The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1912-08-24
THE POOR DEFENSE
OF SUFFRACETTES
By 7. M. Healy in the Trial of
English Women for Outrages
In Dublin.
Palliates the Crime Committed and
'' Blames Ministry for not
Granting Demands.
In the United States that Kind of
Defense Bears the Name
of Pettifoggery.

In the trial Of the English women in
Dublin for attacking the British Prem
Ter and attempting to burn the Thea
tire Royal, Mr.. r. NJ. Healy. X. c., ap-
peared for one of the prisoners. On
his way to court lie was vigorously
hissed. After the evidence was all In.
Mr.. Healy addressed the jury OH be
half of the accused. Needless to say.
counsel began, the lady in the dock
was no ordinary criminal. nor In her
view and the view OF those who SYM
pathized with her. was she a criminal
at all; and when the objects for which
she stood indicted had been achieved
she, whom they were now asked to
send to prison, and those who were
indicted with her. would be held in
honor and respect. She represented
a cause which had, not once. out
many times, been approved by the
solemn vote OF Parliament. She rep
resented an order of thought which
said when women were taxed to sus-
tain the community they should have
a voice in the governing and distribu-
ton of these taxes. She represented
the cause of those who said that when
women were allowed to choose Town
Councillors and County Councillors
| they might well be allowed voice
in the selection of members of Par
lament, who, from what he had seen
of them, were really not the extra
ordinary body of sacrosanct persons
that they might imagine. The ac-
cused, with others had been engaged
in this agitation for a. considerable
time. In the course of 1t promises
had been held out to them by respons-
ihle ministers that legal effect should
| be given to the wishes OF that section
of the community who wished to have
n voice in the distribution of the
taxes which they provided. These
ministers--llot all OF them, but sew
eral of thenl--instead of making good
their word, met these ladies with de-
ceit and with injury, and one of them
"A gentleman occupying the respons-
Kings Council--told them that they
would not be taken seriously unlnss
they protested, as other franchise re-
formers had protested fifty years ago,
by burning down castles, as at Not
tngham, or by tearing up the railin=s
of Hyde Park, as they were torn up
in '67. That was the language held.
not by rowdy corner boys. but by men
occupying grave, serious offices Of
trust under the Kings Government.
And these ladies, met with the taunt
! that they were not serious, took up
| the challenge of the Minister of State
and said they would show him
whether they were serious or not. 1t
would not be his place to argue the
merits or dcmcrits Of this question.
|
special subjects which had innamed
| the minds Of those ladies', the most
of whom lived in London, and who
! saw pershing before their eyes year
after year an army Of immolation. a
traffic in human beings, traffic in
young girls whose lives were destroy
| tnI r.,hn
dishonored. and to rescue whom the
| Government Of the country never
! lifted finger. They were in horror
when the match was put to a theatre
| curtain; they were ablaze If petrol
| was spilled upon the carpet. But
year after year two thousand young
| girls were ruined in London, and these
women said to that Parliament Of
| men, 1--WE have knocked and thun-
dered at your doors, and never have
you raised a hand or voice to put
down this iniquity."
When the White Slave Traffic bill
came before Parliament it was sent
to Grand Committee, presided cvcr
by Mr.. r.. r. O'Connor, where it was
mauled and hacked out of shape. The
bill was sent back emasculatcd and
useless. to this Parliament that pre-
tended to have the interests of wo-
men at heart. And without voice ant
without vote. these women are toll