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.

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.