THE BREAKING OF THE WINDOW 

 By Richard Banks

In June 1912 the window of the post office in Rayleigh was broken in an act of vandalism that was part of the Suffragettes’ campaign for women’s suffrage.

The subsequent trial of a Miss Bertha Brewster for this offence was held in Southend. The Chelmsford Chronicle reported proceedings as follows: 

Miss Ellen Judd, postmistress at Rayleigh said that shortly before midnight she was awakened by the smashing of glass. On getting up she found three large pieces of lead [presumably within the post office as well as broken glass from the window]. 

Arthur Ager, draper, said that he heard the smash and saw a young lady who he believed was the defendant, jump on her cycle, which had no lights and ride off. 

PC Pryke, alerted by Ager, cycled after the defendant and caught up with her one mile along the road towards London. She had no lights and told him that the lamp had just gone out. He told her that she answered the description of a lady who was supposed to have broken windows in Rayleigh post office. She replied, “that will have to be proved.” 

Defendant was remanded until Wednesday 3^rd July, when she said, “nobody had seen the windows broken and it could not, therefore, be proved that she had broken them.” 

The Chairman [a Mr Wedd) said that the bench was unanimous in finding the defendant guilty of an outrage on society. Fined £5. and £1.7s and 6d for damage and costs.

Was it an open and shut case or could the culprit have been Miss Ruth Curnock, the youngest of ten children born to Nehemiah Curnock, the local Methodist minister, who, it was rumoured, had been seen near to the scene of the crime by a policeman who, recognising her as the Minister’s daughter, told her to go home. If he did, this important piece of evidence was never mentioned at Bertha Brewster’s trial. Could it be that the unnamed policeman, and possibly other local people, withheld this information to protect the good name of the Minister, who in addition to being a much respected resident was known in this country and overseas for his work in deciphering John Wesley’s diaries.

While this is feasible there appears to be no evidence that any such cover-up happened. Although it has been alleged that Ruth was a suffragette there is no record of her in suffragette records. She was 33 when the window was broken, eight years older than Bertha.

The evidence that Bertha committed the crime is, in my view, perfectly sound. She was a prominent suffragette with a string of previous convictions for causing criminal damage. Perhaps her most infamous exploit was the breaking of windows at the Sun Hall in Liverpool, in 1909, disrupting a speech by the Secretary of State for War. Along with six other suffragettes she had gained access to the roof of the Hall from where they threw bricks and stones through the windows with a dexterity, that the reporter for The Courier described as ‘nothing short of marvellous’. On their way to Walton Prison they sang The Marseillaise, broke the windows of the vehicle they were travelling in and pushed a Votes for Women flag through the ventilator in the roof. During their stay in prison [they were sentenced to one month imprisonment] they broke further windows, went on hunger strike and were released over the next few days ‘owing to their emaciated condition’. Bertha appeared in court a second time in Liverpool for the breaking of the prison windows and was sentenced to six weeks imprisonment with hard labour. In 1910 and 1911 she was convicted at Bow Street court of two more charges of criminal damage following widespread disorder in London. 

There can, therefore, be little doubt that Bertha was responsible for the breaking of the post office window. However, what was she doing in Rayleigh on the night of her last recorded crime? Was she cycling for pleasure as many visitors to Rayleigh did at that time (although probably not at that time of night) or was she here on suffragette business visiting local activists of which one might possibly have been Ruth. Almost certainly her sole intention was not to break the insignificant window of the Rayleigh post office – that was decidedly small fry compared to her previous exploits.

Could it be that having roused Ruth to the need for violent protest she inveigled her into breaking the window while Bertha stood by encouragingly, or assisting in the breaking. This, of course, is speculation verging on fiction, but then speculation is probably as valid as rumour.                

 

Copyright Richard Banks