Lancaster Standard and County Advertiser. — 1902-11-28 (Lancaster, Lancashire, England)

TOPICAL TALK.  It is rather dildeult to know how much Of the outery against Mrs. Penruddocke is genuine indignation and how much is purely newspaper sensationalism. Don't think me hard on the newspapors. Gentle reader, remember that I know how these things are done. The paper which has to supply four and five leading articles each day is scnnetimes in want of a "topics* Timm comes a time when there is nothing to write about. Politics are quiet, there ia war, international complications are conspicuous by their absence, and there is no murder or railway accident or colliery explosion upon which to enlarge. Think. therefore, of the joy sf the leader-writer when he sees a case in which a high-born lady, having been found guilty of disgraceful cruelty to her child, is let off with the ridiculous penalty of a £5O fine. Here is everything to his hand for some .fine writing, for an appeal to British hearts aad British justice, for a scathing, criticism of the judge, and for trotting out that wellworn phrase, One law for the rich and another for the poor." And then the public seize the bait. They read these horrors piled on horrors; their blood becomes aflame.; they can breathe out their indignation only in one way. and that is by "writing to the papers." s> -t• Do not think I am scoffing. but I repeat that this is how what are called "public scandals" are engineered; and it bscomes you and 1, as thoughtful men, to decide for ourselves how much is genuine indignation and hew much is merely newspaper copy. For my own part I am free to confess that I do not think tho lady has been sufficiently punished. The jury found her guilty. The judge sentenced her, ;t is true, but he did Dot punish her. It is .dle to say that her crime against society and her own child was legally punished by merely asking her or her- husband to sign a cheque for £5O. That contention is absurd. But look at it another way. Think of the indignity, nay, the infamy, of her position—charged and tried in a public court, convicted of gross cruelty, and then reflect upon the after cousequences.--the publicity. the ostracisation by society. the poignant remorse not merely at what she has done but what it has brought to her—think of all this and then say, if you can, that the punishment in her case is not as severe as a month's imprisonment would be to a woman in a different sphere of life. 4> 4. s} Let us clear our minds of cant. A we-'k or two in prison would do Mrs. Penruddocke no harm, and by the same token it , would do her and the country no good. I The law has been vindicated. It has shown that even wealthy women cannot outrage the obligations of maternity and break the laws of England; and it has also shown that even an high places children occasionally require the same protection from their parents as they do in more lowly ones. If the clamour of the "Daily Mail" and the public were acceded to and Mrs. Penrod- I docke were sent to gaol to-morrow. answer I me this question----wosld she be any worse or better for it. and would the sanctity of child life be any better preserved? 4- s>se Remember. it is not only the legal punishment which tells. When Parnell was found guilty of adultery with Mrs. O'Shea he escaped legal punishment. if I remember aright but what else did he come in for? Gladstone, Hugh Price Hughes and a few others actually forced him to give up the leadership of the Irish party. Ile was a broken man, and he died soon after. If we knew Mrs. Penruddocke's mind we should doubtless find that she would have preferred three months' imprisonment and quietude to this hullabaloo in the papers and its dreadful consequences to her. Don't aNalliao too hastily that she gets off lightly because she had only £5O to pay. 444+4