THE HOME OFFICE
We got into the train for London and I had a long sleep. During the
last part of the journey my sister, Emily Lutyens, told how she had
heard of me in Walton Gaol. She had a telephone message forwarded to
her on Saturday night, January 15, from the Press Association. It
was addressed to my eldest brother, who was abroad, saying it was
rumoured that I was imprisoned in Liverpool--was it true? She rang up
our friend, Mr. Arthur Chapman, who after an infinity of trouble got
into communication with Mr. Thompson, one of the Prison Commissioners
from the Home Office. In answering the telephone, he welcomed Mr.
Chapman gleefully, as having news they had wanted much. “There is a
prisoner at Walton Gaol, Liverpool,” he said, “whom they have for some
days suspected of being other than her declaration. We have wanted to
release her, but have not been able to find out who her people were.”
This was a most extraordinary thing for a Home Office official to say.
Why had they not released me to the W.S.P.U. organiser in Liverpool,
or asked me with whom they should communicate? And why were they more
anxious to set me free than the other Suffragettes? They had signed an
order for my release. The reason given was loss of weight; they did
not mention my heart, since they knew nothing about it! Mr. Thompson
recommended that my sister should telephone to the doctor at Walton
and he would arrange with the Governor to release me. With this news
Mr. Chapman went to my sister Emily, who was dining out. They rang up
Dr. Price, of Walton, and after communicating with him my sister felt
almost sure the prisoner was myself. Without a moment’s hesitation, and
dressed just as she was, she caught the midnight train to Liverpool,
where she arrived at about six in the morning. She reached the doctor’s
house at about seven and still was uncertain whether she would find me
in the prison. Dr. Price, after some talk, took her to the Governor’s
house. The Governor’s wife was very kind at that early hour and gave
her breakfast. She said she thought it was inhuman to dress the
prisoners in such frightfully ugly clothes, she felt only horror when
she looked at them; she would have different clothing for them if she
had anything to do with it.
Dr. Price told my sister that he had written the report of me to the
Home Office. “I said she was spare, very spare, and that she had a
nose--I did not say aquiline, but of a somewhat Wellingtonian bend.” We
roared with laughter at this description of me.
The following is my sister’s statement of a conversation which she
had with the doctor on arriving at Walton: “After a preliminary
conversation with Dr. Price in regard to what had taken place in
connection with our telephonic communication with him the previous
night, I asked him whether he could tell me anything with regard to my
sister’s behaviour in gaol and the treatment she had been obliged to
undergo. In reply, he stated that she had fasted for four days, that
he had begged her to take her food, and explained that if she refused
he would be obliged to forcibly feed her. As she had persisted in her
refusal, he had been obliged to feed her through the mouth up to the
date of her release, with the exception of one meal, which she took of
her own accord on Saturday morning. He further stated that, unlike some
other Suffragettes, she had shown no violence beyond refusing to take
her food, but that, in all his experience, he had never seen such a bad
case of forcible feeding. I asked him what he meant by a ‘bad case,’
and he said ‘_She was practically asphyxiated every time._’ I then
told him that the medical officers at Holloway and Newcastle reported
to us that my sister was suffering from serious valvular disease of
the heart, and I asked him if his examination had led him to the same
conclusion. He replied ‘Certainly not. My subordinate’ (or some such
word), ‘who is a very clever doctor, thoroughly examined her heart
and found no trace of disease whatever,’ and I need hardly say that
this was a great relief to my mind, as the reports of the other prison
doctors had caused us so much anxiety. He further stated that, in spite
of the forcible feeding, my sister had lost weight at the rate of 2
lbs. a day, and that, consequently, he had been obliged to advise her
being released.
“Dr. Price several times repeated how much my sister had suffered from
the treatment, and, after I had told him about her heart, said that it
might possibly have been due to her heart condition, though he had not
been able to detect it.”
My sister took me to their house in Bloomsbury Square, which we reached
at about 8.30 p.m. There was our friend, Mr. Chapman, to whom I gave a
brief account of my imprisonment. He went off with it the next day to
the Home Office Prison Department, and returned with the news that the
officials would be grateful to me if I would make a statement on paper,
whereupon they would have it investigated. There were reasons why they
would be very glad to have an open inquiry at Walton Gaol.
All that night I woke off and on with cold, and also with terror at
the forcible feeding. My sister was most kind to me; she reheated my
hot-bottles and at last came and slept with me. I stayed in bed the
next morning (Monday, January 24). In the afternoon I saw some of my
friends--Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and Christabel Pankhurst. Some days
after, when she returned to London, I saw Mrs. Pankhurst. They were all
of them content with what I had done and the way I had done it. This
was a most tremendous joy and relief to me.
I managed to write a letter to the _Times_ and an article for _Votes
for Women_. I could only do everything so slowly that I had not
finished these until eight o’clock the next morning, after writing all
night. I stayed in bed the whole of that day, Tuesday. On Wednesday
and Thursday (26th and 27th) I stayed in bed in the morning, but led
a more or less normal life after. These days I could hardly sit in a
chair, because my emaciated condition rendered it very painful; I ate
my meals, very often, kneeling down at the table on a cushion.
On Tuesday, January 25, I wrote to Mr. Gladstone, the Home Secretary,
to explain that it was not as the newspapers said, to play a practical
joke upon him, that I had gone to prison in disguise. It was because
of the totally different category of treatment meted out to one set of
people from another, and the object of my disguise was to expose this
for the sake of bringing such a state of things to an end.
On Monday, January 31, I woke with a blistered heel. I spoke at the
meeting at the Queen’s Hall, and it was heart-filling to meet all my
friends again; the whole audience seemed to understand. I stood for an
hour on one foot. On coming home I had to wait about to get a statement
finished and typewritten. I had written very carefully for the Home
Office of what happened to me in prison. After that I went to bed and
stopped there for six weeks. The next day, Tuesday, February 1, the
blister on my heel was much worse and my sister wished to send for a
doctor. I had always been ill in the country and did not know of one.
My sister called in Dr. Marion Vaughan, who from that moment was my
doctor, and after she had been to see me I had a nurse. This is her
report:--
“REPORT OF PHYSICAL CONDITION OF LADY CONSTANCE LYTTON.
“Tuesday, February 1, 1910.
“21, THURLOE SQUARE, S.W.
“February 4, 1910.
“I was called in to see Lady Constance Lytton, staying at 29,
Bloomsbury Square, W.C., on account of pain, swelling and reddening
of right leg and heel; with enlarged tender glands behind the
knee, associated with an inflamed blister on the heel.[12] There
was cellulitis of the right leg, extending to the knee. Both legs
were considerably swollen (evidently due to failing heart), though
the patient and her sister, Lady Emily Lutyens, said this was much
less marked than on the previous day. The patient’s look of extreme
illness, malnutrition, and bad colour led me to examine her heart
carefully. This I found to be in a serious condition, considerably
larger than normal, with its apex beat in 6th intercostal space,
1½ inches beyond the nipple line; extremely irregular in force and
frequency, a marked difference between heart and pulse rate, due
to feeble transmission to terminal vessels. The heart sounds were
‘trembling’ in character. The pulse then (February 1, 1910, at 10.30
a.m.) and now is slow, small in volume and irregular; its rate varying
from 48 to 52 per minute. (There is perfectly clear evidence of mitral
disease of the heart, with præsystolic murmur.) The most superficial
examination of the heart cannot fail to reveal the grave risk to
health and life to which the patient was exposed during the forcible
methods of feeding recently adopted in Walton Gaol.”
Report by DR. MARION HUNTER (MRS. VAUGHAN), Plague Medical
Officer to Government of India, 1897–1898; Plague Medical
Officer to British Government in Egypt, 1899; Assistant
Medical Officer to London County Council (Education) 4½
years.
FOOTNOTE: [12] The shoes in Walton Gaol were exceptionally stiff,
even, as it seemed to me, for prison footwear. They hurt my feet
badly and made the heel of my right foot very sore. As I have told,
after I broke my gas-jet, the shoes were changed to comfortable
slippers, but I think this accounted for the blister after my
release, when my foot came to life again.
On Monday, January 31, Mr. Arthur Chapman wrote to Mr. Gladstone,
enclosing the statement which I had made, and begging for an interview,
in which he could explain matters to the full; this was refused. On
February 4 Mr. Chapman wrote again, appealing for a full and impartial
investigation. The following letter was received:--
“Please quote 187, 986/10,
“and address to the Under-Secretary of State,
“Home Office, London, S.W.
“HOME OFFICE, WHITEHALL,
“9th February, 1910.
“Sir,--With reference to your letter of the 31st ultimo, forwarding
statement made by Lady Constance Lytton, as to her treatment in H.M.
Prison, Liverpool, and your further letter of the 4th inst., I am
directed by the Secretary of State to say that he has caused careful
and detailed inquiry to be made by the Prison Commissioners into
the truth of the charges brought by Lady Constance Lytton against
the officers of the prison, and as the result of that inquiry he is
satisfied that those charges are without foundation and that there is
no justification for Lady Constance Lytton’s account of her experience
while she was in the prison.
“The Secretary of State cannot discuss her statements in detail. A
single instance must suffice. Lady Constance, with a view to showing
that her treatment as ‘Jane Warton’ differed from her treatment when
her identity was known, asserts that, whereas she was thoroughly
examined at Holloway and Newcastle Prisons and was found to be
suffering from heart disease, no attempt was made to examine her at
Liverpool before she was forcibly fed. On reception at Liverpool
Prison on the 15th ultimo, Lady Constance refused to allow herself
to be examined and told the deputy medical officer, who was on duty,
that she was quite well. He asked her a second time to allow him to
examine her and she again refused. His evidence on this point is
corroborated by that of the wardress who was present, and the matter
is placed beyond doubt by the entry ‘refused examination’ which was
made at the time in the medical reception register at the prison.
Before artificially feeding her for the first time, the senior medical
officer applied his ear to the chest wall and satisfied himself that
the condition of her heart was such that the operation of artificial
feeding could, in the absence of active resistance by the patient,
be performed without any immediate risk of injury to her health. In
this connection you will observe that the diagnosis of the medical
officers at Holloway and Newcastle, arrived at after thorough
examination, is fully confirmed by the report of Lady Constance
Lytton’s own medical attendant, which you have been good enough to
forward. ‘Jane Warton’s’ foolish conduct in refusing to allow herself
to be examined and the deception which deprived the medical officers
of all knowledge of the medical history of her case, must be held
responsible for the fact that the true condition of her heart remained
undiscovered while she was in Liverpool Prison. When it was found that
the injury to her health caused by her persistent refusal to take
food could not be prevented by artificial feeding, her discharge was
recommended by the medical officer and was authorised by the Secretary
of State, and this was done before anyone at the Home Office or at
the prison was aware of her identity. The statement that the medical
officer was guilty of slapping his patient’s face is utterly devoid of
truth, and can only be the outcome of the imagination.
“In these circumstances the Secretary of State does not consider
that any further inquiry as to the truth of the statements made
and published by Lady Constance Lytton is called for, and he must
therefore decline to accede to your request for further investigation.
“I am, sir,
“Your obedient servant,
“(Signed) EDWARD TROUP.”
“ARTHUR W. CHAPMAN, ESQ.,
“33, Whitehall Court, S.W.”
In this letter it seems to be thought that it does not matter
mis-stating things, provided the mis-statement is a small one, then the
small things can be added together. Even supposing everything to be
true in this letter, no mention is made of calling in the other doctor
five days before I was released, on purpose to test my heart. He did so
with a stethoscope on the heart itself, though anything but carefully,
and pronounced it quite sound.
Eighteen days after my release I called in Dr. Anders Ryman, of 4,
Wetherby Place, to give me Swedish treatment. He found that my heart
had regained its normal size, but he thought my condition too critical
for any but the very mildest form of treatment; insisted on my being
kept entirely in bed, absolutely quiet, and forbade all visitors or
letters being brought to me. He would not let me be moved to the
country for another four weeks, and, even after that, urged me to exert
myself as little as possible and only walk upstairs backwards. He
seemed to be alarmed at the great fluctuations between the heart beat
when still and when I moved or spoke.
During my imprisonment, the side of the jaw on which the gag was used
became painful and the whole mouth very sensitive, but five or six days
after release all swelling had subsided and pain was only occasional
and mild. About ten days after my release, the crown of my artificial
tooth broke away entirely. Owing to this and to sensitiveness in the
upper tooth affected, I did not use that side of my mouth in eating,
but I was unable to leave my bed to visit the dentist. Some time after
I was up the doctors urged upon me that I was still unfit to undergo
dental treatment. I went in March, but my dentist thought I could
not undergo any but a temporary treatment of the harmfully exposed
surfaces. It was not till April that full treatment was finally given;
that is why the date of the report made by the dentist is so long after
the release from prison:--
“10, PARK CRESCENT,
“Portland Place, W.,
“April 14, 1910.
“LADY CONSTANCE LYTTON.
“In order to restore the masticatory efficiency of the left side of
the lower jaw, a bridge consisting of one gold crown and two porcelain
crowns was constructed. This was attached in May, 1896, and has
continued in satisfactory condition until the application of a gag,
recently employed in forcible feeding, cracked and broke away the
face of the crown of the bicuspid on the lower jaw, also breaking the
enamel of the upper natural tooth.
“Sufficient force having been employed to occasion this damage, it was
feared that the root of the tooth which forms the front anchorage of
the bridge was split, but this is not the case, and the inflammatory
symptoms have now subsided.
“H. UREN OLVER.”
On February 3 came the news that Selina Martin and Elsie Howey were
released from Walton Gaol. I was by this time in bed and received no
news and no letters; when the information was brought to me, I felt
quite overwhelmed with joy. This release was more than three weeks
before their sentence had expired.
By the time the last letter had been received from the Home Office,
February 9, my eldest brother had returned from abroad, and he took
up the case. All his attempts to have a public inquiry failed. Mr.
Gladstone was relieved of the Home Office preparatory to taking up the
work of High Commissioner in South Africa, and my brother pleaded in
vain with everyone that had to do with the matter. In the meantime, the
W.S.P.U. was asked not to take up my case in any way for fear that the
authorities would thereupon refuse to listen, and a letter from Sir
Edward Troup to the _Times_, in which he said there was no foundation
for the declarations against the officials, remained unanswered.
On March 30, my brother had the following letter in the _Times_:--
“SIR,--On February 10 a letter was sent to the Press by Sir Edward
Troup, relative to a statement made by my sister, Lady Constance
Lytton, regarding her treatment in Liverpool Prison, in which he
declared on behalf of the Home Secretary that there was no foundation
for any of the charges which she had made. I am anxious to explain
why this official imputation of untruthfulness has hitherto remained
unanswered.
“Lady Constance was seriously ill at the time as the result of
her prison experiences, and unable to defend herself. I therefore
undertook the task of vindicating her veracity. Before making any
public statement on her behalf I was anxious to find out what steps
had been taken by the Home Office to investigate the matters referred
to in her statement, and I hoped by a friendly intervention to secure
a full and impartial inquiry into all the circumstances of her
treatment by the prison officials.
“I have had several communications with the Home Office on the
subject, and owing to the retirement of Mr. Gladstone and the
appointment of a new Home Secretary, they have necessarily been
protracted over a considerable period. My attitude throughout has
been entirely conciliatory, and the only claim which I have made was
that in the interests of justice, charges of this nature should be
submitted to a full and impartial inquiry which would, of course,
involve a separate examination of both the parties concerned. This
claim has been refused by the Home Office on the grounds that the
prison officials have been closely interrogated, and that as they deny
entirely every one of the charges made, ‘no useful purpose would be
served’ by granting my request.
“In the absence of such an inquiry as I asked for, the matter must
be left to the opinion of unbiassed minds. I desire, however, to say
that nothing which I have been able to learn has in any way shaken my
belief in the substantial accuracy of my sister’s account. The idea
that her charges can be disposed of by the bare denial of the persons
against whom they are made, is not likely to commend itself to anyone
outside the Home Office, and no amount of denial can get over the
following facts:--
“1. Lady Constance Lytton, when imprisoned in Newcastle, after
refusing to answer the medical questions put to her and adopting the
hunger-strike, received a careful and thorough medical examination,
which disclosed symptoms of ‘serious heart disease,’ and on these
grounds she was released as unfit to submit to forcible feeding.
“2. Three months later ‘Jane Warton,’ when imprisoned at Liverpool,
also refused to answer medical questions or to take prison food. On
this occasion she was entered in the prison books as having refused
medical examination, and was forcibly fed eight times. Such medical
examination as took place during the forcible feeding failed,
according to the medical officer’s report, to disclose any symptoms of
heart disease, and she was eventually released on the grounds of loss
of weight and general physical weakness.
“These facts are incontrovertible, and though the Home Office is quite
satisfied that in both cases the prison officials performed their
duty in the most exemplary fashion, your readers will form their
own opinions of the justice of a Government Department which brings
accusations of untruthfulness against an individual whilst refusing
the only means by which the truth can be established.
“I am, your obedient servant,
“LYTTON.”
My brother did not give up his efforts till in April Mr. Winston
Churchill, the new Home Secretary, who was well known to him, came to
stay at Knebworth, his country place. Mr. Churchill read through the
whole case, until he came to the report of the letter to my mother
written on the slate. “’Twould be hopeless,” he said, “to bring forward
any complaint with this letter in the background.” I don’t know, of
course, what they had made of it, as it had been rubbed out long ago,
but I know that I had not told my mother anything of the treatment. I
had said that the forcible feeding was “only pain”--so it was.
In the autumn of this year, 1910, I had a slight heart-seizure. I got
out of bed in the morning, and was taken with paralysis down one side.
I could not move for about an hour, when I managed to crawl back to
bed. I had a nurse for six weeks and then it was over.