Call for a public enquiry following the arrest of Mrs Pankhurst at St Andrew’s Hall, Glasgow in 1914 (National Records of Scotland reference: HH55/336/1)

Transcript:

STATEMENT submitted by Mr Leonard Gow on behalf of the Deputation referred to in letter from Mr W G Leechman, dated 18th March 1914.

Your Honours,

I thank you on behalf of this Deputation for your courtesy in receiving us, and first let me make a statement which would have been unnecessary had the Lord Provost not publicly at a Ward Dinner on the evening of the 19th March intimated that this Deputation had approached the Town Council with the object of slighting and brow-beating the Magistrates. Gentlemen, I think it is unnecessary for me to say that we had no such idea and that nothing was further from our minds. We were advised to approach the Town Council as our elected representatives, and it was solely on that advice that we asked them to receive us, believing that the matters of which we had to complain should formally be brought before the City representatives. We had no other option but to bow to the Lord Provost’s ruling not to hear us, whatever our feelings or opinions of the matter might be.

We are here as eye-witnesses of what took place in the St Andrew’s Hall on Monday evening the 9th instant, and as taxpayers, to request that the action of the Police be publicly enquired into.

From my position in the balcony, almost above the platform, I had an uninterrupted view of the scene, a scene which must have made the blood of every true man present boil with indignation and shame. I went to the meeting a non-militant, and not being conversant with Suffragette politics was unaware that Mrs Pankhurst was liable to arrest, my object being to learn the Suffragist’s standpoint from one of their Leaders.

The meeting was advertised in the Daily Prints for days prior to its being held – mark you, Gentlemen, - intimating that Mrs Pankhurst would speak, and surely if the Authorities had decided to arrest Mrs Pankhurst on the platform, it should have been publicly intimated so that the public might have known what to expect, and those who so desired given the opportunity to stay away. If such intimation had been made by the Authorities, and Mrs Pankhurst had still persisted in appearing, there would have been reason for arresting her, but none for the manner in which it was effected.

The audience consisted of over three, possibly four thousand people, men and women, and among those present were representatives of our most respected families in the City. It was as respectable and law-abiding an audience as one could wish to see – as subsequent events showed an audience to be proud of, - and I never saw a body of people under such trying circumstances shew such self-restraint – the marvel is there was not a panic in the body of the hall, and the galleries as there was on the platform. Had there been a rush for the doors, or for the platform, the toll must have been many killed and injured for which the Authorities alone could have been held responsible, for it was the Police who first caused the riot on the platform.

After Mrs Pankhurst had been speaking for a very few minutes, the platform, which, please mark, was occupied solely by women, old and young, was rushed by detectives and policeman with drawn batons who laid out in all directions, hitting and felling women whose only offence was that they crowded around their Leader evidently trying to protect her from violence.

Many of the women were injured, some I understand very seriously. People are asking was this raid meant as an exhibition to a Glasgow audience of how the police are instructed by the Authorities to treat Suffragists? Be that as it may, judging from the letters which have appeared in the public Prints, and from what one has heard, the indignation of many sections in the City beggars description.

As Mrs Pankhurst had reached the platform, I maintain it showed the greatest lack of tact and common-sense, nay the greatest stupidity, not to allow her to speak before arresting her. But from the fact that bodies of police were secreted in the lavatories and throughout the building long before the Meeting began, it is evident that these police had orders from the first to wait until Mrs Pankhurst had begun her speech, although the Authorities must have known that the result of such a sensational and savage arrest in full view of the audience might have produced a stampede among the audience which would almost certainly have resulted in fatal injuries to innocent citizens, for which, as I have already said, the Authorities alone could have been held to blame. From where I was sitting I could not see myself, but am informed she was dragged down stairs head first - was much bruised, and her shins broken. I am also told that a woman who saw how she was being treated protested with the police saying "For God sake don't use her so." For this she (I understand her name is Mrs Nixon) was felled by a policeman's baton, and then kicked down the remainder of the stairs by the police and trampled on as they dragged Mrs Pankhurst out. This, together with other cases of police brutality eye-witnesses are prepared to swear to.

One hears it said that it looks as if the Authorities were afraid of free speech, were afraid of what Mrs Pankhurst might have to say. This is emphasised by the fact that witnesses are ready to swear that a determined effort was made to prevent the speaker, who was to follow Mrs Pankhurst, from reaching the platform, during which she was severely buffeted and bruised, and would never have reached the platform had she not been rescued by men sympathisers in the Hall. Can it be held the police action was even legal in this instance? Again, if the police were stipid [stupid] enough to arrest Mrs Pankhurst on the platform (surely she should have first been called on to surrender) it might have been done by a few Detectives or policemen, and why did the police continue using their batons against the women after Mrs Pankhurst’s arrest had been effected, and why was the arrest ever made in Glasgow if Mrs Pankhurst was to be liberated five days later in London? To put it on the lowest platform, it was a wanton waste of the City’s money. Such violent methods were sickening and absolutely unnecessary, and an affront to the audience, and to Glasgow. I was born in Glasgow and have known the City for fifty years, and neither in Glasgow nor anywhere also have I witnessed such a scene of brutality. It has been asserted that the women resisted the police. They ask, were they to allow themselves to be struck down without defending themselves as best they could? And further, if the statement were true, why were no arrests made and the offenders charged in the Police Court? They also say if they were armed, events showed they knew by experience what to expect.

We, as ratepayers do most solemnly protest against such scenes of brutality, in our opinion without one shred of justification, being enacted in our City. Such scenes are subversive to law and order, and of all justice, and can have no other effect than that of bringing the law into contempt.

I am told that since the Meeting there has been a large accession of militants to the Women’s Movement, which only goes to prove what I say.

As ratepayers we are here to-day to ask you, Gentlemen, for a public and searching enquiry into the circumstances of the whole case. Nothing will satisfy this Deputation – and I am sure that I speak for my fellow citizens – but a Public Enquiry.

It was stated by the Home Secretary in the House of Commons in answer to a question that the whole arrangements for Mrs Pankhurst’s arrest were entirely made and carried out by the Glasgow Police. If this be so the local police must bear the whole blame for their acting without instructions and if there is a lack of discipline in the Force the sooner it is thoroughly investigated the better. There was no necessity for arresting Mrs Pankhurst on the platform, certainly none for the brutality in which it was effected, and we trust your Honours will grant our petition that the whole circumstances of the case be investigated in a public enquiry.