Back to index of Nerve 15 - Winter 2009

Force Feeding and the Suffragettes

By Doreen Burns

In the fight for women’s right to vote, angry demonstrations occurred not only in the streets of London but all around the country, including Liverpool.

There were two wings to the campaign – the Suffragists and Suffragettes. The Suffragists (National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies 1897) were law abiding and relied on educational work, petitions, public meetings and consistent lobbying of MPs. The Suffragettes (Women’s Social and Political Union 1903) were associated with a more militant approach. They believed that peaceful methods had proved to be ineffective and thus their motto became “deeds not words”.

Both groups were strongly committed to the same aim, the right to political representation - Votes for Women.

It was an amazing movement with a scale and complexity that required keen organisation. Campaigns were conducted with imagination and innovation in spite of intense government opposition. The women were stereotyped as being middle class, well-educated and privileged, but working class women played their part too, some committing acts of civil disruption and serving the prison sentences that followed. Whether rich or poor, these women showed extraordinary bravery and made great sacrifices for their cause.

Both wings of the suffrage movement recognised how the vote could be used to improve conditions as well as establish women’s rightful place in society.

This article focuses on the authorities’ response to the Suffragettes who went on hunger strike in prison, in protest at being treated as criminals. These women suffered force-feeding in their attempt to gain political prisoner status. This painful and degrading procedure was administered with a shocking disregard for the welfare of these women. In Liverpool, 20 Merseyside women suffered imprisonment and force feeding for their support of ‘Votes for Women’. Their names are on the Roll of Honour of the WSPU.

The Suffragettes adopted increasingly radical tactics in the face of government intransigence. Public property became the target – they smashed windows, set fire to post-boxes and bombed some unoccupied buildings. These actions occurred around the country and protesters were imprisoned, irrespective of class and background. The official line of the prison authorities was that all prisoners were treated alike, a claim which Lady Constance Lytton, an active Suffragette, challenged. She had been released from Newcastle Prison in October 1909 after only two days. She was not forcibly fed. In contrast, some two months later, two working class women, Selina Martin and Leslie Hall, were forcibly fed while on remand in Walton Gaol, despite the fact that it was contrary to the law to treat remand prisoners in this way.

Lady Constance was determined to expose the level of violence suffered by all who were imprisoned but particularly by poorer women at this time. In January 1910 she travelled to Liverpool disguised as Jane Warton, a working class seamstress, and began her protest against force-feeding, outside Walton prison. She was arrested and imprisoned but this time experienced none of the courtesies shown to her as Lady Constance Lytton.

She was force-fed eight times in the two weeks that she was held before her true identity was discovered and she was released. She wrote about her experiences, describing the process of being held down by wardresses as a doctor inserted a four foot long tube down her throat. Seconds after the tube was down, she vomited over her hair, clothes and the wall, yet the ordeal continued until all the liquid had been emptied into her stomach. As the doctor left “he gave me a slap on the cheek”, Constance recollected, “not violently, but, as it were, to express his contemptuous disapproval.” The point about the differential prison treatment of women from differing social backgrounds had been proved. Lady Constance never really recovered from the ordeal. She suffered a heart attack in 1910 and a stroke in 1912. She continued to campaign against force-feeding and for prison reform, and died in 1923, aged 54.

In January 1910 Rose Howey was force-fed in Walton prison. The following was written by James Barr, a doctor writing to the Prison Commissioners in 1910. This account is important, because it gives the lie to the claim that the doctors were force-feeding the women to save their lives; here, the doctor is making it clear that the woman was far from death when she was force-fed.

“Liverpool January 29th 1910
The Prison Commissioners

Gentlemen,
I have the honour to report that today I saw and examined Rose E.N. Howey at H.M.Prison Walton, in consultation with Dr Price. I also took part in the artificial feeding by tube.
Rose E.N. Howey is about 25years of age; a spare, fair complexioned woman but highly neurotic. She was sentenced on January 15th to six weeks imprisonment. From the records I find that on committal she weighted 114lbs and today she weighs 108lbs. Her height is 5ft 5in. Her lungs and heart are quite healthy; respiration quiet; pulse 72 regular, blood circulations active. Tongue clean, teeth good, no swelling of stomach, bowels regular; menstrual periods regular; knee jerks excessive. Her throat is rather small and slightly granular but not inflamed. She evidently had in childhood post-natal adenoids, but her nostrils are now quite free. On passing the tube there was slight spasm at the upper end of the throat 5 to 6 inches from the teeth; this no doubt increases the discomfort of the passage of the tube, but it can be easily got over by using a fine moderately stiff tube. Personally I would be inclined to leave her without food for two or three days and by that time the spasms will have passed off.
Any ordinary individual can survive with only water for a couple of weeks and there is no damage to life in a healthy individual from any loss of body weight up to 25 per cent, including the weight of the clothing. This woman can afford to lose 23lb without any risk.”

Not all doctors shared this cold, heartless approach to force-feeding, as evidenced in the following ‘ABSTRACT OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT BY THE BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL 1912’

‘Prisoners were held down by force, flung on the floor, tied to chair and iron bedsteads, while the tube was forced up the nostrils.
The Wardress endeavoured to make the prisoner open her mouth by sawing the edge of the cup along the gums; the broken edge caused the lacerations and severe pain.
Food in the lung of one unresisting prisoner immediately caused severe choking, vomiting with persistent coughing. She was hurriedly released the next day suffering from pneumonia and pleurisy. We cannot believe that any of our colleagues will agree that this form of prison treatment is justly described in M.McKenna’s (the Home Secretary’s) words as “necessary medical treatment” or “ordinary medical practice.”

Pressure was mounting against force-feeding and the government’s response seemed cynically pragmatic. The Prisoners Temporary Discharge for Health Act (nicknamed the Cat and Mouse Act) was introduced in 1913 to ensure that no hunger strikers died in prison. Hunger strikers who became dangerously ill were released so that they could be nursed back to health and were then re-arrested to complete their sentence.

The militant tactics of the Suffragettes have drawn much attention over the years, but perhaps it would be more useful to focus on the aggressive response of the authorities to the protest. How contradictory was this approach, given that women’s so-called physical and mental frailty was frequently given as a reason for their unsuitability to vote?

The Suffragettes presented one of the earliest recorded examples of a collective use of hunger striking in the fight for a political cause: for a voice, a right to be included in society, a right to be equal!

Research from:
1) Votes for women, by Marij van Helmond – The events on Merseyside 1870-1928 (foreword by Margaret Simey).
2) The Suffragettes in pictures, by Diane Atkins.
3) Information about the suffragettes on the internet. For instance try: www.bbc.co.uk/archive/suffragettes

Printer friendly page

Sorry Comments Closed

Comment left by Julie Robertshaw on 10th May, 2010 at 18:07
A well written and researched article highlighting an often violent and interesting part of Liverpool history. It makes me vote in every election knowing how the Suffragettes suffered and acted so selflessly.

Comment left by catreena moore on 8th February, 2011 at 15:17
it is a realy good story and i will all ways remember it

Comment left by Richard Stephens on 23rd June, 2011 at 12:35
A very nicely written piece about something I knew nothing of before. I was struck by the very brave actions of Lady Constance Lytton. Enjoyed reading it.

Comment left by Madelaine Kirke on 28th December, 2011 at 11:18
Rose Howey is my husband's cousin and this article gives insight into what she went through for my right to vote.

Comments are closed on this article