The Dominion. THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1913. LAW-BREAKING WOMEN.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1744, 8 May 1913, Page 4

The Dominion. THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1913. LAW-BREAKING WOMEN.

« The tally of Suffragette outrages goes on piling up, and there are sign's that the public is losing patience with the methods of the Government to cope with tho lawlessness of these wild women. If the Government of a civilised country cannot maintain order and protect life and property, there is always the danger of those injured taking the law'into their own hands. Private houses have been burned, public men insulted and assaulted, printed matter inciting to violence scattered broadcast, bombs exploded, riotous meetings held, works of art mutilated, and the latest news is to the effect that a church has been totally destroyed by fire. A section of these Suffragettes seem to have lost their mental balance, besides all sense of womanliness and moral responsibility, and it has become a serious difficulty to decide_ whether they should be treated as criminals or lunatics. It is no doubt true that the extremists arc only a comparatively small body, but a handful of recklessly irresponsible women, aided and abetted by men who in most cases are j seeking notoriety, can do an enormous amount of damage to property, and by setting all law at defiance they tend to undermine that respect for law without which civilised society cannot hold together. It is surely high time that the saner section of Suffragists, who no doubt form the great majority, came forward and emphatically expressed abhorrence at the criminal conduct of the "militants,'"' which is bringing the whole movement into utter disrepute among all law-abiding men and women. Most people in New Zealand probably would gladly see the women of Britain entrusted with the vote, but a far-reaching change in the political machinery of a great country always takes a lot of time and discussion. It is the British way to move slowly in these matters, and if every political organisation which cannot get Parliament to adopt its pet scheme of perfecting society were to "break things,'' there would soon be no society to 'perfect. It would mean open anarchy, and the very fact that the militant Suffragettes an 1 so wanton in breaking I lie law lends to make '-vim soice of the friends of I lie movement- doubtful whether such people arc fitted to 1 have a share in making tfee ' aw -'

This feeling is probably in a considerable measure responsible for the rejection of tho Representation of Women Bill introduced by Mr. Dickenson, which, according to a cablegram published in another column, was defeated in the House of Commons _ by 26G to 210 votes. This Bill proposed to enfranchise married women on their husband's qualifications, and also women who possess the necessary qualifications in their own right. Some members think the proposal goes too far, and some that it does not go far enough, while others again are entirely opposed to woman's suffrage in any form. Writing in March last, Mb. i. H. Whitehouse, M.P., stated that he thought tho Bill would be carried, and that its prospects were far better than were the prospects of the suffrage amendment to the Franchise Bill, The result, however, indicates that tho campaign of violence has hardened up the opposition to the Re prestation Bill, and the extremistsj have largely themselves to blame for its rejection. For some time past the British authorities have been considering what is the best way of dealing with women guilty of crimes of ■ violence. Some people think they should bo treated as dangerous lunatics, and placed in asylums instead of gaols, and quite recently Mr. M'Kexna introduced a Bill to meet the case of tho hunger-striker. Neither of these expedients is altogether satisfactory, nor is "it likely that heavy fines would stamp out the trouble. It has to be borno in mind that the militant Suffragette is not a normal human being; she is suffering from a kind of temporary insanity. In an article in the Daily Mail, Lord Robert Cecil, discussing the methods of the Suffragettes, remarks that it is "a piece of incredible perversity" that any woman should believe, that, by burning down Lady White's house, she will coerce Mb. Asquith to bring in a Woman's Suffrage Bill. Lord Robert Cecil argues that such a woman is different from an ordinary criminal, and should therefore be treated differently. He is of opinion that the Courts should be empowered "to sentence them to _ deportation to some more or less distant island, and once thero leave them at large, only preventing them from returning. Food and lodgings would be offered to them, but no compulsion would be put upon them to accept it. They would not be in any sense imprisoned or deprived of their liberty, save in the one respect mentioned. Government would be no moro responsible for their health or well-being than for that of any other inhabitant of the island. On the other hand, a senteilce of deportation should be of ' long duration—probably not less than a year. It would be politically, though not physically, a severe penalty." Whether the British authorities adopt Lord Robert Cecil's suggestion or not, it is quite certain that the lawlessness and acts of wanton destruction by the Suffragettes will bring reprisals in one form or another, and it is to be feared that unless the Government exercise more stringent measures, there will be serious outbreaks of mob violence directed against these wild women.