THE SUFFRAGETTES

Southland Times, Issue 17307, 1 April 1913, Page 7

THE SUFFRAGETTES

PUNISHMENT PROBLEM. (From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, February 21. The recent suffragettes' raid on the orchid houses at Kew Gardens, through which scores of rare and valuable plants were cither killed or badly damaged, and their wholesale destruction of golf greens, has been followed this week by an even more senseless, wanton and dangerous outrage. Karly on 'Wednesday morning some persons or.persons unknown placed two 7 lb, cans of gunpowder in a house which was being completed for the occupancy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. .Mr Lloyd George, ai Walton Heath, and attempted to e.\| h.de them by means of candles embedded in paraffins naked -havings. Only one bomb however went off, the blast of air caused by ils explosion apparently blowing out the candle of the other bomb ere the flame reached the shavings. But the bomb that did explode wrought such havoc that in all probability the greater portion of the back part'd' the premises will have to be razed to the ground and entirely rebuilt, at cost probably not less than £SOO. Had the second bomb exploded the whole fabric must have been shattered to such an extent that there would have been nothing for it hut rebuilding the house in Us entirety. which woidd have meant an expenditure of between twelve and fifteen hundred pounds.

That the authors of 'outrage meant to make a clean sweep of the building if possible, was clearly proved by the fact that, in close proximity to the bowls of shavings in which tlie bombs were placed they hud deposited large bundles of papers, soaked in ill, which were obviously intended to -et firo to the ruins to which the house must have been reduced bad the second bomb exploded. At first there was some doubt as to whether -Mrs Pankhurst’s disciples were really to blame for the outrage, for there can be no doubt that -Mr Lloyd Doorge has many bitter enemies outside the suffragist ranks who would “carcely think twice about inflicting , ecuniary loss upon the Chancellor, if they saw a fair chance of doing so and escaping the consequences. However, the finding of hat-pins and hair-pins and

ladies “golosh” on the premises poinl■H to women being authors of the crime, and then Mrs Pankhurst and Mrs Drummond frankly and freely confessed that the suffragists had done it. and squealed with pleasure over the "grand affair". Mrs Pankhurst described il as "another successful piece of guerilla warfare," and stated that "We shall not cease o?se things until we have made this ♦ stion of Votesfor Women such a nuis•'e thUt our demands are conceded.”

dald Mrs Drummond: — "I th»ink it's grand, it is a fine affair, successfully carrrled out, and it shows the determination of women. I say. oil power to all kinds of militancy in section of harassing Cabinet Minist- •. s-liort of taking human life.”

Short of taking human life!” Yes: no doubt these women would blanch at the 1 -a of knifing or shooting people in cold blood, and no doubt they would hesitate to use bomba if they actually knew in doing so they must necessarily place human lives in jeopardy. Apparently. however, they have not the brains to perceive that when they descend to the use of Anarchist methods, as at Walton Heath, it is finite beyond their ?r to set a limit to (lie effects of ti. | -rlminal deeds. In that ease they n# doubt knew the house contained no human beings when they fixed up their bombs, but they could not have known how soon some watchman or woikman might come upon the premises, nor could they be at all certain that that the explosion might not maim or kill some person passing by. As a matter of fact there were several people within a slone's throw of the house wh m the explosion occurred, and some fragments of tiles and glass were hurled o a distance of quite fifty yards. Mort over, had the explosion occurred less than an hour later, at least a dozen workmen would have been in or about the house itself, for the bombs went off about a quarter past six. anti the men ■were; due to start work at 7 a,in. It'. onld be interesting to know whether ttfe '‘ladles” who planned and carried owt this "grand affair” ever lake the trouble even to find out what time the men employed in the building were in the ’’ar,t of commencing work. They actu; Jy took no precautions to prevent anyoqe from getting near the building, though they took good care to remove their own carcases from the danger zone by means of a motor car.

The question is, what can be done with these- mad-brained creatures? If they are caught a magistrate sends them to prison, whereupon they Indulge In a "hunger-strike,” and as the dear, tender little things must not be forcibly fed because they are women, and they begin to look ill, the Home secretary lets thorn; jeut. People have racked their braij *,to discover some "genteel'' method u. deai og with these women so that

they may bo made to servo the sentence passed cm them and fool some of the inconvenience of prison iife. Pome "brutal creatures” —not only men—have suggested tha L the way to deal with them is place before' them the appointed prison meals, supplemented hy a liberal allowance of malted milk, with an intimation that until they have eaten that one. or drunk the other, they can have no water, even to wash with. The advocates of this plan of "hunger-strike" breaking declare that after twenty-four hours or so the desire to cat practically departs, and that absence of food causes little physical inconvenience. whereas thirst is intolerable. The malted milk, it is alleged, would he too great a tempt'alimi to die strongest-minded prisoner, ami hy drinking it the woman would absorb enough nourishment to prevent any evil effects from arising from her abstention from food. It may be so, hut only experience can prove the truth of the assertion. There are, be it said, plenty of men and women who—where suffragist bomb users and incendiaries are concerned — would go a great deal further than the malted milk advocates. Their creed is easily summed up. "Put them in prison and treat them as ordinary prisoners. Give them plenty of food to eat. and if they won't eat it—well Hint's their look out”. But the world at large is not prepared to aeeept this notion of acquiescing in prisoners committing suicide hy starvation and as "forcible feeding" appears seriously to affect tlie health of most of those upon whom it is tried, these women have got us in a cleft slick so far as making "Ihe punishment fit, the crime," unless we are prepared to abandon all our cherished ideas regarding the treatment of (lie “gentler sex”. "SATAN FINDS —" Before the public had quite digested ttie details of the Walton Heath Suffragette outbreak they were confronted with an even more serious demonstration of the "Vote Hunters' grim earnestness.” In the small hours of Thursday morning the well-known refreshment pavilion near the "Lion Gate," Kow Gardens was burnt to the ground, the damage done being estimated at over £12,00(1, and that it was the wilful act of Hie suffragettes there can be no manner of doubt, for two of the ineendiarists were caught when trying to escape from the scene of crime. Ever since the breaking of the glass and the uprooting and distructlon of the plants in the orchid houses nearly a fortnight ago, extra precautions have been .taken at the Gardens to protect their valuable contents from damage. Special care was directed to IHe watching of the safety of Kew Cottage, which had been threatened. The Cottage is one with many Royal and other interesting associations, and the Office of Works had reluctantly to close it against the public some time ago lost harm should be done within it by suffragettes. But nobody imagined for a moment that the entirely unhistorical and prosaic tea pavilion would be deemed worth their attention. and consequently it was left to take care of itself out of business hours.

Yet to inccndiarists the pavilion offered certain attractions. It was easily accessslble from the Old Deer Park, and being built entirely of wood —old and painted—gave promise of a rare blase up. The suffragists apparently found no difficulty In eluding the observation of the guardians of the Gardens, and apparently had plenty of time to place their combustibles in such a manner as to ensure the building taking fire in at least half a dozen places. The first indication of mischief afnot was seen by a Garden stoker soon after 3 a.m. in the shape of a tongue of flame suddenly shooting up the side of the building. He gave the alarm, but although the Garden fire brigade was on the scene within five minutes and the local brigade turned up a minute or so later, they could do practically nothing to save the structure. In half an hour or less all that was left of the pavilion was charred wood, a few twisted iron uprights and some of the metal appliances used in connection with the catering business. Meanwhile the police, who had Jumped to the conclusion that the fire was not due to accident, had closed in on the avenues of escape most likely to be used by the perpetrators of the outrage. Pre-

sently they saw a couple of women running across the grounds of the Richmond Cricket Club and gave chase. The women in their flight threw away bags which they were carrying, and ere they had gone far they were run down and captured. Their bags were recovered, and were found to contain tow and waste paper which had been soaked in tar and oil. One also contained a saw and a hammer. Cards were also picked up near the burnt pavilion bearing reference to the militant campaign anrl its "successes.”

The captured women proved to he two young women Lilian Lenton 22. and Joyce Lockes 23. who were, later in the day brought up before the Richmond magistrates and charged with setting fire to the pavilion. As they absolutely refused to give their addresses, and the police objected, the magistrates refused to grant bail, whereupon Lenton seized a number of books and papers from the clerk's table and hurled them at the chairman, who. however, adroitly dodged the missies. Lenton was immediately seized hy the court officers, and in spite of her violent struggles was removed to the cells with her companion. The destroyed Tea House was a charming rustic concern a quarter of a century old. In tlie height of the season its staff comprises 30 kitchen hands anil about 100 waitresses. It had seating accommodation for over 990 people. At this time of the year, of course, the customers were comparatively few, but the wanton act of the suffragettes has tin-own about 20 people out of work. Lenton and Locke, like many of the women who have been arrested in connection with the worst suffragette outrages. were described at the police court as of "no occupation." Comment Is, perhaps, needless. "WHO PAYS THE PIPER?" No doubt the persons responsible'for the Walton Heath outrage imagined (tint they would inflict financial loss on Mr Lloyd George. As a matter of fact the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not a pennv piece at stake in the house, and all that he will suffer will be whatever inconvenience it may cause him to tie unable to enter into possession as a tenant on lease at Easter. The house is the property of a local landowner, and Mr Lloyd George has not even signed the lease lie had verbally agreed upon witli the owner, who, it seems, will he the only sufferer financially, unless the law decided that the damage must be made good out of the police rale of (lie district in whicli the properly is situated. And this seems most unlikely. The Riot (Damages) Act of ISB6 provides that where any house, shop, or building, lias been injured or destroyed by any persons “riotously and tumultuously” assembled together compensation for damage done Is to be paid out of the police rate of the district in which the property so injured is situated. The question at once arises whether the persons who tried to destroy the house were "riotously and tumultuously assembled together" in such a way as to bring the consequences of their action within the purview of the Act of 1886. Legal opinion seems to agree that they were not. and that the owner cannot legally claim on the County funds. But whatever may he the position of the County there is no doubt whatever about that of the persons who were guilty of Uie outrage. Attempting to destroy any building with gunpowder or any other explosive substance is one of the most serious offences known to the law. Under the provisions of the Malicious Damages Act they are guilty of felony and liable on conviction to- be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding fourteen years, or to bo imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, "with or without hard labour, with or without solitary confinement.” And if a male under sixteen were concerned In the outrage the judge might order him to be whipped. If the building operated upon contains any person within it at the time of the outrage the judge has power to inflict penal servitude for life.