The campaign of destruction organized by the Women's Social and Political Union is placing the British people on their trial in the eyes of the nations. We publish this morning some more expressions of opinion from other countries about the proceedings of the militant women and the attitude of the authorities.
They show how public attention has been caught by the recent series of outrages directed against ancient churches, valuable pictures, and other objects of beauty and interest which are national possessions that cannot be replaced. If the object of destroying these things is to attract attention, it has certainly succeeded. But it may be worth the while of those who direct this movement and those who support it at a safe distance to note the sort of attention it has attracted.
The most general feeling expressed is surprise that these things should be done in sober, law-abiding Britain, and that they should be allowed to go on. It is evident that our reputation for sanity and practical commonsense is at stake, and that if we are unable to cope with this outbreak of domestic violence and unreason our reputation will be lowered in the eyes of the world.
It may be inferred that the perceptible hardening of public opinion at home, which has been making way for some time past, will meet with general approval abroad. We are accused of having been too patient, and are expected to take sterner measures. There is abundant evidence that the public here have come to the same conclusion. They feel that the time has come to deal firmly with a movement which has long ago been diverted from its ostensible object and has developed into a wave of mental aberration and moral deterioration, spreading by the contagion of suggestion and morbid excitement into a serious national evil.
No one has a stronger interest in checking it than the rational advocates of woman suffrage, for the longer it goes on and the more violent it becomes the more hopeless it makes the attainment of that object.
The Government are expected to do something, but it is much easier to say that than to say what they are to do. The problem is more difficult than some critics seem to realize, and it will not be successfully dealt with by proposals made either in a flippant or in a vindictive spirit. Such a measure, for instance, as deportation to an uninhabited island or anywhere else cannot be seriously considered. Even if it were practicable it would be futile. It would be impossible to prevent the return of the deported, unless the colony were treated like a penal settlement, and transportation for life is too severe a sentence even for chopping up a valuable picture. Still less can violent punishment, such as flogging, be entertained. All such suggestions may be put aside. They merely express irritation, and have no practical bearing on the real problem. Whatever the community does to protect itself must be done in a calm and judicial way, worthy of our traditions, and must keep this object strictly in view. We may have been too patient, but the remedy is not impatience. The new move contemplated, as we understand, by the authorities against wealthy women who are financing the movement, and hiring others to commit crimes while they escape responsibility themselves, seems much more purposeful. It is consonant with all the principles of justice that such persons should be liable for the crimes they incite others to commit; and the only difficulty is that of securing evidence sufficient to convict. This seems to have recently been done, and no doubt the legal advisers of the CROWN will make sure of their case before they put it to the test. Failure would be fatal. We presume that, if sufficient evidence is available to justify proceedings, they might be taken in two ways - by indictment for criminal conspiracy and by action for damages in the Civil Courts. Both would be effective, but the attachment of funds would probably be the severer check to the movement. Another way of applying the same pressure would be to make the funds of the union liable. This, however, would require an Act of Parliament and some rather delicate discrimination. It would certainly arouse strong opposition, and might be found difficult to enact.
If she who breaks - by her own hand or another's - were made to pay and if the financial resources behind the movement were drawn upon to compensate for the damage done, a decided check would no doubt be given to the campaign. But we fear that it would not be stopped. Some of its wealthy supporters would be sure to escape for lack of sufficient evidence, and the fanaticism of some of the women concerned is above pecuniary considerations. What is to be done with them? At present they are sentenced to imprisonment, but released as soon as starvation and forcible feeding have reduced them to a state of exhaustion. The usual comment made on this - and it is made by some of our foreign friends - is, Why not let them starve if they choose to do it? This is the commonsense view, and one generally endorsed by public opinion. The reason why it cannot be acted on is that the prison authorities are legally liable for the lives of those in their charge, and bound to do everything in their power to keep them alive. The remedy seems to be a short Act of Parliament relieving them of responsibility for persons who refuse to take food. This would get rid of forcible feeding, which is an odious expedient only necessitated by the present law, and would place the responsibility entirely on the prisoner. It obviates all violence and is not an attack on these misguided women, but, on the contrary, leaves them free to do as they choose. While the law remains as it is they have the key of the gaol in their pockets and are free to commit any crime - even to murder - with the certainty that by refusing food they can procure their release. It is an absurd position, and ought to be ended.
.lcThis Times leader proposes that suffragette hunger-strikers be allowed to starve themselves to death. But two months later war broke out, and the WSPU suspended all political action for the duration. A government amnesty was later issued to those still serving sentences in prison.
