SEPTEMBER TO OCTOBER, 1909
THE ARRESTS AT BIRMINGHAM; FORCIBLE FEEDING IN WINSON GREEN GAOL. MR.
KEIR HARDIE'S PROTEST; OPINIONS OF MEDICAL EXPERTS; RESIGNATION OF MR.
BRAILSFORD AND MR. NEVINSON.
And now on September 17th the Prime Minister was going up to Birmingham
to hold a meeting of 10,000 people at the great Bingley Hall. A "bower
bedecked" special train was to carry the Cabinet Ministers and Members
of Parliament up north straight from their duties in the House, and
back again. Tremendous efforts were being made to work up enthusiasm
for at this meeting, Mr. Asquith was to throw down his challenge to
the House of Lords, to proclaim that their power of veto should be
abolished, and that the will of the people should prevail. But the
Suffragettes were determined that, if the freedom to voice their will
were to be confined to half the people alone, there should be no peace
in Birmingham for the Prime Minister.
Mrs. Leigh and her colleagues, who were organising there, began by
copying the police methods so far as to address a warning to the public
not to attend Mr. Asquith's meeting, as disturbances were likely to
ensue, and immediately the authorities were seized with panic. A great
tarpaulin was stretched across the glass roof of the Bingley Hall, a
tall fire escape was placed on each side of the building and hundreds
of yards of firemen's hose were laid across the roof. Wooden barriers,
nine feet high, were erected along the station platform and across all
the leading thoroughfares in the neighbourhood, whilst the ends of
the streets both in front and at the back of Bingley Hall were sealed
up by barricades. Nevertheless, inside those very sealed up streets,
numbers of Suffragettes had been lodging for days past and were quietly
watching the arrangements. At the same time outside in the town a
vigorous propaganda campaign was being carried on by their comrades,
and this culminated in an enthusiastic Votes for Women demonstration in
the Bull Ring the day before the great Liberal meeting.
When Mr. Asquith left the House of Commons for his special train,
detectives and policemen hemmed him in on every side, and when he
arrived at the station in Birmingham, he was smuggled to the Queen's
Hotel by a back subway a quarter of a mile in length and carried up
in the luggage lift. In the hotel he took his meal alone in a private
room away from his guests. Though guarded by a strong escort of mounted
police he thought it wisest not to enter the hall by the entrance at
which he had been expected. Meanwhile tremendous crowds were thronging
the streets and the ticket holders were watched as closely as spies in
time of war. They had to pass four barriers and were squeezed through
them by a tiny gangway and then passed between long lines of police
and amid an incessant roar of "show your ticket." The vast throngs
of people who had no tickets and had only come out to see the show,
surged against the barriers like great human waves and occasionally
cries of "Votes for Women" were greeted with deafening cheers.
Inside the hall there were armies of stewards and groups of police
at every turn. The meeting began by the singing of a song of freedom
led by a band of trumpeters. Then the Prime Minister appeared. "For
years past the people have been beguiled with unfulfilled promises,"
he declared, but during his speech he was again and again reminded,
by men of the unfulfilled promises which had been made to women; and,
though men who interrupted him on other subjects were never interfered
with, these champions of the Suffragettes were, in every case, set upon
with a violence which was described by onlookers as "revengeful," and
"vicious." Thirteen men were maltreated in this way.
Meanwhile amid the vast crowds outside women were fighting for their
freedom. Cabinet Ministers had sneered at them and taunted them with
not being able to use physical force. "Working men have flung open the
franchise door at which the ladies are scratching," Mr. John Burns
had said. So now they were showing that, if they would, they could
use violence, though they were determined that, at any rate as yet,
they would hurt no one. Again and again they charged the barricades,
one woman with a hatchet in her hand, and the friendly people always
pressed forward with them. In spite of a thousand police the first
barrier was many times thrown down. Whenever a woman was arrested the
crowd struggled to secure her release and over and over again they were
successful, one woman being snatched from the constables no fewer than
seven times.
Inside the hall Mr. Asquith had not only the men to contend with, for
the meeting had not long been in progress, when there was a sudden
sound of splintering glass and a woman's voice was heard loudly
denouncing the Government. A missile had been thrown through one of
the ventilators by a number of Suffragettes from an open window in a
house opposite. The police rushed to the house door, burst it open
and scrambled up the stairs, falling over each other in their haste
to reach the women, and then dragged them down and flung them into
the street where they were immediately placed under arrest. Even
whilst this was happening there burst upon the air the sound of an
electric motor horn which issued from another house near by. Evidently
there were Suffragettes there too. The front door of this house was
barricaded and so also was the door of the room in which the women
were, but the infuriated Liberal Stewards forced their way through and
wrested the instrument from the woman's hands.
No sooner was this effected however than the rattling of missiles was
heard on the other side of the hall, and, on the roof of a house,
thirty feet above the street, lit up by a tall electric standard was
seen the little agile figure of Mrs. Leigh, with a tall fair girl
beside her, both of whom were tearing up the slates with axes, and
flinging them on to the roof of the Bingley Hall and down into the
road below, always, however, taking care to hit no one and sounding a
warning before throwing. The police cried to them to stop and angry
stewards came rushing out of the hall to second this demand, but the
women calmly went on with their work. A ladder was produced and the
men prepared to mount it, but the only reply was a warning to "be
careful" and all present felt that discretion was the better part
of valour. Then the fire hose was dragged forward, but the firemen
refused to turn it on, and so the police themselves played it on the
women until they were drenched to the skin. The slates had now become
terribly slippery, and the women were in great danger of sliding from
the steep roof, but they had already taken off their shoes and so
contrived to retain a foothold, and without intermission they continued
"firing" slates. Finding that water had no power to subdue them, their
opponents retaliated by throwing bricks and stones up at the two women,
but, instead of trying, as they had done to avoid hitting, the men took
good aim at them and soon blood was running down the face of the tall
girl, Charlotte Marsh, and both had been struck several times.
At last Mr. Asquith had said his say and came hurrying out of the
building. A slate was hurled at the back of his car as it drove away,
and then "firing" ceased from the roof for the Cabinet Minister was
gone. Seeing that they had now nothing to fear the police at once
placed a ladder against the house and scrambled up to bring the
Suffragettes down and then, without allowing them to put on their
shoes, they marched them through the streets, in their stockinged
feet, the blood streaming from their wounds and their wet garments
clinging to their limbs. At the police station bail was refused and the
two women were sent to the cells to pass the night in their drenched
clothing.
Meanwhile, amid the hooting of the crowd, Mr. Asquith had driven away
through the town and as the special train in which he was to return to
London, left the station, a shower of small stones rattled against his
carriage window, whilst a great bar of iron was flung into an empty
compartment in the rear. The two women who had done these things were
at once seized by the police and were also obliged to pass the night in
the cells, whilst six who had been arrested in the crowd earlier, met
the same fate.
Eventually eight of the women received sentences of imprisonment
varying from one month to fourteen days, whilst Charlotte Marsh was
sent to prison for three months' hard labour, and Mrs. Leigh for four.
We knew that Mrs. Leigh and her comrades in the Birmingham Prison would
carry out the hunger strike, and, on the following Friday, September
24th, reports appeared in the Press that the Government had resorted
to the horrible expedient of feeding them by force by means of a tube
passed into the stomach. Filled with concern the committee of the
Women's Social and Political Union at once applied both to the prison
and to the Home Office to know if this were true but all information
was refused.
The W. S. P. U. now made inquiries as to the probable results of this
treatment, and were informed that it was liable to cause laceration of
the throat and grave and permanent injury to the digestive functions,
and that, especially if the patient should resist, as the tube was
being inserted or withdrawn there was serious danger of its going
astray and penetrating the lungs or some other vital part. The whole
operation, together with all the attendant circumstances, could not
fail to put a most excessive strain upon the heart and the entire
nervous system, and, if there were any heart weakness, death might
ensue at any moment. In the _Lancet_ for September 28th, 1872, a
case was reported of a man under sentence of death, who had been
forcibly fed by means of the stomach pump, that is to say by means of
an india-rubber tube passed through the mouth into the stomach, the
method used in the case of the Suffragettes. The man had died. In the
same issue of the _Lancet_, appeared the opinion upon this question of
several prominent medical men. Dr. Anderson Moxey, M.D., M.R.C.P., had
said: "If anyone were to ask me to name the worst possible treatment
for suicidal starvation I should say unhesitatingly, forcible feeding
by means of the stomach pump." Dr. Tennant stated that this method of
feeding produced "an incentive to resistance," and that the exhaustion
thereby introduced was sometimes so great as to cause death by syncope.
Dr. Russell had met with a case in which death had occurred immediately
after the placing of the tube "before it could be withdrawn, much
less used"; and Dr. Conolly was "appalled by the dangers resulting
from the forcible administration of food by the mouth." Amongst the
various important medical experts consulted by The Women's Social and
Political Union was Dr. Forbes Winslow, whose wide experience in cases
of insanity could not be questioned. When asked professionally to give
his views on the subject he said:
So far as the stomach pump is concerned it is an instrument I have
long ago discontinued using, even in the most serious cases of
melancholia, where the victim, perhaps from some religious delusion,
refuses all nourishment. It possibly may be regarded by some as
the most simple means of administering food, but this I challenge
by saying at once that it is the most complicated and the most
dangerous.... I have known some of the most serious injuries inflicted
by the persistent use of the stomach pump. I have known a case in
which the tongue has been partly bitten off where it has been twisted
behind the feeding tube.
He added that forcible feeding was especially dangerous in cases of
heart or lung weakness or of rupture or hernia, and that the result
of persistent use would be to seriously injure the constitution, to
lacerate the parts surrounding the mouth, to break and ruin the teeth.
[Illustration: Forcible Feeding with the Nasal Tube]
When the House of Commons met on Monday we learnt that our fears
were only too well founded for Mr. Keir Hardie drew from Mr.
Masterman, who spoke on the Home Secretary's behalf, the admission
that the Suffragettes in Winson Green Gaol were being forcibly fed
by means of a tube which was passed through the mouth and into the
stomach and through which the food was pumped. The unprecedented and
outrageous nature of the assault was glossed over by the use of the
term, "Hospital treatment," in connection with it. Mr. Masterman
admitted, however, that there were no regulations which authorised the
proceeding, but he stated that it was resorted to in the case of men
and women prisoners who were "weak minded" or "contumacious."
Mr. Hardie's indignant protest and reminder that the last man prisoner
to whom such treatment had been meted out had died under it, were met
with shouts of laughter by the supporters of the Government. Horrified
by their heartless and unseemly levity in the face of so serious a
question, he at once addressed a statement to the Press in which he
declared that he "could not have believed that a body of gentlemen
could have found reason for mirth and applause" in a scene which had
"no parallel in the recent history of our country." As far as he could
learn, no power to feed by force had been given to prison authorities,
save in the case of persons certified to be insane. He concluded by
warning the public of the danger that one of the prisoners would
succumb to the so-called "hospital treatment," and by appealing to the
people of these islands to speak out ere our annals had been stained by
such a tragedy.
Others hastened to second this protest. Mr. C. Mansell-Moullin, M.D.,
F.R.C.S., wrote to _The Times_, as a hospital surgeon of thirty years'
standing, to indignantly repudiate Mr. Masterman's use of the term
"hospital treatment," declaring that it was a "foul libel" for that
"violence and brutality have no place in hospitals as Mr. Masterman
ought to know." Dr. Forbes Ross of Harley Street wrote to the Press
saying:
As a medical man, without any particular feeling for the cause of the
Suffragettes, I consider that forcible feeding by the methods employed
is an act of brutality beyond common endurance, and I am astounded
that it is possible for Members of Parliament, with mothers, wives and
sisters of their own, to allow it.
A memorial signed by 116 doctors, headed by Sir Victor Horsley,
F.R.C.S., W. Hugh Fenton, M.D. M.A., C. Mansell-Moullin, M.D.,
F.R.C.S., Forbes Winslow, M.D., and Alexander Haig, M.D., F.R.C.P.,
was organised by Dr. Flora Murray and addressed to Mr. Asquith,
protesting against the artificial feeding of the Suffragette prisoners,
on the ground that it was attended by the gravest risks and was
both unwise and inhuman. To this memorial many of the doctors added
descriptive notes of their own. Mr. W. A. Davidson, M.D., F.R.C.S.,
wrote: "A most cruel and brutal procedure. Were the tubes clean? Were
they new? If not they have probably been used for people suffering from
some disease. The inside of the tube cannot well be cleaned; very often
the trouble is not taken to clean them."[40]
In spite of every form of discouragement and ridicule, Mr. Keir Hardie
continued constantly to raise the question of forcible feeding in the
House of Commons only to be met by evasive, and sometimes grossly,
inaccurate replies from the Home Office. Mr. Gladstone tried to shelter
himself behind the officials who were his subordinates, and to place
the responsibility on the medical officers. For this he was strongly
condemned by the _British Medical Journal_ which characterised his
conduct as contemptible.[41]
In reply to the protests of medical men and the memorial from doctors,
which had been addressed to him, Mr. Gladstone succeeded in drawing
a statement from Sir Richard Douglas Powell, the President of the
Royal College of Physicians, who said that he thought the memorial
exaggerated, though he admitted that forcible feeding was not "wholly
free from possibilities of accident with those who resist." He added
that, in dissenting from the view expressed by the memorialists, he was
assuming that the feeding of the prison patients was "entirely carried
out by skilled nursing attendants under careful medical observation and
control." We, of course, know that this was not the case.
A large number of doctors, including Dr. R. G. Layton, physician to the
Walsall hospital, replied to Sir Douglas Powell by again recapitulating
the dangers of forcible feeding. But indeed the opinions of medical
men were unnecessary to those who afterwards came in contact with the
women who had been forcibly fed. Their exhausted condition was a form
of evidence that no argument could upset. It is important to note also
that during the year 1910 two ordinary criminals, a man and a woman,
were subjected to forcible feeding. The man died during the first
operation; the woman committed suicide after the second.
Meanwhile the bulk of the Liberal Press were defending the action
of their Government. The _Daily News_ had acclaimed Vera Figner for
assaulting one of the Russian prison officials in order to secure
better conditions for her fellow captives. It had characterised as
the "one healthy symptom in Spain" the revolt of the Spanish people
against their Government in regard to the Riffian War though this
revolt had entailed the burning down of convents full of women and
children who were in no way responsible for the trouble, and other
dread acts of violence. At the same time in regard to events at home
this paper was declaring that, if the House of Lords were to tamper
with the Irish Land Bill, there would be "no wonder if all the old
methods of cattle-driving and other violence were revived in Ireland."
Yet the _Daily News_ had had nothing but chiding and dispraise for the
hunger strikers, and, in regard to forcible feeding, it now said, "it
is the only alternative to allowing the women to starve themselves."
Thus the two most obvious ways out of the difficulty, firstly, that
of treating the women as political prisoners, and, secondly, the more
reasonable one of extending the franchise to women and thus ending the
strife, were entirely ignored.
Revolted by the hypocritical and inconsistent attitude of this paper,
two of its foremost leader writers and of the ablest journalists in
this country, Mr. Henry Nevinson and Mr. H. N. Brailsford, resigned
their posts upon its staff, writing publicly to explain their reasons
for so doing. Many sincere Liberals resigned their memberships and
official posts under the Liberal Association including the Rev. J.
M. Lloyd Thomas, Minister of the High Pavement Chapel, Nottingham,
resigned from the Liberal Association, and there were many other
resignations, amongst them the following: Mrs. Catherine C. Osier, the
President, Miss Gertrude E. Sothall, the Hon. Sec., and Mrs. Alice
Yoxall, the Treasurer of the Birmingham Women's Liberal Association;
Mrs. S. Reid, the chairman of the Egbaston Women's Liberal Association;
Lady Blake, the President of the Berwick Women's Liberal Association;
and Mrs. Branch, one of the most prominent members of the Northampton
Women's Liberal Association. At the same time prominent men and women
of all shades of opinion, including Mrs. Ayrton, Flora Annie Steel,
Lady Betty Balfour, the Rev. J. R. Campbell and the Hon. H. B. T.
Strangeways, ex-premier of South Australia appealed to the Government
to give votes to women and bring this useless warfare to an end.
Meanwhile, except for the admissions of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Masterman
in the House of Commons, nothing definite was known as to the condition
of the outraged prisoners. No direct communication had been held
with them and even a petition from their parents and relatives to be
allowed to send their own medical attendant into the prison, had been
refused. The fearful anxiety and suspense endured by all concerned may
well be imagined. Again and again Messrs. Hatchett, Jones, Bisgood and
Marschall, the solicitors engaged to act on the prisoners' behalf,
applied for permission to interview their clients, but Mr. Gladstone
obstinately refused until he was informed that legal proceedings were
being taken for assault against him and the Governor and Doctor of the
Birmingham Prison, and that writs were being issued, and that Miss
Laura Ainsworth would shortly be released so that the full details
would be known in any case. Thus at last he grudgingly consented to
the interview, and sworn statements were made by all the women. Mrs.
Leigh explained that on arriving at Winson Green Gaol on Wednesday,
September 22nd, she had broken her cell windows as a protest against
the prison treatment. As a punishment she was thrust that evening into
a cold dimly lit punishment cell. A plank bed was brought in and she
was forcibly stripped and handcuffed with the hands behind during the
day, except at meal times when the palms were placed together in front.
At night the hands were fastened in front with the palms out. Potatoes,
bread and gruel were brought into her cell on Thursday but she did
not touch them and in the afternoon she was taken, still handcuffed,
before the magistrates who sentenced her to a further nine days in the
punishment cell. At midnight on Thursday, her wrists being terribly
swollen and painful, the handcuffs were removed.
She still refused food and on Saturday she was taken to the doctor's
room. Here is her account of the affair:
The doctor said: "You must listen carefully to what I have to say.
I have my orders from my superior officers" (he had a blue official
paper in his hand to which he referred) "that you are not to be
released even on medical grounds. If you still refrain from food I
must take other measures to compel you to take it." I then said:
"I refuse, and if you force food on me, I want to know how you are
going to do it." He said: "That is a matter for me to decide." I said
that he must prove that I was insane; that the Lunacy Commissioners
would have to be summoned to prove that I was insane. I declared
that forcible feeding was an operation, and therefore could not be
performed without a sane patient's consent. He merely bowed and said:
"Those are my orders."
She was then surrounded and held down, whilst the chair was tilted
backwards. She clenched her teeth but the doctor pulled her mouth away
to form a pouch and the wardress poured in milk and brandy some of
which trickled in through the crevices. Later in the day the doctors
and wardresses again appeared. They forced her down on to the bed, and
held her there. One of the doctors then produced a tube two yards in
length with a glass junction in the centre and a funnel at one end.
He forced the other end of the tube up her nostril, hurting her so
terribly that the matron and two of the wardresses burst into tears and
the second doctor interfered. At last the tube was pushed down into
the stomach. She felt the pain of it to the end of the breast bone.
Then one of the doctors stood upon a chair holding the funnel end of
the tube at arm's length and poured food down whilst the wardresses
and the other doctor all gripped her tight. She felt as though she
would suffocate. There was a rushing, burning sensation in her head,
the drums of her ears seemed to be bursting. The agony of pain in the
throat and breast bone continued. The thing seemed to go on for hours.
When at last the tube was withdrawn, she felt as though all the back of
her nose and throat were being torn out with it.
Then almost fainting she was carried back to the punishment cell and
put to bed. For hours the pain in the chest, nose and ears continued
and she felt terribly sick and faint. Day after day the struggle
continued; she used no violence but each time resisted and was overcome
by force of numbers. Often she vomited during the operation. When the
food did not go down quickly enough the doctor pinched her nose with
the tube in it causing her even greater pain.
[Illustration: Lady Constance Lytton before she threw the stone at New
Castle, October 9th, 1909]
On Tuesday afternoon she heard Miss Edwards, one of her fellow
prisoners, cry from an open doorway opposite, "Locked in a padded cell
since Sunday." Then the door was shut. She applied to see the visiting
magistrates, and appealed to them on behalf of her comrade, saying that
she knew her to have a weak heart, but was told that no prisoner could
interfere on another's behalf. She protested by breaking the windows
of the hospital cell to which, owing to her weakness, she had now been
taken, and was then thrust into the padded cell as Miss Edwards was
taken from it, the bed which she had occupied being still warm. The
padded cell was lined with some India rubber-like stuff, and she felt
as though she would suffocate for want of air. She was kept there till
Wednesday, still being fed by force.
On Saturday she felt that she could endure the agony of it no longer,
and determined to barricade her cell. She piled up her bed and chair,
but after three hours men warders forced the door open with spades.
Then the chief warder threatened and abused her and she was dragged
back to the padded cell.
In Miss Ainsworth's case the feeding was done through the mouth. Her
jaws were pried open with a steel instrument to allow of the gag being
placed between her teeth. She experienced great sickness, especially
when the tube was being withdrawn.
Miss Hilda Burkitt's experiences were very dreadful. She had already
fasted four days and was extremely weak when she was seized by two
doctors, four wardresses and the matron, who tried for more than half
an hour to force her to swallow from the feeding cup. Then a tube was
forced up her nose, but she succeeded in coughing it back twice and at
last, very near collapse, she was carried to her cell and put to bed
by the wardresses. "This will kill me sooner than starving," she said,
"I cannot stand much more of it, but I am proud you have not beaten me
yet." Still suffering greatly in head, nose and throat, she was left
alone for half an hour and the matron and wardresses then returned to
persuade her to take food. On her refusal they said, "Well, you will
have to come again; they are waiting." "Oh, surely not the torture
chamber again," she cried; but they lifted her out of bed and carried
her back to the doctors, who again attempted to force her to drink
from the feeding cup. Still she was able to resist and then one of
them said, "The Home Office has given me every power to use what force
I like. I am going to use the stomach pump." "It is illegal and an
assault; I shall prosecute you," was her reply, but as she spoke a gag
was forced into her mouth and the tube followed. She had almost fainted
and felt as if she were going to die, and now for some reason the tube
was withdrawn without having been used, but in her great weakness the
officials were now able to overcome her resistance and to pour liquid
into her mouth with the feeding cup.
This sort of thing went on day after day. On Thursday morning she was
unconscious when they came into her cell, and they succeeded in feeding
her. During the night she was in agony. She told the doctor he had
given her too much food and cried: "For mercy's sake, let me be, I am
too tired," but brandy and Benger's food were forcibly administered.
During the whole month she only slept four nights.
But the story of these sufferings had no power to influence the
Government. They were determined to persevere with the forcible feeding
and were so far from abandoning this hateful form of torture, that,
evidently thinking the women who had won their way out of prison by the
hunger strike had been let off too easily, they proceeded to rearrest
a number of them upon the most flimsy charges. Evelyn Wurrie, who had
been arrested with Mrs. Leigh and the others, but afterwards discharged
by the magistrate, had been refused bail between the time of her arrest
and trial and kept for seventeen hours as an ordinary prisoner in the
insanitary police court cells. She might have been thought, therefore,
to be entitled to claim damages for wrongful arrest and detention, but
was nevertheless rearrested because she had broken the cell window
to obtain more air, and was sentenced either to pay a fine of eleven
shillings or go to prison for seven days. She chose imprisonment, but
her fine was paid by a member of the Birmingham Liberal Club. Miss Rona
Robinson, Miss Florence Clarkson, Miss Georgina Heallis and Miss Bertha
Brewster, who had all gone through the hunger strike in Liverpool,
were also summoned for breaking their cell windows, in spite of the
fact that they had already been severely punished in prison for these
offences. On their refusal to answer to the summons, warrants were
issued for their arrest. Rona Robinson, who was said to have committed
damage to the extent of two shillings, was arrested on October 15th
in Manchester, and was taken the same night to Liverpool. Though her
doctor had certified her to be suffering from laryngeal catarrh and
a weak, irregular action of the heart, she was sent back to prison
for fourteen days' imprisonment in the third division. Owing to the
state of her health, the Liverpool authorities refused to take the
responsibility of feeding her by force and she was accordingly released
after a fast of seventy-two hours.
The other warrants were not executed for some time; that against Miss
Florence Clarkson being held over until December, when she happened to
notify the Manchester police of a burglary that had taken place in the
W. S. P. U. offices in that city. She was then immediately arrested
on the old charge; bail was refused and she was kept in custody from
Saturday to Monday, when she was punished by a further fortnight's
imprisonment for having committed damage to the value of 6d. three
months before. After three days (on December 15th), she was released in
a state of complete collapse. The warrant against Miss Bertha Brewster
was held over until January, when she was sentenced to six weeks' hard
labour to pay for her 3/9 damage.
[Illustration: Arrest of Miss Dora Marsden outside the Victoria
University of Manchester, October 4th, 1909]
FOOTNOTES:
[40] Mr. Gladstone afterwards stated in the House that the tubes were
carefully cleaned and kept in boracic solution between each operation,
but Miss Dorothy Pethick, who was imprisoned in Newcastle, saw the tube
lying open and exposed in a basket in the reception room.
[41] The _British Journal of Nursing_ stated that even under the
most favourable circumstances forcible feeding required "delicate
manipulation," and that it was an operation which should only be
performed by medical practitioners or trained nurses and pointed out
that the prison wardresses were quite unqualified to take part in it.