CHAPTER XV

OCTOBER, 1908

THE TRIAL OF THE THREE LEADERS. MR. HERBERT GLADSTONE AND MR. LLOYD

GEORGE IN THE WITNESS BOX.

On the morning of October 14th began the trial both of the three

leaders who had been arrested by warrant and the twenty-one women whom

they were said to have incited to break the peace. Excited crowds

early assembled in Bow Street, and besieged the doors of the Police

Court, begging the unyielding custodians for admission. In the dark

passageways and lobbies of the Court were numbers of women, imploring

the officials to allow them to pass into the Court itself. The public

enter by a door at the back of the room and here there is a space where

visitors may stand. This space was now crowded with women, pressing

closely against the wooden barrier which cut them from off the narrow

rows of equally crowded wooden seats, where the friends and relatives

of the prisoners, who could obtain the ear of some kindly officer, were

allowed to sit. In front of these seats is the dock itself--a wooden

bench some six feet long, empty as yet, and surrounded by a heavy iron

railing on three sides, the fourth to be guarded by a policeman when

the prisoners arrive. In front and at one side of the dock are the

benches for the Press, which that morning contained representatives

from all the leading newspapers. In front of this again, divided by

a barrier and on a lower level so that one sees little more than the

heads of its occupants, was another bench where Mr. Muskett, the

solicitor for the Prosecution who had so often appeared against the

Suffragettes, and other minions of the law now sat. In front again

and placed at right angles to this bench is the witness box--a little

wooden pen with a foolish wooden canopy which looks as though it were

meant for keeping out the rain. On the right, opposite the witness

box, are two rows of seats, each entered by a little wooden door, like

church pews, where counsel and distinguished strangers sit. In the well

between the witness box and these seats sit the recording clerks and

other officials, and opposite to them, and facing the whole court is

the Magistrate's high-backed chair and his table. Mr. Curtis Bennett,

the Magistrate who was to try the case, sat there now, handsome and

dignified, and looking the picture of a high-bred eighteenth-century

squire.

The familiar figures of Mrs. Pankhurst, Christabel and Mrs. Drummond

were soon ushered into the dock, and then Christabel began by asking

the Magistrate not to deal with the case in that Court, but to send

it for trial by Judge and Jury, her object being to secure that

Suffragette cases should no longer be decided by a body of Police

Court officials, whom we had every reason to believe were acting under

the direct instructions of the Government against whom our agitation

was directed, but should instead be submitted to a body of ordinary

citizens. She urged that, under section seventeen of the Summary

Jurisdiction Act of 1879, she and her co-defendants were entitled to

the option of being tried where they desired, and she wished now to

state that they desired that the case should go before a jury. Mr.

Curtis Bennett bent his head and smiled, saying, "Yes, yes, but we will

go on with the case now." She pressed him to at once give an answer to

the point which she had raised, but he replied that he could not do so

until he had heard the case.

Mr. Muskett, then rose to prosecute. Speaking quickly in a low voice

and showing considerable irritation, he began by complaining that the

defendants had failed to obey a summons to appear, firstly on Monday

and secondly on Tuesday morning, to answer to the charge of having

been guilty of conduct likely to provoke a breach of the peace. Then

in the most fastidious manner and with clearly expressed disgust, he

proceeded to set forth the details of the case. He explained that, on

October 8th, Inspector Jarvis had visited the offices of the Women's

Social and Political Union and had there seen Mrs. Drummond with Miss

Christabel Pankhurst. Miss Pankhurst had said, "What about the 13th?

Have you seen our new bills?" and had produced the handbill which

formed the foundation of the present charge. It was worded: "Votes

for Women. Men and women help the Suffragettes to rush the House of

Commons on Tuesday, October 13th, at 7:30 P. M." In showing this to

Inspector Jarvis, Miss Pankhurst had said that the words "to rush" were

not in sufficiently large type and that they were to be made much more

distinct.

On Sunday, October 11th, the Defendants had held a meeting in Trafalgar

Square, to which Mr. Muskett objected, because it had caused "an

enormous amount of additional labour to be thrown upon the shoulders

of the police." At this meeting, he asserted gravely, speeches had been

delivered by the defendants inciting those present to carry out the

programme of rushing the House of Commons. "You will agree sir," said

Mr. Muskett, "that such conduct as that cannot be tolerated in this

country." Finally he asked on behalf of the Commissioner of Police that

the defendants should be ordered to be bound over to keep the peace.

Stout, red-faced Superintendent Wells, whom we usually found most

friendly and obliging, now, looking very cross and uncomfortable,

lumbered into the witness box. After taking the oath he gave evidence

in regard to a visit of his own to the offices at Clement's Inn.

He said that Mrs. Pankhurst had then shown him a copy of a letter

which had been sent by the Women's Social and Political Union to Mr.

Asquith. This document pointed out that at many large demonstrations

all over the country, resolutions had been carried, calling upon the

Government to adopt the Women's Enfranchisement Bill and also that,

at a succession of by-elections, the voters had shown unmistakably

their desire that the Government should deal with the question without

further delay. It concluded by asking the Prime Minister to inform the

Union as to whether the Government would carry the Bill into law during

the autumn session.

After the Superintendent had read the letter, Mrs. Pankhurst had told

him that, if Mr. Asquith returned a satisfactory reply to it, nothing

would take place on October 13th save a great cheer for the Government,

but that, if he did not, there would be a demonstration and the women

would get into the House of Commons. "I said, 'You cannot get there

for the police will not let you unless you come with cannon,'" the

Superintendent went on, looking very imposing, and explained that Mrs.

Pankhurst had then stated that "no lethal weapons" would be used.

She had also said, "Mr. Asquith will be responsible if there is any

disorder and accident."

Superintendent Wells next described the meeting in Trafalgar Square

where he had seen Mrs. Drummond distributing the "rush" handbills.

He said that he looked upon her as a "very active leader of the

Suffragettes" and that she frequently wore a "uniform" with the word

"general" or "generalissimo" on the cap. He had told her that she and

Mrs. Pankhurst would be prosecuted. When questioned by Mr. Muskett as

to the happenings of the previous evenings, Superintendent Wells said

that traffic had been "wholly disorganised" in the vicinity of the

House of Commons for four hours and that for three hours the streets

had been in "great disorder"; that a very large body of police indeed

had been required to maintain the peace, that ten persons had been

treated at Westminster Hospital and that seven or eight constables and

sergeants had been more or less injured.

It was now Christabel Pankhurst's turn to cross-examine the

Superintendent and he looked across the dock at her very nervously.

She first questioned him as to the statement that had been made that

she and her companions in the dock had broken their promise to appear

at the court either on the Monday or Tuesday morning, and drew from

him the admission that he had not received any undertaking "in actual

words." She then changed the subject and brightly asked him whether he

was in the habit of reading the official organ of the Union "Votes for

Women," to which he replied in the negative. "You are not aware, then,"

she said, "that Mrs. Pankhurst wrote the following words:"

On October 13th in Parliament Square there will be many thousands of

people to see fair play between the women and the Government. Let us

keep their support and cooperation by showing them, as we have done

before, with what quiet courage, self-restraint and determination,

women are fighting against tyranny and oppression on the part of a

Government which has been called the strongest of modern times. It is

by the exercise of courage and self-restraint and persistent effort

that we shall win in this unequal contest.

"There is nothing very inflammatory in those words," she urged. "Does

it really occur to you that those words were circulated to incite a

riot?" But Mr. Wells shrugged his shoulders and answered gruffly, "I am

not complaining of that article, I am complaining of those bills."

Then she asked whether the crowd in Trafalgar Square was a disorderly

one. He admitted that it was not, but at the question "are you aware

that any member of the Government was there?" he looked round at the

Magistrate cautiously and said, "I do not know that I should answer

that." "You can say yes or no," said Mr. Curtis Bennett, and when the

query was repeated the reply came, "I saw one there." "Was it Mr.

Lloyd George?" said Miss Pankhurst with a smile, and at this there was

laughter in court, and even the Magistrate plainly showed amusement.

Mr. Wells flushed redder still and remained silent. She next questioned

the Superintendent as to the nature of the speeches in Trafalgar Square

and the exact meaning of the word "rush," but he frequently took refuge

in silence, and refused to be drawn. It was plain that Mr. Wells was

not accustomed to being cross-examined by a prisoner in the dock and

that he did not at all like it. Just as he began to hope that it was

nearly over, she suddenly changed the subject, and asked him whether

he had been present when Mr. John Burns had made the famous speech

which led to his arrest. "I was not," he answered, and she asked, "Are

you aware that the words he used at that time were very much more

calculated to lead to destruction and damage to property than anything

that we have said?" "I am not aware of it," said Mr. Wells looking

appealingly across to Mr. Muskett. "You are aware however that John

Burns is a member of the present Government and is responsible jointly

with his colleagues, for the action which has been taken against us?"

"Yes," he answered, almost without thinking. "You are aware of that,

you are aware that the law-breaker is now sitting in judgment upon

those who have done far less than he did himself?" she said, pressing

home her advantage. "You are aware of _that_?" she repeated after a

pause. But there was no reply.

Next she asked whether the Superintendent had heard the Trafalgar

Square speech of Mr. Will Thorne, M.P. in which he had advised the

people to rush the bakers' shops? Mr. Wells felt on safer ground now,

for this did not concern a Cabinet Minister. "I did not hear it,"

he ventured to answer, "but it was reported to me." "Well, does it

occur to you that his language was far more dangerous to the public

peace than the language that we have used?" "I am not complaining of

your language," he again answered doggedly, "I am complaining of the

bills." "Well, the language that was used on the bills, he _spoke,

he used the word 'rush,'_ moreover he incited people to riot and

violence," she urged. "Does it occur to you that his action is more

reprehensible than ours?" "It occurs to me," said Mr. Wells sulkily,

"that he might be prosecuted the same as you are." "You are not aware

whether proceedings will be taken?" she asked with an air of pleased

interest--but Mr. Curtis Bennett interposed to say that that question

could not be allowed. Then she asked the Superintendent whether he

knew that Mr. Gladstone had stated in the House of Commons that the

proceedings against herself and her colleagues had not been instituted

by the Government, but by the police. He tried to evade her, saying,

"You have kept me so busily engaged that I have not had time to look at

the papers this morning," but before he left the box he had virtually

admitted that, in spite of Mr. Gladstone's denial, the Government was

responsible for the prosecution.

The next witness was our old friend, Inspector Jarvis with whom we

had had negotiations in all sorts of matters connected both with our

peaceful and militant propaganda ever since our campaign in London

had been started. He is a tall thin man with a pale, thoughtful

face and is not at all like the typical police officer. As a rule

he has the most kindly and courteous manners, but to-day he seemed

thoroughly ill-tempered and refused to look directly at any of us. He

was called upon by Mr. Muskett to read the notes which he had taken of

Christabel's speech at the Sunday meeting in Trafalgar Square and he

did so in halting and expressionless tones:

I wish you all to be there on the evening of the 13th and I hope that

this will be the end of this movement. On June 30th we succeeded in

driving Mr. Asquith underground; he is afraid of us and so are the

Government. Years ago John Bright told the people that it was only by

lining the streets from Charing Cross to Westminster that they could

impress the Government. Well, we are only taking a leaf out of his

book. We want you to help the women to rush their way into the House

of Commons. You won't get locked up because you have the vote. If you

are afraid, we will take the lead, and you will follow us. We know we

shall win because we are in the right.

Then, just as a child at school who does not understand the words, he

read an extract also from Mrs. Pankhurst's speech:

On Tuesday evening at Caxton Hall we shall ask those who support

the women to come to Parliament Square. There will be a deputation

of women who have no right in the House of Commons to a seat[30]

there such as men have. The Government--does not know--its own

mind--it--changes--so, but we do know--that we want the vote--and mean

to have it. When the people in Parliament Square--

But Mr. Muskett interrupted, he had heard enough. He went on to ask

if it were not a fact that, on Monday morning, Inspector Jarvis had

himself served a summons upon the defendants to appear in court on the

afternoon of the same day and on the Inspector assenting, he said, "I

want to know about this question as to whether they promised to attend

here or not." Inspector Jarvis hesitated, "Well, Miss Christabel," he

began, "I saw her alone, and she said, 'We are not afraid, we shall be

there.'" "Then," said Mr. Muskett, "I believe they were served with a

summons to appear on the following morning at eleven o'clock." "Yes."

"And as they did not put in an appearance then, a warrant was issued?"

"Yes." "And you had to wait there for them until they surrendered to

you?" Again the Inspector assented, looking very much aggrieved.

Christabel Pankhurst began her cross-examination by closely questioning

Mr. Jarvis on this very point and soon drew from him the admission

that no definite promise had been made. As she was speaking to him

his face cleared visibly and he generously owned that he had been

mistaken. Similar evidence from a third Inspector closed the case for

the prosecution.

Christabel then applied for an adjournment and the Magistrate agreed

to allow the case to stand over for a week. The three prisoners being

released on bail for the time being.

As soon as this had been decided Mr. Curtis Bennett said that he would

deal with the cases of the women who had been arrested in Trafalgar

Square, and seven of these were soon ordered to undergo from one to two

months' imprisonment in default of being bound over for twelve months.

As each woman was asked if she had anything to say for herself, she

replied, "I demand a trial by jury." This seemed to annoy Mr. Curtis

Bennett considerably and he became more and more irate until the fifth

woman had spoken. Then he laughed and said, "I see this has evidently

been arranged beforehand." It was unfortunate for the fourth woman that

he had not recovered his temper earlier for, though a first offender

arrested for doing practically nothing, she received a sentence of two

months' imprisonment, whilst one month only was served out to others

of the same class. Mrs. Leigh, as this was the third time that she had

been charged, received a sentence of three months. Thirteen of the

Suffragettes pleaded that they wished to obtain legal advice, and were

remanded for a week, at the end of which time milder methods obtained,

for their sentences ranged merely from three weeks to one month.

Next day, Thursday, October 15th, a summons was issued against Mr. Will

Thorne, M.P. for inciting the unemployed to rush the bakers' shops,

and when his case came up on the 21st, he expressed the belief that no

summons would have been issued against him but for the remarks made by

Christabel Pankhurst during the Suffragette trial. He declared that in

speaking as he had done his object had been to persuade the unemployed

not to take part in the Women's Demonstration in Parliament Square,

because he felt sure that they would get into trouble if they did so,

and urged that his speech had been taken too literally. Mr. Curtis

Bennett, however, ordered him to be bound over in his own recognisances

of £200 and two sureties of £100 each to be of good behaviour for

twelve months or in default to go to prison for six months. Mr. Thorne

agreed to be bound over.

On Wednesday, October 21st, the trial of the Suffragette leaders

again came on and, whilst the Court was just as crowded, the Press

seats were even fuller than before. Mr. Curtis Bennett seemed more

than ever dignified and magisterial. Everyone waited with impatience

and presently there was a stir in the court, and, with much ceremony,

some of the officers opened the door by which the prisoners usually

enter and ushered in a group of gentlemen, who seated themselves in

the pew-like benches reserved for counsel and distinguished persons.

Then, preceded by a stout, black-bearded gaoler, and with three or four

police on either side of them, the three Suffragettes made their way

into the dock. As soon as they had seated themselves, Mr. Muskett rose

and said in his usual rather peevish and very indistinct tones that the

case for the Prosecution had been concluded on the previous Wednesday.

After a short preliminary argument as to legal forms between Christabel

and the Magistrate and a pledge that she should be allowed to submit

her objections later, there was a slight scuffling in those important

side benches, the pew doors were opened, two of the gentlemen who had

accompanied him stepped aside and Mr. Lloyd George, Chancellor of the

Exchequer, came forward and passed across the court into the witness

box.

Seen for the first time, he is totally unlike what one has been led to

expect. Instead of the romantic-looking Welsh bard, with black and very

curly hair, portrayed by the newspaper cartoons and drawings, there

stood, cooped up in the little witness box, with its useless-looking

wooden canopy, a plain little man, with a pale face, a long untidy

moustache and hair which, though he wears it somewhat long, as it is

in the pictures, has not the least suspicion of a curl but lies limp

and scanty and is a dull dingy brown. At first he leant his arm on the

front of the witness box and looked across at the three prisoners in

the dock. He regarded Christabel Pankhurst curiously, as well he might,

for, in her fresh white muslin dress whose one note of colour was the

broad band of purple white and green stripes around her waist, with her

soft brown hair uncovered, the little silky curls with just a hint of

gold in them clustering about her neck, and, in this dingy place, her

skin looking even more brilliantly white and those rose petal cheeks of

hers even more exquisitely and vividly flushed with purest pink than

usual, she was as bright and dainty as a newly opened flower, and with

all her look of perfect health and vigour, appeared so slender and so

delicately knit as to have little more of substance in her than a briar

rose. But she was to triumph over her opponent in the witness box, not

by her grace and freshness and by the outer aspect of her vivid glowing

personality, but by her sparkling wit, her biting sarcasm and by the

force and depth of her arguments. And these went home, not merely as

they can be set down here in cold dull print, but far more truly,

because they were enhanced by the everchanging eloquence of gesture,

voice, and facial expression--by a lift of the eyebrows, a turn of the

head, a heightening of the lovely rose colour that flooded sometimes

as far as the white throat and as quickly ebbed again, a sweep of the

slender hand or a turn of that slight virile frame. All these, because

so perfectly they echoed and expressed her thoughts, could lend to even

the baldest and tritest words, a fanciful humour, a delicate irony, or

an inexorable force.

As she rose to examine Mr. Lloyd George, she began quite formally,

but with a cheerful and pleasant manner asking whether he had been

present at the Trafalgar Square meetings on October 11th? and whether

he had seen a copy of the bills which were being distributed? "Yes,"

he replied, with just the least suspicion of a smile, "a young lady

gave one to me the moment I arrived. It invited me to rush the House

of Commons." "How did you interpret the invitation conveyed to you as

a member of the audience?" she asked next with a brisk business-like

air. "What did you think we wanted you to do?" He replied pompously, "I

really should not like to place an interpretation upon the document.

I do not think it is quite my function." "Well, I am speaking to you

as a member of the general public," she urged, refusing to be put

off. "Imagine you were not at the meeting at all, but were walking up

the Strand, and someone gave you a copy of this Bill, and you read

it--'Help the Suffragettes to rush the House of Commons.' And suppose

you forgot you were a member of the Government and regarded yourself

just as an ordinary person like myself--quite unofficial," she added,

smiling, and with a little quick shake of her shoulders. "What would

you think you were called upon to do?" "Really, I should not like to

be called upon to undertake so difficult a task as to interpret that

document," was the tart reply, but Christabel went on persuasively,

"Now this word 'rush,' which seems to be at the bottom of it all,

what does it mean?" She waited with parted lips and raised eyebrows

for a reply. It came unwillingly. "I understood the invitation from

Mrs. Pankhurst was to force an entrance to the House of Commons."

"No, no, I want you to keep your mind concentrated on the bill," she

corrected. "Let us forget what Mrs. Pankhurst said. What did the Bill

say?" "I really forget what the Bill said," he snapped out sharply. She

repeated the phrase to him graciously--"Help the Suffragettes to rush

the House of Commons." "Yes, that is it," he assented, and she said, "I

want you to define the word 'rush.'" "I cannot undertake to do that."

"You cannot?" she asked incredulously. "No, Miss Pankhurst, I cannot."

"Well," she replied, "I will suggest some definitions to you. I find

that in 'Chambers' English Dictionary' one of the meanings of the word

is 'an eager demand.' Now, what do you think of that?" "I cannot enter

into competition with 'Chambers' Dictionary.' I am prepared to accept

it," he said stolidly.

[Illustration: Miss Christabel Pankhurst questioning Mr. Herbert

Gladstone]

Mr. Lloyd George was beginning to turn his head away from her and

to show every sign of unwillingness to continue answering. Her

imperturbable good humour made the situation harder for him to bear.

As Max Beerbohm in the _Saturday Review_ said, "His Celtic fire burned

very low; and the contrast between the buoyancy of the girl and the

depression of the statesman was almost painful. Youth and an ideal, on

the one hand, and on the other, middle age and no illusions left over."

But Christabel appeared not to notice his discomfiture: "'Urgent

pressure of business.' That is another meaning. Now, if you were

asked to help the Suffragettes to make an eager demand to the House of

Commons that they should give votes to women, would you feel that we

were calling upon you to do an illegal act?" "That is not for me to

say." Here Mr. Curtis Bennett interposed. "The witness is perfectly

right. This is for me to say on the evidence. I have not interfered so

far," but Christabel went on unheedingly and continued gravely reading

from her list of definitions. "There is another sense in which the word

'rush' is used and I think it will be of some interest to you. We use

it in this connexion, to 'rush' Bills through Parliament." Mr. Lloyd

George smiled in spite of himself. "Yes, I think I have some experience

of that!" he said. "'On the rush' we are told in another dictionary

means 'in a hurry.' There is nothing unlawful in being in a hurry."

Mr. Lloyd George shook himself impatiently, and the Magistrate again

interposed; this time with more severity. "I have already said you must

address those remarks to me afterwards." But quite impassively she held

to her point and with her eyes upon the witness continued, "Did you

understand you were asked to go in a hurry to the House of Commons to

make this eager demand for enfranchisement? Was that the meaning which

the Bill conveyed to you?"

In spite of his remonstrances Mr. Curtis Bennett was evidently enjoying

the scene, and his eyes twinkled as he listened to the quickly and

pleasantly directed questions and to the slow, grudging replies. Mr.

George kept glancing at him angrily, and again looking severe he said

at last, "Miss Pankhurst, you must take my ruling, please."

At this she changed her tack a little, questioning Mr. Lloyd George

as to the speeches he had heard in Trafalgar Square and the demeanour

of the crowd and always making her inquiries with a polite air of

expectation that valuable information would be forthcoming. When Mr.

Lloyd George admitted that he had heard some part of Miss Pankhurst's

speech, Christabel gravely inquired whether her mother had threatened

violence to any member of the Government. "She did not invite the

audience to attack you in any way?" she asked. Then gradually, through

his fear of being made to appear ridiculous, she brought him to admit

that he had thought that, if the public responded to the invitation to

"rush" the House of Commons, the consequences would not be formidable

and that there had been no suggestion either that public or private

property should be damaged or that any personal violence should be done.

Then she suddenly asked, "There were no words used so likely to incite

to violence as the advice you gave at Swansea, that the women should be

ruthlessly flung out of your meeting?" This was unexpected. Mr. Lloyd

George frowned and remained silent. Mr. Muskett stood up and appealed

to the Magistrate who interposed as was expected of him. "This is quite

irrelevant. That was a private meeting, and not of the same character,"

he said reprovingly. Christabel shook her head. "It was a public

meeting," she insisted. The Magistrate waved his hand. "Well, private

_in a sense_." "They _are_ private nowadays, that is quite true,"

she said pointedly, and obviously referring to the fact that ticket

meetings only were now addressed by Cabinet Ministers, all women with

a few selected exceptions being rigidly excluded. Then she went on to

question Mr. Lloyd George as to the reason for which the "rush" had

been planned, but he obstinately refused to answer.

Turning to the events during the so-called "rush" on October 13th,

she elicited the fact that Mr. Lloyd George had taken his little

six-year-old daughter with him to watch the scene. "She was very

amused," he said with a malicious air. "You thought it was quite safe

for a child of those tender years to be amongst the crowd?" asked

Christabel, and this time it was her turn to be a little severe. "I was

not amongst the crowd," he snapped, and later, as if anxious to justify

himself, added, "You see, I only brought her from Downing Street to the

House, and I think that was clear." "The Prosecution asserts that a

serious breach of the peace took place," was her next question. "Do you

agree with that statement?"

The Magistrate interrupted, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer would have

nothing to do with that," he said. "I believe you are a lawyer?" with a

quick change of front, she asked, turning politely to Mr. Lloyd George.

"Well, I hope I am," he answered with a surly air. "Don't you think

the offence alleged against us would be more properly described as

'Unlawful Assembly'?" "There again, I was not put in the witness box to

express an opinion of that sort," he objected and the Magistrate again

supported him. She made another attempt: "You have seen the form of

summons against us?" but he protested that he had not and did not know

with what offence the prisoners were charged. She explained to him the

form of the summons and explained that, owing to this, the defendants

were denied the right of trial by jury. He merely replied, "I take it

from you, Miss Pankhurst, but I do not know."

An awkward question for Mr. Lloyd George was: "Do you think that

coercion is the right way of dealing with political disorders?" He

remained silent, and the Magistrate tried to help him out, saying,

"It is not for the witness to express an opinion." Christabel looked

full at Mr. Lloyd George, asking, "You refuse to answer?" "I do not

refuse to answer," he said, not very honestly, "but I must obey the

decision of the Bench that I cannot express an opinion about things

in the witness box." "Am I to understand that an answer must not be

given to that?" she appealed to the Magistrate. He replied, "No."

"Not even if the witness would like to do it?" "No," he said, but she

tried again. "Well, is it likely to be a successful way of dealing

with political disturbances?" But the Magistrate said, "That again,

is not admissible." "But for these restrictions, your Worship"--she

broke out with some heat, but he waved her aside and she understood

that he was implacable, so she turned cheerfully to the witness and

said, "Can you tell me whether any interference with public order took

place in connexion with previous movements for franchise reform?" "I

should have thought that that was an historical fact, Miss Pankhurst,"

he replied. Again the Magistrate interposed to save him. "That is

cross-examination. The witness cannot go into that." "In a _sense_

he is my witness," she said, but though Mr. Curtis Bennett smiled, he

replied, "In _every sense_ at present."

Nevertheless he had evidently seen the justice of the remark and he

did not object when a similar question was now put. It was: "Have

we not received encouragement from you, or if not from you, from

your colleagues to take action of this kind?" "I should be very much

surprised to hear that, Miss Pankhurst." Mr. George gave his answer

pompously. "You deny that we have been encouraged by Liberal statesmen

to take action of this kind?" she said eagerly. "I simply express

astonishment at the statement," he said casting up his eyes with an

exaggerated, but not very convincing air of indignation. "Have you ever

heard these words spoken by us at Trafalgar Square or by any Liberal

statesman:"

I am sorry to say that if no instructions had ever been addressed in

political crises to the people of this country except to remember to

hate violence, to love order, and to exercise patience, the liberties

of this country would never have been attained.

"Have you ever heard those words before?" "I cannot call them to

mind." At this reply there was a sensation in the court, silent, but

clearly felt. "Those were the words of William Ewart Gladstone," said

Christabel. "I accept your statement, Miss Pankhurst," was Mr. Lloyd

George's reply, and when asked whether he was aware that in 1884 Mr.

Chamberlain had threatened to march 100,000 men on London, he again

replied, "I do not know."

Christabel's next question carried the war further into the enemy's

country. "Is it not a fact that you yourself have set us an example of

revolt?" she asked, but Mr. Curtis Bennett interposed to say that the

Chancellor need not answer that question, and that she must not attack

her own witness. Whilst they were arguing, Mr. Lloyd George himself

burst in. "I never incited a crowd to violence," he said hotly, as

though this form of defence had only just occurred to him. "Not in the

Welsh Grave Yard case?" she asked. "No!" he said. "You did not tell

them to break down a wall and disinter a body?" "I gave advice which

was found by the Court of Appeal to be sound legal advice," he said

snappishly, and again almost turning his back upon her. "_We_ think

that _we_ are giving sound advice too," she said.

After this Mr. Lloyd George became less and less ready to give any

reply, and his angry eyes were continually calling for the Magistrate's

intervention.

Miss Pankhurst then cited passages from "Taylor on Evidence," to show

that more latitude could be allowed in questioning a witness who

obviously appeared to be hostile or interested for the other party, or

unwilling to give evidence, but Mr. Curtis Bennett declared that none

of these descriptions could be applied to Mr. Lloyd George. So, with a

gesture of protest, Christabel said, "I think I need not trouble him

with any further questions."

After some questioning by Mrs. Pankhurst to which Mr. Lloyd George

returned the scantiest and most surly of replies, Mrs. Drummond said

earnestly but with a touch of humour in her voice.

"I should like to ask Mr. Lloyd George this question; many times he

has refused to answer me. When do you intend to put a stop to these

things by giving us the vote?" Shrugging his shoulders, Mr. Lloyd

George turned to the Magistrate who gave the desired reply: "That is

not a question for the witness." Mrs. Drummond added, after a pause,

quietly and reproachfully: "You and your colleagues are much to

blame for this agitation." "You must not make a statement," said the

Magistrate. "You see, we never get a chance at other times," said Mrs.

Drummond appealingly. At this Mr. George smiled broadly, but not very

pleasantly, and shaking his head said, "Indeed you do!" as he left the

box.

Mr. Curtis Bennett now told Christabel that he wished her to call

Mr. Herbert Gladstone in order that the Home Secretary might not be

detained from his duties in the House unnecessarily but she declared

that it was absolutely essential that she should first call one other

witness. Mr. Curtis Bennett protested and she said, "I have only one

question to put to this lady." "Very well then, one question," he said

smiling as though he scarcely believed her, and one could plainly see,

determining to hold her to her word. Christabel then called "Miss Marie

Brackenbury," who stepped quietly into the box. Christabel gently asked

her whether it were true that she had suffered six weeks' imprisonment

in connexion with this agitation and as soon as she had assented said

quickly, but in a clear, penetrating voice, "Did Mr. Horace Smith tell

you in sentencing you to that term he was doing what he was told?" "You

must not put that question!" almost shouted the Magistrate. But the

witness had already replied, "He did." "The witness has said 'yes,'

upon oath," said Miss Pankhurst triumphantly turning to the place where

the Cabinet Ministers sat. There was a strange stir in the court, those

present feeling that belief in the inviolability of British Justice was

slipping from their grasp. For a moment or two there was an unpleasant

pause and Mr. Curtis Bennett sat flushed and angry.

Mr. Herbert Gladstone, the Home Secretary, was then called and took his

place in the witness box. With his shiny bald forehead, ruddy face,

prominent eyes and corpulent figure, he formed not only a striking

contrast to his colleague who had just been examined, but was as far

removed from the impressive dignity of his own distinguished father.

Altogether his general appearance was that which the romantic idealist

would associate rather with a comfortable and prosperous shopkeeper

than with a Cabinet Minister. As soon as he had been sworn, he placed

his elbows on the ledge in front of him and looked smilingly around

the court, as much as to say, "Nothing of this kind can disturb me, I

intend to enjoy myself."

Miss Pankhurst began by endeavouring to fix upon him as Home Secretary

the responsibility for the proceedings against herself and her

colleagues which he had denied in the House of Commons. She succeeded

in forcing him to admit, "I am at the head of the responsible

department." But when she put the questions more plainly, saying, "Did

you not, as a matter of fact, instruct the Commissioner of Police to

take the present proceedings?" and "Are the Government as a whole

responsible for these proceedings?" Mr. Muskett jumped up, in each

case, shouting, "I object to that!" and the Magistrate also said that

the questions could not be answered.

They were also determined that no more unpleasant disclosures were

to be made, but she would not leave the subject. "Did you instruct

Mr. Horace Smith to decide against Miss Brackenbury and to send her

to prison for six weeks?" she asked. "You cannot put that question

either," said Mr. Curtis Bennett in a slightly raised tone. "It is

a pity that the public interest should suffer on that account," was

her severe reply, and turning to Mr. Gladstone, she said, "Did you

offer any instructions to Mr. Horace Smith?" "I object to this; it is

contempt of court to continue putting these questions!" indignantly

cried Mr. Muskett again springing to his feet, but with a broad sweep

of her hand she declared, "The public will answer them." Then turning

to Mr. Gladstone, whose enjoyment of the situation had now entirely

vanished, she persisted, "What do you suggest is the meaning of what

Mr. Horace Smith has said?" but again the Magistrate intervened.

She next asked Mr. Gladstone to define the word "rush." "I can hardly

give any definition of it, but a rush implies force," he said, growing

more comfortable again. "Do you deny that it involves speed rather

than force?" she asked, and he replied smiling and putting his head

knowingly on one side, "Speed generally involves force." This argument

continued for some time. Then she asked: "Were you anticipating that

you would be in bodily danger as a consequence of the issue of this

Bill?" "I did not think of it at all. I did not think whether the

possibility existed or not," he answered, squaring his shoulders and

throwing out his chest. She waved her hand. "You are like us, above

these considerations. You were not in fear?" "No, not at all," he

answered, looking pleased with himself. "Did you ever think that

public property was in danger as a consequence of this bill having

been issued?" "I thought it quite possible," he said a little more

seriously, "I thought there would be danger from the crowds." "Then

you were agreeably disappointed on the morning of the 14th, when you

found no harm had been done?" "No, I was not. The police measures were

sufficient to stop any serious accident or danger," he said proudly and

magisterially.

She kept putting questions of this kind, first in one form then in

another until he began to grow tired and puzzled, and was evidently in

fear of making some unwise admission. "Did you feel that but for the

line of police protecting you, the crowd would have rushed upon you

and attacked you?" she asked at last with expressive emphasis. "The

police were not protecting me," he answered with an air of offended

dignity; "I felt no personal fear." "Did any other person seem in

danger of attack?" "The police gave them very little chance." "What

made you think them a dangerous or hostile crowd?" "Of course, I am

quite accustomed to seeing these crowds. I know what has happened

before." "What has happened?" "Disorderly scenes." Mr. Gladstone was

standing up now and looking quite severe. "What harm have they done?"

"Very little, as it happened." "What harm have they attempted to do?"

"That is not for me to answer." "Have they attempted to do more than

secure an interview with the Prime Minister?" Mr. Gladstone turned to

the Magistrate, who said, "That is not a question for him to answer."

"We will go back to the 13th," she said. "Do you think anyone was

obstructed in their passage to the House of Commons?" "I cannot speak

for other people." "You saw no attempt to waylay Members of Parliament

or Cabinet Ministers?" Her questions continued thick and fast. He

admitted that he had seen no one waylaid or injured and no harm done,

but took refuge in the assertion: "There was a great crowd." "But a

crowd assembles when the King goes to open Parliament," she said. He

answered crossly, "Presumably, they were waiting to 'rush' the House

of Commons," and added later that he had heard that certain police

constables had been injured, and that there had been thirty-seven

arrests and over forty complaints of losses of purses and watches.

"Comparing that with the net result of a Lord Mayor's Show crowd or any

sort of procession, really less harm resulted?" she asked, but he gave

no reply and her questioning as to how many policemen were on duty and

what the cost had been to the country were suppressed by Mr. Curtis

Bennett.

Presently Christabel asked, "How do you define a political offence?"

Mr. Gladstone leant over the edge of the box and smiled again. "I wish

you would give me a good definition," he said, in friendly confidential

tones, "I am often asked that question in the House of Commons." "Well,

with the Magistrate's permission, I will," she answered. "A political

offence is one committed in connexion with political disturbances

and with a political motive." "I do not think that a sufficient

explanation," he said with a challenging air. "If I am at liberty after

this day's proceedings are over, I shall have pleasure in sending

you a fuller account." Then she asked, "Do you remember that when a

deputation of women went to the House of Commons to see the Prime

Minister, instead of being allowed to enter, they were arrested?" "I

have no immediate recollection of that, only a general recollection,"

was the Home Secretary's reply given with a lofty manner. When the

question was put again in a slightly different form, the Magistrate

interrupted: "That does not arise on the issue." "It throws a light on

it though," said Miss Pankhurst. "Please do obey; otherwise I shall

have to stop it altogether," said Mr. Curtis Bennett, and one heard a

note of regret in his voice. He evidently enjoyed the discomfort of

the Cabinet Ministers and the spectacle of their professing blankest

ignorance on well-known points. "I have given you much more licence

than I should give Counsel," he urged.

"In the action we took on the 13th is it within your knowledge that we

were acting on advice given by yourself?" Christabel asked. "I wish

you _would_ take my advice," Mr. Gladstone answered. "We are trying to

take it," she said quietly. "What did you mean when you said that men

had used _force majeure_ in demanding the vote?" "If you hand me the

speech, I daresay I can tell you."

She held out a copy of it towards him but Mr. Curtis Bennett

interposed. "How is this material to what Mr. Gladstone saw? You are

cross-examining your own witness, Miss Pankhurst, and you must not

do that." "May I not ask any explanation whatsoever as to the counsel

given to us?" she asked with a persuasive air. "No, you may not,"

the Magistrate replied sternly. "We never have any opportunity. May

I ask whether he made certain statements?" Mr. Curtis Bennett smiled

and pretended not to notice, and Christabel eagerly turned to Mr.

Gladstone, reading from the printed copy of his speech. "Did you say

it was impossible not to sympathise with the eagerness and passion

which have actuated so many women on this subject?" "Yes," he replied.

"Did you say men had had to struggle for centuries for their political

rights?" "Yes." "Did you say that they had to fight from the time

of Cromwell and that for the last 130 years the warfare had been

perpetual?" His smile was growing broader and broader. "Yes," he said.

"Did you say that on this question experience showed that predominance

of argument alone--and you believed that that had been attained--was

not enough to win the political day? Did you say that?" "Yes." "Did you

say that we are in the stage of what is called 'academic discussion,'

which serves for the ventilation of pious opinions and is accompanied,

you admit, by no effective action on the part of the Government, or of

political parties or of voters throughout the country?" "Yes." "Did

you say that members of the House of Commons reflect the opinion of

the country, not only in regard to the number of people outside, but

in regard to the intensity of the feeling in support of a movement,

and that the Government must necessarily be a reflex of the party

which brought it into being?" "Yes." "Did you say this: 'There comes

a time when political dynamics are far more important than political

arguments?' You said that?" "Yes." "And that 'men had learned this

lesson?'" "Yes." "And that they know the necessity for 'demonstrating

that _force majeure_ which actuates and arms a Government for effective

work'?" "Yes, I think it was a most excellent speech!" he said nodding

his head and smiling up at the prisoner evidently regarding the whole

affair as a very good joke. The court laughed too, but for a different

reason, and the Magistrate raised no objection.

"I agree with you," said Christabel, smiling demurely, "Did you say

that this was the task before the leaders of this great movement?"

"Yes." "Did you speak of people assembled in tens of thousands in the

'thirties, 'sixties and 'eighties, and do you know that we have done

it in Hyde Park, and on Woodhouse Moor and other places?" "Yes." "Why

don't you give us the vote then?" she said with quick emphasis, and the

court laughed again. "Are you aware of the words your distinguished

father spoke on the matter?" she continued. "I heard the quotation."

"Do you assent to the proposition he laid down?" "Yes." "Then you

cannot condemn our methods any more," she said triumphantly. "That is

hardly a matter for my opinion," he said, suddenly remembering that he

must preserve his dignity. "It is a very interesting question, though.

I need not trouble you further," she concluded.

Now Mrs. Pankhurst rose and the witness turned to her quite cheerfully.

"I want to ask Mr. Gladstone," she said, "if he is aware that the

consequence of our being ordered to be bound over is that we cannot

consent and that we shall go to prison?" "That is a matter of law, and

not for the witness," interposed the Magistrate. "If that happens to

us, if we go to prison, I hope that Mr. Gladstone will see that we go

as political offenders," she said, but again the Magistrate intervened.

"Do you think we should be likely to break the law if we had the same

means of representation as men?" she then asked, and Mr. Gladstone

replied with pompous amiability. "I am sure your motive is excellent,

but that is a hypothetical question which I cannot answer."

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.

[Illustration: 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 advertise 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."

"We are anxious to know by what statute it is illegal to go to the

House of Commons, walk up the steps and make our way to the Strangers'

Entrance? We should like to know whether that is an illegal thing to

do, and, if it is not illegal to go at a slow pace, we should like to

know whether it is illegal to go at a quick pace, because that is what

the word 'rush' means. 'To rush the House of Commons' is to go with

all possible speed inside the House of Commons, and I hope that we

shall be told what statute we have contravened by doing it ourselves,

or by sending or inviting others to do it."

Miss Pankhurst next referred to the speeches made in Trafalgar Square

on October 11th. She was glad that the prosecution had raised this

point because it was all in the defendant's favor. The speeches made

at that meeting were made in interpretation of the famous handbill and

all the witnesses who had heard those speeches, not excepting Mr. Lloyd

George himself, were agreed that they contained nothing inflammatory

and no incitement to violence whatsoever. Christabel continued:

"It is not because of anything serious that occurred on October 13th,

or was expected to occur, that we are here; we are here in order that

we may be kept out of the way for some months, and may cease from

troubling the Government for as long a period as they can find it in

them, or for which the public will allow them, to deprive us of our

liberty."

Whilst hosts of witnesses had testified to the orderly character of

the crowd, she pointed out that two police officers only had been put

forward on the other side. The prosecution had been unable to bring

forward a single impartial person. But police evidence appeared to

be all that was considered in the Police Court, and she cried out

passionately:

It seems to me that the Prosecution, the witnesses, the authorities,

the magistrates, are all on one side, they are all in the same box,

and the prisoner charged with an offence is absolutely helpless

whatever facts he may bring forward. It is indeed a waste of time

to bring evidence. Over the doors of this court ought to be the

motto, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here." We do not care for

ourselves, because imprisonment is nothing to us; but when we think

of the thousands of helpless creatures who come into this monstrous

place with nobody to help them, nobody to plead for them, and we know

perfectly well that they are found guilty before they have a chance of

defending themselves, the injustice that is done in these courts is

almost too terrible to contemplate.

We saw then those helpless creatures, as we had done so often, and as

Christabel called up their image, her voice broke and there were tears

on her face. "I am thankful to think," she said triumphantly, "that we

have been able, by submitting ourselves to the absurd proceedings that

are conducted here, to ventilate this fearful wrong."

Christabel next developed the contention that in the course which

they had taken the women had followed historical precedent and had

been encouraged by statesmen and especially by Liberal statesmen. The

Reform Acts had been obtained by disorder. Prior to 1832, the Mansion

House, the Custom House, the Bishop's Palace, the Excise Office,

three prisons, four toll-houses, and forty-two private dwellings and

warehouses had been burnt. Amongst other things, the breaking-down of

the Hyde Park railings won the Reform Act of 1867. In 1884 there were

the Aston Park riots. John Bright threatened to crowd the streets from

Westminster Bridge to Charing Cross. Lord Randolph Churchill advised

the voters of Ulster--and voters have other means of urging their

opinions--to resort "to the supreme arbitrament of force." He said,

"Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right," and as a result of his

words dangerous riots almost amounting to warfare occurred, yet he was

never prosecuted. Joseph Chamberlain threatened to march one hundred

thousand men on London, but no proceedings were taken against him.

"The Gladstone of those days," Christabel declared, "was less absurd,

hesitating, and cowardly than the present Gladstone and his colleagues,

and therefore he took the statesmanlike action of pressing forward the

Reform Bill instead of taking proceedings against Mr. Chamberlain. Even

a vote of censure moved upon Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons,

was defeated." John Burns, whose language was far more violent than any

that the women had used, was tried at the Old Bailey and acquitted.

He said in his speech that he was a rebel, because he was an outlaw.

Well, that fact will support us in all we have done. If we go to far

greater lengths than we have done yet, we shall only be following in

the footsteps of a man who is now a member of the Government. Following

out this line of thought, Christabel went on:

Mr. Herbert Gladstone has told us in the speech I read to him that

the victory of argument alone is not enough. As we cannot hope to win

by force of argument alone, it is necessary to overcome the savage

resistance of the Government to our claim for citizenship by other

means. He says: "Go on. Fight as the men did." And then, when we show

our power and get the people to help us, he takes proceedings against

us in a manner which would have been disgraceful even in the old

days of coercion, and which would be thought disgraceful if it were

practised in Russia.

Then there is Mr. Lloyd George, who, if any man has done so, has set

us an example. His whole career has been a series of revolts.... He

has said that if we do not get the vote--mark these words--we should

be justified in adopting the methods which men had to adopt, namely,

in pulling down the Hyde Park railings.

Then, as a sign of the way in which men politicians deal with men's

interests, we have heard Lord Morley saying: "We are in India in

the presence of a living movement, and a movement for what? For

objects which we ourselves have taught them to think are desirable

objects, and unless we can somehow reconcile order with satisfaction

of those ideas and aspirations, the fault will not be theirs; it

will be ours--it will mark the breakdown of British statesmanship."

Apply those words to our case. Remember that we are demanding of

Liberal statesmen that which for us is the greatest boon and the

most essential right. Remember that we are asking for votes, that we

are demanding the franchise, and if the present Government cannot

reconcile order with our demand for the vote without delay, it will

mark the breakdown of their statesmanship. Yes, their statesmanship

has broken down already. They are disgraced. It is only in this Court

that they have the smallest hope of getting bolstered up.

Turning finally from the Magistrate to the great world of public

opinion outside, she finished on a defiant note, caring nothing whether

the abuse which she had heaped upon his petty court and its unworthy

procedure should cause him to increase her sentence ten or even a

hundred fold. Mr. Curtis Bennett sat with brows knit and an angry flush

on his face, and the whole court was wrought up to the most intense

excitement. But now it was Mrs. Pankhurst's turn to speak and her clear

even tones and absolute calm of manner created if possible an even

deeper impression.

Sir, I want to endorse what my daughter has said, that in my opinion

we are proceeded against in this Court by malice on the part of

the Government. [She began quietly and firmly.] I want to protest

as strongly as she has done. I want to put before you that the very

nature of your duties in this Court--although I wish to say nothing

disrespectful to you--render you unfitted to deal with a question

which is a political question, as a body of jurymen could do. We are

not women who would come into this court as ordinary law-breakers.

Mrs. Drummond here is a woman of very great public spirit; she is an

admirable wife and mother; she has very great business ability, and,

although a married woman, she has maintained herself for many years,

and has acquired for herself the admiration and respect of all the

people with whom she has had business relations. I do not think I need

speak about my daughter. Her abilities and earnestness of purpose are

very well known to you. They are young women. I am not, Sir. You and

I are older, and have both had very great and very wide experience of

life under different conditions. Before you decide what is to be done

with us, I should like you to hear from me a statement of what has

brought me into this dock this morning.

I was brought up by a father who taught me that his children, boys

and girls alike, had a duty towards their country; they must be good

citizens. I married a man, whose wife I was, but also his comrade

in all his public life. He was, as you know, a distinguished member

of your own profession, but he felt it his duty, in addition, to do

political work, to interest himself in the welfare of his fellow

countrymen and countrywomen. Throughout the whole of my marriage I

was associated with him in his public work. In addition to that, as

soon as my children were of an age to permit me to leave them, I

took to public duties. I was for many years a Guardian of the Poor.

For many years I was a member of the School Board, and when that was

abolished I was elected to the Educational Committee. My experience in

doing that work brought me in contact with many of my own sex, who,

in my opinion, found themselves in deplorable positions because of

the state of the English law as it affects women. You in this court

must have had experience of women who would never have come here if

married women were afforded by law that claim for maintenance by their

husbands which I think in justice should be given them when they give

up their economic independence and are unable to earn a subsistence

for themselves. You know how inadequate are the marriage laws to

women. You must know, Sir, as I have found out in my experience of

public life, how abominable, atrocious, and unjust are the divorce

laws as they affect women. You know very well that the married woman

has no legal right to the guardianship of her children. Then, too,

the illegitimacy laws; you know that a woman sometimes commits the

dreadful crime of infanticide, while her partner, the man, who should

share her punishment, gets off scot free.

Ever since my girlhood, a period of about thirty years, I have

belonged to organisations to secure for women that political power

which I have felt essential to bringing about those reforms which

women need. We have tried to be what you call womanly, we have tried

to use "feminine influence," and we have seen that it is of no use.

Men who have been impatient have invariably got reforms.

I have seen that men are encouraged by law to take advantage of the

helplessness of women. Many women have thought as I have and for many,

many years have tried by that influence of which we have so often

been reminded to alter these laws, but have found that that influence

counts for nothing. When we went to the House of Commons we used to

be told, when we were persistent, that Members of Parliament were not

responsible to women, they were responsible only to voters, and that

their time was too fully occupied to reform those laws, although they

agreed that they needed reforming.

We women have presented larger petitions in support of our

enfranchisement than were ever presented for any other reform, we

have succeeded in holding greater public meetings than men have ever

held for any reform, in spite of the difficulty which women have in

throwing off their natural diffidence, that desire to escape publicity

which we have inherited from generations of our foremothers; we have

broken through that. We have faced hostile mobs at street corners,

because we were told that we could not have that representation

for our taxes which men have won unless we converted the whole of

the country to our side. Because we have done this, we have been

misrepresented, we have been ridiculed, we have had contempt poured

upon us, and the ignorant mob incited to offer us violence, which we

have faced unarmed and unprotected by the safeguards which Cabinet

Ministers have.

I am here to take upon myself now, Sir, as I wish the Prosecution

had put upon me, the full responsibility for this agitation in its

present phase. I want to address you as a woman who has performed the

duties of a woman, and, in addition, has performed the duties which

ordinary men have to perform, by earning a living for her children,

and educating them.

I want to make you realise that it is a point of honour that if you

decide--as I hope you will not decide--to bind us over, that we shall

not sign any undertaking, as the Member of Parliament did who was

before you yesterday. Perhaps his reason for signing that undertaking

may have been that the Prime Minister had given some assurance to

the people he claimed to represent that something should be done for

them. We have had no such assurance. So, Sir, if you decide against

us to-day, to prison we must go, because we feel that we should be

going back to the hopeless condition this movement was in three years

ago if we consented to be bound over to keep the peace which we have

never broken. If you decide to bind us over, although the Government

have admitted that we are political offenders, we shall be treated as

pickpockets and drunkards and I want you, if you can, as a man, to

realise what that means to women like us. We are driven to do this,

we are determined to go on with this agitation, because we feel in

honour bound. Just as it was the duty of your forefathers, it is our

duty to make this world a better place for women than it is to-day.

Now, Sir, we have not wished to waste your time in any way; we have

wished to make you realise that there is another side to the case

than that put before you by the Prosecution. We want you to use your

power--I do not know what value there is in the legal claims that

have been put before you as to your power to decide this case--but we

want you, Sir, if you will, to send us to be tried in some place more

suitable for the trial of political offenders than an ordinary police

court. You must realise how futile it is to attempt to settle this

question by binding us over to keep the peace. You have tried it; it

has failed. Others have tried to do it, and have failed. If you had

power to send us to prison, not for six months, but for six years, for

sixteen years, or for the whole of our lives, the Government must not

think that they could stop this agitation. It would go on.

Lastly, I want to draw your attention to the self-restraint which was

shown by our followers on the night of the 13th, after we had been

arrested. It only shows that our influence over them is very great,

because I think if they had yielded to their natural impulses, there

might have been a breach of the peace. They were very indignant, but

our words have always been, be patient, exercise self-restraint, show

our so-called superiors that the criticism of women being hysterical

is not true; use no violence, offer yourselves to the violence of

others. We are going to win. Our women have taken that advice; if we

are in prison they will continue to take that advice.

Well, Sir, that is all I have to say to you. We are here, not because

we are law-breakers; we are here in our efforts to become law-makers.

[Illustration: Members of the Women's Freedom League attempting to

enter the House after the taking down of the grille, October 28th,

1908.]

The angry red had faded from Mr. Curtis Bennett's face, and whilst Mrs.

Pankhurst was speaking he kept his hand up to it, and at one point we

saw it quiver and for a moment he hid his eyes. Some of the big burly

policemen whom we knew so well and who, except in the "raids," when

they were obliged to do their duty, were always so kind and jovial

towards us, were openly in tears. Then Mrs. Drummond, looking paler

and more serious than is her wont, rose up to speak in her turn. Her

voice was a few notes thinner and higher pitched and like her words,

it seemed to be stripped of all emotion and to be instinct with the

clearest and most logical commonsense. Not only what she said, but her

whole personality was so honest, sincere and unaffected that she seemed

to add the one thing lacking to the completeness of that presentment of

the great unanswerable case for Woman's Suffrage. Her concluding words

were an assurance that the agitation, which was spreading and growing

all over the country, would go on as before. "I can speak on good

authority," she said, "for we have left everything in working order and

we shall find the movement stronger than when we left it because the

action which the Government have taken has fired the bosoms of women,

who are determined to take up the flag that we have had to lay down

to-day."

When Mrs. Drummond had finished, Mr. Curtis Bennett began speaking

quite cheerfully and as though the whole affair were an amusing

discussion between friends and had no unpleasant side to it. During

the first part of his speech he reviewed the arguments on both sides

of the case, and as he referred meanwhile to the pages on which he

had taken his notes he so frequently smiled as though they recalled

amusing and rather pleasant memories to him, that many people made

up their minds that he was either about to state a case for a higher

court, as the defendants wished, or to discharge them altogether. All

at once, however, his tone changed and he began to speak hurriedly,

with lowered voice and increased severity of manner, and went on to

say that there could be no doubt that it was for that court and that

court alone to deal with the offence for which the defendants had

been summoned; and that there could be no doubt but that the handbill

which the defendants circulated was liable to cause something to occur

which might and probably would, end in a breach of the peace. The

Chief Commissioner of Police was bound to keep Parliament Square and

the vicinity free and open, and the Commissioner of Police had felt

that it would be impossible to do that if crowds assembled together

in order to help and to see the women "rush" the House of Commons.

Therefore each of the two older defendants would be bound over in their

own recognisances of £100, and, they must find two sureties in £50

each to keep the peace for twelve months, or in default must undergo

three months' imprisonment. In the case of the younger defendant, her

own recognisances would be £50, with two sureties of £25 each, the

alternative being ten weeks' imprisonment.

FOOTNOTES:

[30] This, as Mr. Jarvis afterwards admitted, was a mistake; Mrs.

Pankhurst really said that women had no representation in the House of

Commons.