Lady Constance Lytton

by Lyndsey Jenkins

  The next day, 8 October 1909, the suffragettes carried out their plans with methodical precision. Despite Constance’s misgivings, Winifred managed to throw a stone right outside the Liberal Club, where Lloyd George was due to speak. Kitty Marion and Dorothy Pethick threw stones at the Post Office windows. Four others smashed the windows of the Liberal Club. Jane Brailsford hid an axe in a bunch of chrysanthemums, sauntered up to the barricades lining the route and swung her weapon in full view of the police. Constance and Emily Wilding Davison waited by the side of the road, stones in hand, for Lloyd George himself to arrive, inwardly agitated though outwardly calm. Wrapped around their stones was a message to Lloyd George: ‘Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.’51 This was a passionate conviction of some suffragettes: they were justified in disobeying the government because they were carrying out God’s will.

  Then a rumour swept along the crowd lining the street: Lloyd George was going in by a different route. Emily and Constance hesitated. What should they do now? They decided to abandon the symbolic triumph of striking Lloyd George’s car and simply get themselves into prison by striking any car that came their way.

  A feeling came over me that I could not wait any longer, and that somehow or other I must throw my stone … One thing, however, I was determined upon – it must be more zealously done, more deliberate in its character than the stone-throwing at ordinary windows which had been done lately. I was determined that when they had me in court my act should inevitably be worse than that of other women.52

  This was partly because her dedication had now reached such extreme heights that even throwing a stone must be done perfectly, with reverence, just as Christabel would want. But it also reflected more practical concerns: Constance would give the authorities no chance to give her favourable treatment or a lesser sentence.

  She took careful aim at the next official-looking vehicle that passed, throwing her stone at the wheels to avoid accidentally hitting any spectators. That was all it took. The police descended immediately and arrested them both, ‘and as they passed down Northumberland Street to the Central Police Station thousands of eyes were attracted to them’, ran the report in Votes for Women, which described the day’s events as ‘the battle for Newcastle’.53 To her chagrin, Emily didn’t even get a chance to throw her stone and so was eventually acquitted. Constance was charged with assault, malicious injury to the car and disorderly behaviour in a public place. She was delighted. ‘I felt very exalted to think I had done so much, and though that three months was the least they could give me.’54 The press were equally pleased. ‘Lady Constance Lytton, who recently wrote letters in her own blood from prison, has again been cast into the dungeon,’ The Times reported with relish.55

  The women regrouped in the magistrate’s court and wrote a joint letter to The Times.

  We want to make it known that we shall carry on our protest in our prison cells. We shall put before the Government by means of the hunger strike four alternatives: – To release us in a few days; to inflict violence on our bodies; to add death to the champions of our cause by leaving us to starve; or, and this is the best and only wise alternative, to give women the vote.

  Constance also wrote her own letter, giving her address as Cell No. 2, Central Police Station, Newcastle, and imploring other women to follow their example: ‘Our violence and our suffering will not always be linked with the symbols of shame. In the days to come it is not those who have fought in this good fight but those who have stood out from it that will be branded with disgrace.’56 Imagine Edith’s horror as her beloved daughter not only threw stones but encouraged others to do likewise. Nevertheless, she telegrammed immediately: ‘We uphold you shall work for you God bless you,’ as did her sisters, who wrote ‘God Bless You I go to mother. Could I get to you in time tomorrow endless love Emily’ and, simply, ‘Wire if I can do anything.’57 Constance wrote back to Betty to say, ‘I quite understand all that the disapprovers feel. But to me the rightness and usefulness of our action seems to me so clear and sure.’ To Edith she said, ‘My darling Mummy need not feel ashamed nor afraid for me. All is well, and except for the thought of you I am Oh so happy.’58

  Constance and Jane Brailsford, by far the best-known and best-connected of the suffragettes in their group, were given lighter sentences than the others, even though their actions had arguably posed a greater risk to the public. ‘A sickening assembly of snobs defending snobbish action,’ Constance wrote scornfully of the court.59 They were sent to the second division. Winifred, who had caused only a pound’s worth of damage to a window (and was a first offender), was given hard labour. They let this point go, since they had at least achieved their objective and got themselves into prison. They immediately went on hunger strike. Constance observed the prison activity through a light-headed haze, though she was alert enough to note that Newcastle Gaol seemed more humane than Holloway. The prison staff were kind, and the prisoners were less downtrodden, almost more like servants than inmates. Conditions, though, were worse than in Holloway. The cells were dark and dirty and smelling; there was no bedding and Constance slept on a plank. In typical fashion, Constance wrote to the Home Secretary to complain that there were fleas in her knickers.60

  After two days, when Constance heard footsteps approaching, she was sure the moment was at hand. ‘I stood in the corner of my cell with my arms crossed and my fingers caught in my nostrils and my mouth. It was the best position I knew of for them not to be able to feed me by nose or mouth without a considerable struggle.’61 Constance was puzzled when the doctor only tested her heart and left again. Later that day she and Jane were suddenly released, both on grounds of ill health. This set alarm bells ringing. Constance undoubtedly did have a weak heart but Jane was young and strong. What they shared was not physical illness but public profile and political connections. It seemed that the authorities were not willing to gamble on force-feeding prominent women who were well placed to kick up a fuss.

  Having mentally prepared themselves for force-feeding, Constance and Jane found it hard to come to terms with being released. They felt extremely guilty about their comrades still in prison. In yet another letter to The Times, they asked:

  We left behind us in Newcastle prison several women much younger than ourselves, to whom, certainly in one case, if not in two or three, the risks from starvation are much greater than they were to us. Four of our friends who were sentenced on October 9 were already being forcibly fed; their cries of protest and distress reached us in our cells. What has a Liberal Government to say, what has public opinion to say, in defence of such glaring partiality and injustice?62

  When their comrades were released and told their stories, Jane and Constance felt even worse. Dorothy Pethick had been horrified to find that the tubes were not even cleaned properly in between feedings.63 Dorothy Shallard had been tied to a chair with a sheet and held down by three wardresses while she was fed through the nose. Kitty Marion had chewed through her pillow and set the contents alight with the gas jet in her cell, starting a fire. She was already unconscious when discovered. Each woman was told the other hunger strikers had given in and begun eating but they knew this was a lie: they could hear the screams and shrieks of other force-feedings through the wall.64 Even Emily Davison, who had been so disappointed at missing out in Newcastle, had gone straight out and got herself arrested again so that she could complete her mission. Faced with the prospect of force-feeding, she barricaded herself into her cell, whereupon the prison wardens turned a freezing hosepipe on her and burst down the door, tore her soaking clothes off and fed her through the nose. Once out of prison, she sued the prison authorities for this shocking violence, but the judge ruled she was only entitled to token compensation since the incident had provided her with good copy for the papers.65 All this had been endured while Constance and Jane were safe and well outside.

  Progressive opponents of the government seized on this apparently blatant example of double standards. Henry Brailsford wrote to T
he Times to say that ‘if forcible feeding is too horrible for some it is too horrible for all’. George Bernard Shaw also wrote to The Times on behalf of the Fabian Society, congratulating Gladstone on refusing to force-feed Constance Lytton and suggesting he do the same for all other women. If not, Shaw invited Gladstone to enjoy a delicious banquet with him: to be taken through the nose.66

  The government refused to take the bait. Gladstone declared to Parliament that ‘there is not the slightest ground for the insinuations which are being freely made that Lady Constance Lytton was released because she was a peer’s sister. She was released solely on medical grounds.’67

  Still suffering the after-effects of her hunger strike – shaking legs and poor digestion – Constance stepped out on the platform of the Queen’s Hall to tell her story to the assembled suffragettes. ‘I got hold of the audience, felt they were with me, and that something of all that is burning in my soul got out to them,’ she wrote ecstatically afterwards. Emily was there, and told Edith, with some pride, that everyone had cried. Edith was pleased that the speech had gone down well, but was bitter about what she saw as the leaders egging on their innocent followers, and deeply worried about where this would all end. ‘When the misguided ones take to shooting, besides trying to commit suicide, it will be misery and agony, no matter what forcing it brings on any government.’68 Similarly, Margot Asquith asked Frances Balfour, ‘Is Connie off her head? … Poor, poor Connie when I think of that fragile, excitable, unbalanced creature going in for this kind of life my heart aches for her.’69 But what did this matter when her true supporters loved her more than ever? Olive Schreiner wrote to say how impressed she was with those fighting for their freedom: ‘I am always so glad I didn’t die before the Suffragette movement began, because now I know that my highest hopes for women on Earth will ultimately be reached.’70 Constance also received this letter from an anonymous comrade:

  Women like ourselves who from force of circumstances are unable to take a place in the fighting line do very sincerely appreciate the noble self-sacrifice and devotion of those like yourself, Marie Leigh, [sic] and the other brave women who are ready to face even the barbarous tortures inflicted by the so-called Liberal Government.71

  These were the women she was fighting for and she resolved to fight on. The last weeks of the year were spent criss-crossing the country: to Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, then finishing the year in Churchill’s constituency, Dundee. ‘It’s the best possible practice for speaking to never stop,’ she concluded.72

  Betty went on her own tour for the non-militants, speaking to audiences ‘of fashionable (at any rate large-hatted) ladies’. She reported back to Arthur Balfour – ‘Dearest Chief’ – on the sentiments she found, and encouraged him to let Conservative candidates speak their mind on the issue, even if he didn’t make women’s suffrage official policy. He did not respond. In Edinburgh, Betty made a moving speech on suffrage, saying that while she couldn’t support militant tactics, ‘they had made people like her feel that the time had come when those who were in favour of the enfranchisement of women could no longer sit with hands folded and let others fight the battle’.73

  In early December, Constance met with a Liberal MP to discuss fair treatment for suffragette prisoners and was disgusted to discover just how afraid of the suffragettes he was, and how misplaced his priorities were. He asked whether Mary Leigh was likely to really kill anyone. Constance, instantly fired up, asked whether the government was likely to kill Mary, for that seemed to her far more likely. She described this angrily to Neville’s old friend Edward Marsh, now Winston Churchill’s private secretary.

  This and the like injury and torture to many other women, the over 400 other imprisonments of the last 3 years, the assaults and violent maltreatment by police … and all you have to ask or say when you see me is ‘are we safe, d’you think, Winston and I – what degree of hurt might possibly happen to us?’74

  On 9 December, there was a meeting at the Royal Albert Hall to celebrate Mrs Pankhurst’s return from America. Medals were presented to those women who had been on hunger strike during the year. The women processed up in alphabetical order, so Kitty Marion, dressed in black, followed Constance Lytton, dressed in white. Kitty, as an artist, was pleased to note the aesthetic contrast she made, and said that ‘it was an honour in itself, to walk in the footsteps of that great, noble soul’.75 But walking up to the platform, Constance must have been aware that her hunger strike, lasting just a couple of days, paled in comparison to the efforts of the women around her. She was determined to truly earn her medal.

  NOTES

  1 Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence: My Part in a Changing World, p. 240.

  2 Christabel Pankhurst, 6 April 1909, Balfour Papers, National Archives of Scotland, GD433/2/338/32–33.

  3 Elizabeth Crawford, The Women’s Suffrage Movement in Britain and Ireland: A Regional Survey (Routledge, 2006), p. 107.

  4 Martin Pugh, The Pankhursts, p. 210.

  5 A photograph of the occasion can be seen at www.bathintime.co.uk/image/251611/suffragette-emmeline-pethick-lawrence-planting-with-annie-kenney-&-lady-constance-lytton-23-april-1909, accessed 26 January 2015.

  6 ‘Tackle Hertfordshire’ and ‘do something’ are from Constance Lytton to Annie Kenney, 23 April 1909, KP/AK/2/LyttonC/5; admiration for Annie Constance Lytton to Annie Kenney, 4 May 1909, KP/AK/2/LyttonC/6; ‘terror-making claws’ in Constance Lytton to Annie Kenney, 27 May 1909, KP/AK/2/LyttonC/7.

  7 Votes for Women, 7 May 1909, Vol. 2, p. 625.

  8 Votes for Women, 21 May 1909, Vol. 2, p. 690.

  9 Daily Mail, 13 May 1909, p. 3.

  10 Constance Lytton to Betty Balfour, 12 May 1909, National Archives of Scotland, GD433/2/338 Balfour Papers.

  11 Constance Lytton to Teresa Earle, 17 June 1909, in Betty Balfour (ed.), Letters of Constance Lytton, p. 164.

  12 Constance Lytton to Herbert Gladstone, 5 August 1909, in British Library Add MS 46067/118.

  13 See the Arthur Balfour papers Add 49793 in the British Library.

  14 Dorothy Gladstone to Betty Balfour, Knebworth Archive, 41972.

  15 Constance Lytton to Teresa Earle, 23 April 1909, in Betty Balfour (ed.), Letters of Constance Lytton, p. 163.

  16 Edwin Lutyens to Emily Lutyens, 16 August 1909, quoted in Clayre Percy and Jane Ridley, The Letters of Edwin Lutyens to his wife Lady Emily, p. 178.

  17 Edwin Lutyens to Emily Lutyens, 9 August 1909, quoted in Clayre Percy and Jane Ridley, The Letters of Edwin Lutyens to his wife Lady Emily, p. 173.

  18 Betty’s comments from Betty Balfour (ed.), Letters of Constance Lytton, p. 155; letter from Emily Lutyens to Teresa Earle in Betty Balfour (ed.), Letters of Constance Lytton, p. 159.

  19 Victor Lytton, 15 June 1909, speech at St James Theatre, quoted in Marie Mulvey-Roberts and Tamas Mizuta, The Militants: Suffragette Activism (Routledge, 1994), p. 1.

  20 Quoted in C. M. Woodhouse, unpublished biography of Victor Lytton, p. 80.

  21 Davinia Woodhouse 8/SUF/B/051.

  22 Constance Lytton, The Times, 14 July 1909.

  23 Michelle Myall, Flame and Burnt Offering, p. 135.

  24 This was Marion’s second attempt at this action: the first time she had just been escorted off the premises.

  25 Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette Movement, p. 307 and Frank Meeres, Suffragettes, p. 79.

  26 Christabel Pankhurst to C. P. Scott, 22 July 1909, quoted in Martin Pugh, The Pankhursts, p. 193.

  27 Lisa Appignanesi, Mad, Bad and Sad, p. 434; see also p. 428.

  28 Emmeline Pankhurst, My Own Story, p. 153.

  29 Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette Movement, p. 312.

  30 Private Secretary to Herbert Gladstone, 13 August 1909, quoted in Joyce Marlow, Votes for Women: The Virago Book of Suffragettes, p. 94.

  31 For an account of Mary’s story, see Michelle Myall, ‘No Surrender: The militancy of Mary Leigh, a working-class suffragette’, in Maroula Joannou and June Purvis, The Women’s Suffrage Mo
vement: New Feminist Perspectives (Manchester University Press, 1998), p. 174; the figures are from Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette Movement, p. 319. For Mary Leigh’s statement to her solicitor, see Midge Mackenzie, Shoulder to Shoulder (Alfred A Knopf, 1975), p. 126.

  32 Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette Movement, p. 441.

  33 Gladstone in the National Archives HO144/1038/180782/71, quoted in J. F. Geddes, ‘Culpable Complicity: the medical profession and the forcible feeding of suffragettes’, in Women’s History Review, Vol. 17, No. 1 (2008), p. 82.

  34 On 4 October 1909; for a copy of the letter see Joyce Marlow, Votes for Women: The Virago Book of Suffragettes, p. 97.

  35 J. F. Geddes, ‘Culpable Complicity: the medical profession and the forcible feeding of suffragettes’, in Women’s History Review, Vol. 17, No. 1 (2008), p. 83.

  36 The Times, 29 September 1909.

  37 Frances Balfour to Betty Balfour, 2 October 1909, Balfour Papers, National Archives of Scotland, GD/433/2/339/19.

  38 Eleanor Cecil to Constance Lytton, 4 October 1909, Balfour Papers, National Archives of Scotland, GD/433/2/339/21.

  39 Sandra Stanley Holton, Suffrage Days: Stories from the Women’s Suffrage Movement (Routledge, 1996), p. 146.

  40 Emmeline Pethick-Lawrence, My Part in a Changing World, p. 242.

  41 Sylvia Pankhurst, The Suffragette Movement, p. 312.

  42 Michelle Myall, Flame and Burnt Offering, p. 138; see also Constance Lytton to Annie Kenney, 22 September 1909, KP/AK/2/LyttonC/9.