presented, sometimes to the Houses of Parliament, sometimes to powerful individuals and sometimes to the King. He referred to a case mentioned in Sir Walter Scott's "Fortune of Nigel," in which, on King James II complaining of the way in which a petition was thrust into his hand in the streets, a gentleman named Jingling Geordie, had taken the opportunity of presenting a petition to him then and there in his private closet.

Even without these historic examples the Statute 13, Charles II (already quoted) was enough to establish the right to present petitions in person. The Bill of Rights had specially confirmed the right of petition in so far as the King was concerned because the right to present a petition to the King had recently been called into question by the case of the seven Bishops, which had taken place on June 29th and 30th, 1688, in the reign of James II.

The case had arisen because the King had ordered that his Declaration of Indulgence should be read in all the Churches in the country and the seven Bishops headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury being of opinion that the Declaration of Indulgence was beyond the power of the King, had therefore presented a petition to him setting forth this view. The King declared the petition to be a seditious libel, and the Bishops had been brought before the Court of King's Bench. In summing up the case for the jury, Mr. Justice Holloway said, "So that if there was no ill-intent and they were not (as it is not nor can be pretended they were) men of evil lives, to deliver a petition cannot be a fault, it being the right of every subject to petition." The jury found the seven Bishops to be guiltless and the right of petition was thus confirmed.

In quoting Mr. Justice Holloway's summing up, Lord Robert Cecil pointed out that the use of the words "to deliver a petition" clearly indicated that the right was to present the petition in person. If that were so, the women who had gone to Parliament Square on June 29th had done so in the exercise of a constitutional right. So long as they were denied votes, this was their only constitutional method of agitation for the redress of their grievances.

If, as was contended, the right not only to petition, but to petition in person, belonged to each and every subject, the only point left to consider was as to whether the right had been exercised reasonably. If one wished to interview the Prime Minister or any Member of Parliament it was surely reasonable to go to the House of Commons by means of the Strangers' Entrance. The evidence clearly showed that Mrs. Haverfield and the others had been on the public highway and had been brought up to the door of the House of Commons by Superintendent Isaacs of the Police, so that up to that point they could not possibly have done anything wrong. Opposite the door of the House of Commons an open space had been kept clear by the presence of a police cordon, the crowd not being allowed to reach this point. Within the cordon there were only members of the police force, persons who had business in the House of Commons and the eight members of the Women's deputation. Therefore it was absurd to say that these eight ladies had caused an obstruction.