Mr. Bodkin replied that the latter assumption was correct.
"I say that the speeches generally are incitement to all kinds of acts of violence against property, and that they present evidence of attacks against property and a particular individual, and that there is evidence in the speeches which have been read, and which will be proved, of admissions by Mrs. Pankhurst of having been connected with the particular outrage in a way which makes her in law an accessory before the fact."
"But you do not confine the case to the latter way of putting it?"
"No," replied Mr. Bodkin.
"Even if the jury are satisfied," said the Judge, "that Mrs. Pankhurst was not directly connected with this outrage by counselling it, you still ask the jury to say that by counselling, as you say she had in the speeches, the destruction of property, especially that belonging to a particular gentleman, anybody who acted on that and committed this outrage would have been incited by her to do it?"
"Yes, my lord."
"I think, Mrs. Pankhurst, you now understand the way it is put?" asked the Judge.
"I understand it quite well, my lord," I replied.
Proceedings were resumed on the following day, and the examination of witnesses for the prosecution went on. At the close of the examination, the Judge inquired whether I desired to call any witnesses. I replied:
"I do not desire to give evidence or to call any witnesses, but I desire to address your Lordship."