The Suffragette

  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injury to the digestive functions, and that, especially if the patient should resist, as the tube was being inserted or withdrawn there was serious danger of its going astray and penetrating the lungs or some other vital part.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.

  Forcible Feeding with the Nasal 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.

  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.”1

  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.2

  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 Presid
ent 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, among 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 grudingly 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.

  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 c
ell 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.