SUFFRAGISTS AND THE POLICE.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14073, 19 June 1911, Page 3

SUFFRAGISTS AND THE POLICE.

| GHAEGES AGAINST THE FORCE. A New Zealander, living in England, writes protesting against an article that appeared ia "Tho Press," describing tho conflicts between the suffragists and the police in London in November last. It was stated that some of the women had acted violently, fighting with tho police, and breaking windows. Our correspondent is disgusted that wo should have permitted such "base falsehoods" to appear in "Tho Press." "It is monstrous that such things should be said about women, who quietly went down with a petition to Parliament, and who were brutally assaulted by tho police." Our correspondent forwards us a copy of the memorandum forwarded to tho Home Office by the Parliamentary Conciliation Committee for Woman Suffrage, accompanying a request for a public enquiry into the conduct of tho police. This" memorandum was based on evidence collected by Dr. Jessie Murray and Mr Brailsford. Wo take the following extracts from this document:—''We cannot resist the conclusion that the police as a wholo were under tho impression that their duty was not merofy to frustrate tho attempts of the women to reach tho House, but also to terrorise them in the process. They used in numerous instances excessive violence, which was at. onco deliberate and aggressive, and was intended to inflict injury and pain. Many of them resorted to certain forms of torture. They frequently bandied the women with gross indecency. _ In some instances they continued to injure and insult them after •. their arrest. Nearly all of the." 135 statements communicated to us describe some act or acts of unnecessary violence. It is generally possible to determine from the frank statements of tho members of the deputation how far these acts of violence were provoked. In some cases the women merely held their ground near the nolice cordon. In other cases they tried to push their way through it. In the few instances, in which they themselves struck a policeman their statement usually shows that it was to force him to desist from his brutal usage,of some other woman. The first statement to which wo would call attention mentions no exceptional violence. It does, however, describe eimply and vividly tho effect produced by tho more violent methods used by the police, particularly on November 18th. 'For hours one was beaten about tho body, thrown backwards and forwards from one to another, until ono felt dazed with the horror of it. . . .

Often seized by the coat collar, dragged out of the crowd, only to be pushed helplessly along in front of one's tormentor into a side street . . .

while he beat one up and down one's spine until cramp seized one's legs, when he would then release one with a vicious shove, and with insulting speeches, such as, "I will teach you a lesson. I will teach you not to come back any more. I will punish you, you —, you —." This took place over and over again, as, of course, each time they released one, one returned to tho charge. . . . The

chest bruises on© received while pushing forward were, of course, inevitable, but it was this officious pummelling of the spine when they collared you and held you helpless which wore you out so, and left you so shaken. ... A favourite trick was pinching the upper part of one's arms, which were black ■with bruises afterwards. One man began thumb-twisting. I dared him to it again, and he dropped my arm before serious harm was done, but I have only just lost the feeling of sprain. . . . Once I was thrown

with ray jaw against a lamp-post with such force that two of my front,.teeth were loosened. . . . "What I com-

plain of on behalf of us all is, the long-drawn-out agony of the delayed arrest, and the continuous beating and pinch'mr.'

Another statement relates .that a policeman deliberately struck a woman across the face with a stick. Three statements mention that policemen occasionally used their heavy helmets as weapons, with which they struck women on the face and head. The clear intention to hurt and punish and terrorise is well illustrated by this report of a scene from an eye-witness:—'On the Wednesday I saw a young girl with fair hair and white cap try to get into one of the gates. A policeman knocked her down. She got up, and the police pushed her on while she tried. to tidy, her hair. Another policeman gave her a push into another policeman's arms, who pushed her back, and then gave her another push, and before she could recover simply hurled her to the ground where she landed within a foot of a motor lying quite still, and apparently unconscious. I asked him. "Are you a man or a beast?" "I will 'beast' you," he said. I bent over her and said. "Oh, yon have killed her." Then ho kicked her savagely and said, "Well, take that, then." '

"Four witnesses describe the barbarous usago to which another woman, Miss H _. was subjected. After she had been flung to the ground, shaken, and pushed, and had had her arms and wrists twisted, she exclaimed, 'Help mo to the railings.' While trying to recover breath a policeman seized hor head, and rubber her face against the iron railings. To illustrate the recklessness with which the police seized women (usually by the throat) and flung them backwards on the ground, we would draw attention to two separate cases in which a*-woman was flung almost under the wheels of a passing motor-car. t Ih.one case, a wheel went over a woman's dress as she lay on the ground,'.and,in the«other grazed her head. In one at least of these cases the attack was absolutely unprovoked, and the lady who was its victim is described as 'a woman with grey hair, and whose ago,ought to have commanded a certain respect.' " Twenty-nine statements complained of acts of indecency by the police and fourteen complained of the use of profane and obscene language. Mr Winston Churchill refused the request for an enquiry.