The trial was conducted with conspicuous fairness and patience, not
only by the Judge, but by the Attorney- General, who prosecuted for the Crown. For ourselves we could wish that the female prisoners had been made &st- eins misdemeanants, for we are very strongly in favour of women being treated differently from men in a matter of this kind—holding them when under the excitement of public agitation not to be fully responsible for their actions. In our opinion the male defendant, however, had no claim to any special consideration. We may add that the only excuse given by the defendants for their conduct in inciting to the breaking of windows was that it drew attention to their grievances. But surely to make good this view, whether perverted or not, they should have broken the windows of Cabinet Ministers or of Government offices and not the windows of perfectly innocent people, people who had nothing to do with the withholding of the vote, and may have been, and we believe in some cases were, actually friends of the suffrage cause. Again, though, as we have said, we should very much have preferred to see the female defendants placed in the first class, we cannot feel even the sympathy of comprehension for the plea that the prisoners are dishonoured by being placed in the second division. Nothing can dishonour a man or woman but guilt. It may dishonour a judge or a Government to deal harshly or unjustly with a prisoner ; the prisoner's honour is absolutely out of the reach of authority. The memory of Charles IL, not of Cromwell, suffers dishonour because Cromwell's remains wore disinterred and gibbeted. The dishonour point was, in fact, a confession of weakness.
Previous page
