The Suffragette: The History of the Women's Militant Suffrage Movement, 1905-1910Pankhurst, E. Sylvia (Estelle Sylvia)
History
The Suffragette: The History of the Women's Militant Suffrage Movement, 1905-1910
Pankhurst, E. Sylvia (Estelle Sylvia)
Women -- Suffrage -- Great Britain
On Tuesday, June 21st, exactly a week before the day fixed for the
Women's Parliament, Miss Wallace Dunlop, visited the House of Commons
with a gentleman who left her and went on into the lobby to interview
a member of Parliament. She passed into St. Stephen's Hall and sitting
down on one of the seats there, unfolded a large block covered with
printers' ink. She was pressing this block to the stone wall, when a
policeman rushed up, and dragged her hurriedly away, but there remained
displayed upon the wall the words:
WOMEN'S DEPUTATION,
JUNE 29th.
BILL OF RIGHTS
It is the right of the Subject to petition the King and all
commitments and Prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
Miss Wallace Dunlop was taken to the police Inspector's office opening
out of the Palace Yard, but, after an impression of her notice had
been solemnly made on a sheet of blotting paper, she was allowed
to go. She had been pulled away too speedily to look at her own
handiwork in St. Stephen's Hall, and the policemen told her that it
was "only a smudge." Two days later, therefore, she set out to make
a second attempt to stamp on the wall of St. Stephen's her reminder
to Parliament that the people's liberties must not be violated. She
was able to carefully affix her notice before a policeman appeared,
but she was not to be let off this time. On June 22nd she was tried
for wilfully and maliciously damaging the stone-work of the House
of Commons. She urged in her defence that any damage which she had
caused by affixing the notice was entirely outweighed by the great
constitutional issue which it had been her intention to impress
upon the Members of the House of Commons. "It is claimed by the
prosecution," she said, "that it cost ten shillings to erase the
impression of the first notice and that it will cost probably a similar
sum to wipe out the second. It seems to me that it would have been
better if the authorities had spent no money at all but had let the
impression stay." She was found guilty and ordered either to pay a
fine of £5 and £1. 1. 2 damages or in default to undergo one month's
imprisonment in the third division without hard labour.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account