“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.