The trial of Mrs. Pankhurst on the charge of inciting certain persons unknown to place an explosive in a building at Walton, Surrey, with intent to destroy or damage it, was concluded at the Central Criminal Court yesterday. Mrs. Pankhurst, who conducted her own defence, was found Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy, and Mr. Justice Lush sentenced her to three years' penal servitude. She had previously declared her intention to resist strenuously the prison treatment until she was released.
A scene of uproar followed the passing of the sentence. A number of women repeatedly shouted "Shame," and in the excitement which followed the voices of male sympathizers joined in the demonstration. There were ironical cheers, and a woman's voice struck up "For he's a jolly good fellow." Mr. Justice Lush uttered an indignant protest against such behaviour and warned the demonstrators that, unless the disorder ceased, he should have the Court cleared. This rebuke, however, fell on deaf ears, and the police, amid continued uproar and the singing of the "Marseillaise," removed those responsible for the disorder. Mrs. Pankhurst, who had meanwhile stood calmly in the dock gathering up her papers, was vociferously cheered on leaving the Court for the cells. It was some time before quiet was restored, and the Judge warned those who made the demonstration that unless they desisted he should commit them to prison.
After further evidence had been given by witnesses who took shorthand notes of speeches by the defendant, Mr. Bodkin (who, with Mr. Travers Humphreys, prosecuted) closed the case for the Crown.
MRS. PANKHURST'S SPEECH
Mrs. Pankhurst said she did not desire to give evidence or call witnesses, but she addressed the jury in her defence. She said she objected to the suggestion that she was a woman riding about in her motor-car and inciting other women to do acts which entailed imprisonment and great suffering, while she herself was, or thought herself, protected from serious consequences. Mr. Bodkin knew very well that she had shared the dangers and had been to prison three times - he himself was instrumental in sending her to prison on the last occasion-and while in prison she was treated like an ordinary criminal - searched, put in prison clothes, in solitary confinement, and subjected to all the abominable rules imposed on ordinary women prisoners. She owned no motor-car. It belonged to the organization with which she was associated, and was used for its business purposes. It had also been stated in the House of Commons that she had plenty of money and that some of them had been making incomes of ú1,000 or ú1,500 a year out of it. That was untrue. There was no woman in their movement making an income like that. Her own part in the movement had cost her a considerable portion of her income, because she had to surrender it to take part in the movement. A verdict of guilty could not possibly end this serious situation. She did not cross-examine the police shorthand writers with a view of questioning the substantial accuracy of their reports as to the line she took in her speeches. It did not matter very much in her case whether she proved that verbal inaccuracies occurred, but in future cases the actual words used might be a matter of vital importance. It was a serious thing that the authorities should employ people who were not by their training fitted to make accurate reports.
She had pleaded "Not guilty" to the indictment because in it she was described as having "wickedly and maliciously incited" women to do certain acts. She was not a wicked or a malicious person - neither were any of the women who responded - if they did respond - to her incitement. Therefore she felt herself justified, although she accepted responsibility for all the speeches she had made, in saying that, looking at what she had done she was not guilty of having "wickedly and maliciously" incited women to break the law. It was a very serious thing when a large number of quite respectable, ordinary, and naturally law-abiding people of upright lives came to hold the law in contempt. All good government rested on the acceptance of the law and respect for the law, and women of intelligence, training, and upright lives had for many years past ceased to respect the laws of this country. When they looked at the laws it was not to be wondered at. If the jury found her guilty she might be sentenced to a long term of penal servitude, the maximum punishment being 14 years. That was for an offence against property. Mrs. Pankhurst proceeded to criticize various laws relating to women and children, and said that for one offence in regard to the latter the maximum punishment was merely two years' imprisonment. She went on to allude to the inequalities of the divorce laws, and then proceeded to comment on the administration of the laws she had referred to. She was, she said, the widow of a barrister and had more opportunities than the average woman of learning about the administration of the law.
THE JUDGE'S REBUKE
Mrs. Pankhurst said that neither she nor those acting with her had been influenced or actuated by any malicious feeling, even towards those against whom women had grounds for complaint - she meant the members of the Cabinet. She was only animated by a sincere desire to get power into the hands of women in order to make that course of action unnecessary. It had been ruled that her motives did not affect the question, but before the great Judge before whom they would all have to appear - great and small - motive would be taken into account. Those who incited them - she meant members of the Government - should be in the dock by their side. She had been told that she must not refer to the provocation which women had received in the administration of the law; that she could not tell them of a Judge of Assize who was found dead in a brothel.
MR. JUSTICE LUSH (indignantly). - I think you have been guilty of a most shameful want of decorum in making that observation -
Mrs. Pankhurst. - It is true.
MR. JUSTICE LUSH. - You have not loyally abided by the directions I gave you. You are doing yourself no good, allow me to tell you.
Mrs. Pankhurst, proceeding, said that whether the sentence was long or short she should not submit to it. The moment she left the Court - if she were sent to prison, whether to penal servitude or to a mild form of imprisonment - she would quite deliberately refuse to eat food. She would join the women in Holloway who were already on "hunger strike." She would come out of prison - dead or alive - at the earliest possible moment, and once out, as soon as she was physically fit, she would enter into the fight again. Life was very dear to them all. She did not want to commit suicide. She wanted to see the women of this country enfranchised and to live until that was done. They offered themselves as sacrifices, as their forefathers did in the past. Had the jury the right to condemn another human being to death? - because that was what it amounted to. Could they throw the first stone? Had they the right to judge women? The horrible evils ravaging civilization would never be remedied until women got the vote. The agitation would not be stopped by legislation such as was introduced into the House of Commons on the previous night giving greater powers of coercion and oppression against the movement. If women had the power they sought she would advocate obedience to the law. She would say "You have a constitutional means of getting rid of your grievances. Use your votes. Convince your fellow voters of the righteousness of your demands. That is the way to obtain justice."
MR. JUSTICE LUSH, in summing up the case, said that the defendant's complaints of the imperfection of the law and of injustice done to women because they were not given the vote as men were had no bearing on the question the jury had to decide.
The jury retired, and meanwhile Mrs. Pankhurst was allowed by the Judge to see one of her daughters. After an absence of 40 minutes the jury found Mrs. Pankhurst Guilty, but with a strong recommendation to mercy.
MR. BODKIN gave a list of other occasions on which Mrs. Pankhurst had been prosecuted in connexion with the agitation.
"HUNGER STRIKE" THREATENED
Mrs. Pankhurst said that whatever sentence was passed upon her she would do all that was humanly possible to terminate it at the earliest possible moment. She had no sense of guilt. She felt she was doing her duty. She would take the desperate remedy that other women had taken. The struggle would be a very unequal one, but she should make it as long as she had an inch of strength left in her. She would fight, and fight, and fight from the moment she entered the prison. She would struggle against overwhelming odds, and she would resist the doctors. She was sentenced last May to nine months' imprisonment. There were people who laughed at the ordeal of the hunger strike. All she could say was - and the doctors would bear her out - that she was imprisoned only six weeks and that had she remained in prison under those conditions much longer she would have been dead. Her own daughter was now suffering seriously from the same treatment. There were women still in prison who twice a day had to face the ordeal (of forcible feeding) - women who resisted overwhelming force, fighting until they were tied down in bed, and even then resisting with their tongue and their teeth. She was not repining about punishment; she had invited it. She deliberately broke the law - not hysterically and not emotionally - but of set purpose, because she honestly felt it was the only way.
MR. JUSTICE LUSH, addressing Mrs. Pankhurst, said it was a very painful duty to pass what, in his opinion, was a suitable and adequate sentence for the crime of which she had been most properly convicted, having regard to the strong recommendation of mercy by the jury. He quite recognized that her motives were not the selfish motives that actuated most of the persons who stood in her position. But, in spite of her motives, her crime was a wicked one. It not only led to the destruction of property of persons who had done her no wrong, but, in spite of calculations, it might expose other people to the danger of being maimed or killed if things went otherwise than was anticipated. It was wicked because she had been luring other people - young women, it might be - to engage in such crimes, possibly to their own ruin, and it was wicked because she was setting an example to other people who had grievances which they might legitimately want put right to embark on a similar scheme and try to effect their object by attacking the property, if not the lives, of other people. He begged her to think of these things (Mrs. Pankhurst. - I have thought of them) - to think of them for one short hour dispassionately. The sentence he was going to pass must be a severe one; but if she would only realize the wrong she was doing and the mistake she was making, and undertake to amend matters by using her influence in the right direction, he would be the first to use his best endeavours to bring about a mitigation of it. The least sentence he could pass upon her was one of three years' penal servitude.
.lcMrs Pankhurst was sentenced to three years in prison for incitement to violence. She went on hunger and thirst strike, and was temporarily released under the terms of the Cat and Mouse Act when she became critically ill. She was re-arrested and re-released twelve times in the course of that year, and during the intervals she continued to appear in public, sometimes on a stretcher.
