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

by E. Sylvia Pankhurst

It was suggested that the women ought to have gone away because, as he put it, "a casual policeman" had said that the Prime Minister was not in the House of Commons, but that was really not a sufficient answer. The ordinary procedure certainly was not to take an answer from a policeman in the street if one wished to interview a Member of Parliament. The police had no right to stop anyone from going into the House of Commons. It was also said that the women had been given a letter from the Prime Minister saying that he would not or could not see them. "Had he said, 'I cannot see you here and now, but I will see you on such and such an occasion, this is not a convenient time,' that," argued Lord Robert, "would have been a sufficient answer, because the right to petition must be exercised reasonably, but his letter contained an unqualified refusal, and if the right to petition exists, that is no answer at all."

Lord Robert then submitted that if there is a right to petition a Member of Parliament there must be a duty on the part of a Member of Parliament to receive that petition, and that no one is justified in interfering with the exercise of that right. If the women were legally justified in insisting upon the right to present their petition they were also justified in refusing the order of the police to go away for there was no obligation to obey the police if the police were acting beyond the scope of their proper duties or contrary to the law of the land. In the case of Codd v. Cave a warrant had been issued against a man and a policeman had gone to his house to arrest him without taking a warrant with him. The man had declined to go with the policeman and had knocked him down and injured him severely but it had been held by the Court that the man was not guilty because the policeman had no right to arrest him without a warrant.

In delivering judgment the Lord Chief Justice said that he entirely agreed that there was a right to present a petition either to the Prime Minister as Prime Minister or as a Member of Parliament, and that petitions to the King should be presented to the Prime Minister. But he said the claim of the women was not only to present a petition but "to be received in deputation." Had it been only to present the petition he did not think that Mr. Asquith would have refused, and he expressed the opinion that his refusal to receive the women in deputation was not unnatural, "in consequence of what we know did happen on previous occasions."

In making this remark the Lord Chief Justice showed that instead of concentrating his mind upon the actual case before him he was allowing himself to be biassed by inaccurate reports as to what had taken place on previous occasions. As a matter of fact Mr. Asquith never had received a deputation of women since he had been Prime Minister and never at any time had he received a deputation of the Women's Social and Political Union in the House of Commons. Therefore it was absurd to talk about what had taken place on "previous occasions," and, moreover, even if Mr. Asquith had received deputations on previous occasions and trouble had resulted, the Lord Chief Justice would have had no right to take these occurrences into account unless reliable evidence as to what actually had occurred had been laid before him in connexion with the case.

Relying on the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839, which provides that it shall be lawful for the Commissioner of Police to make regulations and to give directions to the constables for keeping order and for preventing any obstruction of the thoroughfares in the immediate neighbourhood of the House of Commons and the Sessional Order which empowers the Police to keep clear the approaches to the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice decided that Mrs. Pankhurst, Mrs. Haverfield and the other women had broken the law when they had insisted that they had a right to enter the House of Commons and that for this reason they had been properly convicted and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

By this decision the Ancient Constitutional right of petition secured to the people of this country by the Act of 13, Charles II, and the Bill of Rights, was, for all practical purposes, rendered null and void. What is the use of a right that one may not put into practice? Does anyone suppose for one moment that the right of petition would have been cherished as it has been, and that people would have suffered heavy punishment for putting it into practice, in troublous times, if it had merely consisted in sending a written document obscurely, through the post, or by a messenger, to the person in power whom it was intended to influence? No, for the right could never have been anything but valueless had the presentation of the petition not been accompanied by the pomp and circumstance, and the dramatic and spectacular character, of a public deputation, and by the influence that only personal pleading can lend. Every scrap of evidence tends to show that the right of petition was to be exercised personally. If it were otherwise why should the Act of Charles II have insisted that the signatories to the petition should be represented by a limited deputation? Moreover there is no suggestion that a written document was required and that the petition might not have been made, as it frequently was, by word of mouth.

Shortly after this case of Pankhurst and Haverfield v. Jarvis had been decided the Divisional Court was again occupied with an appeal case bearing upon the right of petition, this time at the instance of the Women's Freedom League. In July the League had followed the example of the W. S. P. U. in claiming the constitutional right of personal petition to the Prime Minister. After much preliminary negotiation a deputation of their number had appeared at the Strangers' entrance to the House of Commons on July 5th and on being told that Mr. Asquith would not receive them they had announced their intention of waiting there until he should change his mind. They were allowed to wait and, reinforced by relays of others, continued to do so right on into the New Year and were constantly to be seen standing outside on the pavement both day and night, whenever the House was sitting. Many Members of Parliament appealed to Mr. Asquith to receive them and so bring their weary vigil to an end but he obstinately refused and always evaded "the Suffragette pickets," as they were called. Usually he left the House by one of the underground passages but it was said that one night he hurried unrecognised through their lines. Punch then published a cartoon by E. T. Reed, entitled "Mr. Asquith's disguises," showing the Prime Minister as a cab driver, a postman, a policeman, an elderly maiden lady and in other characters.

On July 9th, the pickets were also put on at No. 10 Downing Street, where they succeeded in waylaying the Prime Minister at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon and ran towards him crying, "A petition! A petition! Will you give us a hearing, Mr. Asquith?" As he rushed past he snatched the document from one of them, saying, "Well, I will take the petition," and then fled on up the steps and banged the door. The pickets were still waiting for the interview when the police arrived to arrest them. They were afterwards sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment in default of paying fines of £3.

On July 15th four women again picketted Downing Street, but were arrested and sent to prison without even so much as catching a glimpse of the Premier. On August 16th a line of women was drawn up between the House of Commons and the door of 10 Downing Street, where stood Mrs. Cobden Sanderson and Mrs. Despard. This time they saw Mr. Asquith, but though some of the women spoke to him, he hurried on without making any reply. Three days later, on the 19th, the line of women was again formed, but Mrs. Despard, Mrs. Cobden Sanderson and six others were placed under arrest. Mr. Tim Healy, the well-known Irish member of Parliament, was briefed for their defence, but on August 27th, Mr. Curtis Bennett decided to fine the women forty shillings or to send them to prison for seven days. He stated a case for the High Court and this was heard on January 14th, 1910, when the Lord Chief Justice decided against the women, saying that there were other means of presenting petitions than going in numbers to do so.

Meanwhile it was announced that the cases against the ninety-four women who were concerned with Mrs. Pankhurst and Mrs. Haverfield would be withdrawn, but at the same time application was made by the authorities for the fines recorded against Mrs. Pankhurst and Mrs. Haverfield and it was intimated that unless these were forthcoming, steps would be taken to arrest and imprison them. But immediately after this, on Monday, December 6th, an official receipt for the amount of Mrs. Pankhurst's fine was sent to Clement's Inn and it was stated that the money had been paid by some unknown person.[43] Two days later Mrs. Pankhurst returned from her lecturing tour in the United States and Canada, which had been a most triumphant success.