​Evelyn Cheshire, an alias for Evelyn Taylor who will be discussed in a later blog.

The next entry is Ada Chatterton who was one of eleven women arrested in December 1906, the amnesty record erroneously records the month as November. Five suffragettes managed to enter unhindered the Central Hall of the Houses of Parliament. Ejected by the police, other women joined them in Old Palace Yard. The police attempted to navigate the women towards Parliament Street. One by one they resisted the women were arrested including Jennie Baines (see earlier blog). The charges against Ada were behaving in a disorderly manner and resisting arrest.

Ada, wearing a blouse with buttons inscribed with Votes for Women, and Jennie was the first in the dock. The police were at pains to point out they had tried patiently to move the women along and had no desire to see them sent to prison, if fines were not paid, over the Christmas period. Ada was fined twenty shillings or fourteen days in prison. Ada refused to pay the fine. From prison, she sent the message conveyed by Edith Howe Martyn and Christabel Pankhurst who were allowed to visit the prisoners: ‘I have gone to prison to help to get better conditions for working women and to get equal pay for equal work for schoolteachers. I shall continue to fight till such reforms are carried.’ After her visit to Holloway, Prison Edith gave an interview to the press; the women were being treated as Division I prisoners allowed ‘books, newspapers and sewing materials’ but were not permitted to converse and were in solitary cells.

Some of the women were released just after Christmas. They recounted being fed brown bread, a sample of which was produced for the reporter who described it as ‘a queer, bricklike thing’, three potatoes and an unidentifiable soup for lunch on Christmas Day. One observed that she had never been to chapel so much in her life having been required to attend twice a day. Another commented on the incongruity of receiving Christmas cards from a women’s mission with messages written in red ink such as ‘Keep from strong drink’ or You have been Satan’s captive, dear sister.’ Ada, it was believed, was in the sanitorium. Ada was released on 31 December.

Ada gave an interview to the Manchester Evening News. Like others, she complained that the journey from court to prison was ‘horrible’ with seventeen prisoners, men and women, cooped up with little ventilation. Ada spent her first night in a cell, but a bad cough led to the medical officer admitting her to the sanitorium. Recounting the ‘milk, beef tea, custard, fish and bread and butter’ she was fed, her fellow inmates exclaimed ‘What luxuries.’ Ada was moved back to an ordinary cell but complained about the noise from the nearby padded one so was relocated into a room with non-suffragette prisoners whose company she enjoyed.

Early in February, the following year, a group of suffragettes attended a Liberal meeting at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester where Winston Churchill was to speak. The Manchester Courier described the treatment of Adela Pankhurst, Mary Gawthorpe and Ada as ‘brutal.’ The venue had been filled with what the newspaper described as ‘Liberal chuckers-out’ to deal with any interruptions. The suffragettes in the audience listened attentively to Churchill’s speech before rising to ask questions. Several men interrupted but were allowed to remain. When Emmeline Pankhurst rose to ask her question, several stewards attempted to eject her but desisted when Churchill agreed to respond. He then invited Mary onto the platform but as arms stretched out to help her up, the stewards tugged her down. She fell back into the crowd and ‘was badly knocked about.’ Adela asked a question but when she attempted a second the stewards dragged her out pushing her down a flight of stairs. The reporter noted that Mary’s face ‘bore evidence of the treatment she had received.’ Ada who attempted to ask Churchill to complete answering Emmeline’s question ‘was struck … under the chin with [a fist.’ She was pushed from the hall protesting at the treatment Mary was receiving: ‘You shall not do this without my protest.’ As Ada spoke, a man scooped her up, carried her down the stairs and threw her into the gutter.

A week later Ada was arrested in London for her part in the demonstration which accompany an attempt to present a petition to the Prime Minister. Ada refused to stand in the dock as she was tired. The magistrate permitted her to sit. From her chair, Ada kept up a loud chatter during the evidence forcing the magistrate to delay her case. When she was requested to vacate the dock, Ada replied ‘Don’t touch me. I am not so tired as to be unable to get up when I think I will in my own time.’ This drew laughter from the onlookers and supporters in the gallery. The policeman carried Ada from the court as she called out ‘Oh, this is lovely!’ Later, when Ada returned to the dock, she pleaded not guilty. She was fined forty shillings or one month imprisonment in the first division. A witty reporter headed his article ‘Chattering Mrs Chatterton;’ another observed that Ada neither by name or nature ‘appears to endorse the opinion of Sophocles that ‘women are adorned by silence.

Ada was released from Holloway Prison on 27 February. The reason for her early release is not known. The WSPU placed a brass band outside the gates of the prison which played for an hour before the women were released. Accompanied by songs such as Men of Harlech and As we go marching home, the women made their way to Holborn for a celebratory breakfast.

On 21 March Ada was arrested, one of seventy-six, for a third time, again in connection with an attempt to enter the House of Commons. Ada made a complaint against the police alleging that a policeman had deliberately tripped a woman up as they were marching towards Parliament Square. Ada was sentenced to one month in prison without the option of a fine. Florence Macaulay, WSPU, who visited the women in prison reported that Ada ‘is quite cheerful and unrepentant.’

The following November there was a by-election in the Kingston upon Hull West constituency caused by the resignation of the Liberal Member of Parliament who had succeeded to his father’s title. Ada joined the suffragette campaign during the election. 

Ada joined other members of the WSPU at a series of meetings. Seconding a resolution Ada observed that in her view ‘some compelling power had caused magistrates to be severe in their sentences on the women who are at present in gaol.’ Several suffragettes including Ada organised a meeting in Albert Square, Manchester, despite a ban such gatherings. The police arrived as Ada began to speak. After a brief scuffle, one of their number, Mrs Robinson, was arrested. Ada was, by now, the literature secretary of the Manchester Branch of the WSPU, encouraging women to sell Votes for Women as she would ‘much rather send cash to headquarters every week rather than returns.’ As the summer wore on the WSPU organised a demonstration as part of the specific Manchester campaign in Heaton Park. A preliminary demonstration was held in the same location and the branch was thrilled at the attendance of around ten thousand. Two platforms were erected, one of which Ada spoke from. It was concluded that ‘the feelings of the meetings were a substantial guarantee to the interest which will be displayed’ at the forthcoming demonstration. Again, Ada was to speak.

When Christabel Pankhurst wrote a history of the suffrage movement to date published in Votes for Women Ada was described as ‘a Manchester working woman.’ There is no mention of Ada either in the national, local or suffrage newspapers after 1908. The official files give the year of birth as 1857 which the majority of the newspapers also record. This would make Ada roughly fifty years old which potentially ties up with the newspaper picture above. One newspaper reports that Ada lived in Portland Street, Manchester but no trace has been found. All the records and newspaper reports note that Ada was married but again, this does not assist.

​If anyone can help, please do get in touch.
 

Florence Chapman or Charman is the next entry in the amnesty record. She was arrested during May 1914. As the dawn of the First World War drew nearer detailed reports of the suffragette trials became less of a regular feature in the press; Florence’s trial is an example. Nor do the official records provide sufficient detail to trace her any further.

Whether or not this is the correct Florence the following tale of family angst arising from suffrage activities deserves inclusion. Alfred Nicholls of Harborne in Birmingham appeared before the magistrates in connection with a request for the issue of a summons for the arrest of Florence, his sister-in-law, on assault charges.  Alfred testified that his wife, Melinda, had been unwell and in a weak moment he had invited Florence to their home to care for her sister while she was indisposed. Florence was a militant suffragette and her influence on his wife and daughter was so strong they had become estranged from him, refusing to cook his meals. Alfred repeatedly asked Florence to leave to no avail.

Alfred was not having his laundry done for him either. Deciding that a clean shirt and collar were a necessity he took matters into his own hands setting to mix the starch he needed. Florence burst into the kitchen, finding Alfred busy at his laundry, she launched into a tirade and hit him with a walking stick leaving him with three or four cuts on his head and face. Terrified Alfred locked himself in his bedroom. Florence said that she could not leave Melinda as she was consumptive. The magistrates adjourned the hearing for a week. It would be resumed if Florence did not leave.

What happened next is unclear. However, the sisters remained close. In 1939 they are recorded living together in Coventry. There is no sign of Alfred.

The following entry is Henry Chase who was arrested in October 1908 and charged with assault which took place during an attempt to ‘rush’ the House of Commons. Henry was arrested alongside Winifred Bray, Elizabeth Billing, and Kathleen Browne, to name a few of the around forty detained.

In court, evidence was given that Henry had been ‘very violent’ while attempting to break through a police cordon. Found guilty, he was fined a total of £25 and bound over to keep the peace for one year; in the alternative, he was imprisoned for six weeks.

There are sufficient details to trace Henry any further.

If you have any more information, please do get in touch.

The next entry is M F Chanot arrested in July 1909; her full name was May Florence. No records have been found of the charges or sentence which came about from her part in a demonstration in the environs of the Houses of Parliament.
 
May was born in 1886 in Marylebone. Her father, Frederick, founded F W Chanot, a music publisher specialising in scores for the violin while also being well-known for his skills as a luthier. Frederick and his wife, Emily, had eight children; seven of whom were alive at the time of the 1911 census. Their two daughters, Emily, born in 1882, and May were both involved in the suffrage movement.

By the time of the 1901 census, the family were living on Holloway Road, north London. The two sisters are mentioned in two editions of Votes for Women during January 1910 when they helped during the general election campaign. The Liberal candidate secured a majority of thirty-one votes over the Conservative. An article in the newspaper credited this ‘very narrow margin’ as ‘striking proof of the strength of the women’s campaign.’

During the few days before the vote, the Holloway Branch held over thirty meetings and on election day a decorated wagon toured the constituency travelling from one polling station to another, each of which was manned by several women. Emily and May along with others such as Florence Spong were mentioned for their ‘most devoted help.’

No further mention has been found of either of the sisters in Votes for Women thereafter. However, neither is recorded on the 1911 census.

​May married George Saint-George in 1913. Emily went on the be involved with the Church Suffrage League serving as secretary and sub-editor of the Church Militant from 1921 to 1927.

May died in 1982 in New Zealand.

Constance Chambers was arrested in March 1912 for insulting behaviour. She was fined forty shillings and bound over to keep the peace for twelve months. No further information has been locate

​Helen Cave nee Cooke, full name Helen Cassandra, was arrested in November 1911. Born in Great Budworth, Cheshire, to Samuel, a vicar, and Nina, the family moved to Northbourne, Kent in 1870 when Helen’s father was appointed to the local church. Samuel died in 1877, leaving Nina a widow with six children: three sons and three daughters. In February 1892, Helen married Edward Cave, a widowed doctor. They settled in Bath and a daughter; Nina born in 1893.

Helen became involved with the Bath Branch of the WSPU. She is first mentioned in Votes for Women, 18 November 1910, donating to the £100,000 fund. Helen donated, to the local branch,  jars of marmalade and raised further funds by selling sweets While Edward and Nina are included in the 1911 census return Helen is not; her intention to be excluded clear from a speech she gave at a gathering of the Bath Branch where Jane Brailsford also spoke (see earlier blog). Helen undertook to sell Votes for Women every Saturday in Radstock, a town close to Bath. Clearly persuasive, she extracted a promise from a local newsagent to display a suffragette poster and undertook to organise all the advertising for a WSPU jumble sale.

In June, the WSPU organised The Women’s Coronation Procession which brought together many suffrage groups. The estimated attendance was over 40,000. The procession marched, led by Charlotte Despard, from Westminster to the Albert Hall. Helen along with sisters, Grace and Atehel Tollemache and Miss Frederici distributed handbills advertising the march. The following month, Helen hosted an At Home addressed by Dr Mary Morris.

Helen was arrested, the following November, for obstruction alongside Atehel. Found guilty, she was fined five shillings or in the alternate five days in prison.  Helen elected to go to prison. Mary Blathwayt, a keen supporter of the suffrage campaign, lived at Eagle House in the village of Batheaston, not far from Bath. Mary and her husband made their summerhouse available, known as the Suffragette Retreat, to women released from prison, often after hunger striking, for recuperation. Nearby, trees were planted to mark individual suffragette achievements which became known as Annie’s Arboretum, after Annie Kenney. In all around fifty trees were planted. The last was by Helen. Mary became appalled at the increasingly militant actions of the suffragettes and encouraged Helen to step back. While she continued to donate to the WSPU funds Helen took no further direct part in the campaign.

​
 

​Helen died in 1925. When her husband passed away nine years later, he bequeathed £6000 to St Bartholomew’s Hospital to fund an entrance scholarship for students to be known as the Helen Cave Memorial Scholarship. 

James Cassidy was arrested during May 1914. He was charged with obstruction in connection with a demonstration outside Buckingham Palace. His address was reported at Lacey Road, Putney. 

No further records have been located.

If you know any more please get in touch.

Eileen Casey or Irene Casey or Eleanor Cleary, the latter two both aliases, was arrested during March 1912, March 1913, and October 1913. The fight for the vote was a family enterprise with Eileen’s mother, Isabella, also appearing on the amnesty record and her sister, Kathleen, mentioned numerous times in the suffragette press. As it becomes clear below, it is often unclear whether mother or daughter was the arrestee.
Eileen, 1881, was the eldest of four children born to Philip, a doctor, and Isabella. Philip worked as a P&O ship’s doctor before settling in Australia where the couple married. Eileen, Kathleen, and a brother Edmond were born in Australia.  Another son, born in Ireland, died as a baby. By 1901 the family had returned to London settling in Kew.

The first record of Eileen’s involvement is a donation to the WSPU £100,000 and General Election Funds. She became involved with the Richmond and Kew Branch addressing meetings where the audiences were described as ‘attentive and most sympathetic’. Votes for Women notes that Eileen was Captain of the Victoria pitch where she successfully sold copies of the newspaper. Eileen’s motivation, she explained, was that she had been born in a country where women could vote and the same should be true in Britain.

The press reports that Eileen was arrested and charged with obstruction during November 1910, Black Friday, when all the charges were dropped against the numerous suffragettes detained as the Government feared extensive adverse publicity as the numerous cases wended their way through the courts. However, the amnesty record attributes the arrest to her mother, Isabella. Adding to the confusion is a statement given to Henry Brailsford and Jessie Murray, who investigated the travails of Black Friday, headed Isabella Casey.: ‘One policeman caught me by the collar of my coat and flung me on the pavement, spraining my leg. Note by Dr Murray: Mrs Casey was so knocked about that she fainted on arrival at Caxton Hall. She was lame for two weeks’.

Isabella subscribed to Votes for Women, a newspaper she had delivered by her local newsagent. Eileen’s amnesty record indicates she was arrested on 2 March 1912 and Isabella on 11 March. Isabella was charged with breaking windows valued at £5 in Oxford Street. The sentence was two months with hard labour. Eileen’s charge was breaking a window at the department store Marshall and Snelgrove valued at £140 which, it was alleged, she had done alongside Olive Walton. She was sentenced to four months in Holloway Prison. Due to the number of women prisoners they were sent to Holloway, Aylesbury, Maidstone, or Winson Green prisons. Isabella, however, does not appear on any of the lists of inmates and it is unclear what sentence she received. However, it is known that she did spend time in Holloway as she is a signatory on the embroidered handkerchief now on display at the Priest’s House Museum, Dorset.

Eileen went on hunger strike. Although, no reports have been located of her treatment or release.
Eileen was arrested again in March 1913 charged with putting a noxious fluid into a letter box in Villiers Street. A policeman approached Eileen requesting that she accompany him to the letter box. Eileen responded that she had only poured water through the opening but on examination a white liquid was found around the edge which appeared to be the same as the white opaque liquid in her possession. She was sentenced to two months.

During May 1913 seven suffragette leaders were charged with conspiracy to cause damage to property. One piece of evidence was an envelope on which was written ‘Ex-prisoners invited to Albert Hall, April 10 1913’. Inside were numerous replies accepting or declining the invitation; one was from Eileen who declined, writing ‘If you would like I should be pleased to be at the Albert Hall, but someone paid my fine and I had only one day’s imprisonment. I will join the ex-prisoners, but I hardly thought I ought to come amongst them under the circumstances’. Eileen had been released on 18 March.

Both of Eileen’s parents were involved in circumstances surrounding the arrests of Kitty Marion and Clara Giveen on suspicion of having loitered to commit a felony. A policeman had followed the two women, in the early hours of the morning, along the streets of Kew eventually asking them where they wanted to go. The women informed him they wished to go to the bridge by the gasworks- they often, kept late hours as Kitty was an artist. The two set off again; still being followed by the policeman. Kitty and Clara then asked him the way to Kew Gardens Station. They followed his directions but rather than entering the station crossed the nearby railway bridge entering 25, West Park Road, the home of Eileen’s parents. An observation was mounted, and a warrant granted. When the police entered the house, Kitty was lying fully clothed on a sofa downstairs; Clara also dressed was lying on a bed upstairs surrounded by suffragette literature. Isabella had given the two women a latch key as they had thought they might be late back. The magistrate declined to remand both women in prison as the evidence was insufficient. Granted bail; the magistrate assured them it was in order to attend Emily Davidson’s funeral as this would not breach the bail condition of no suffragette activities. A few days, later Kitty and Clara were charged with arson at Hurst Park.

Isabella was a witness at their trial. She knew Clara but had not previously met Kitty. Clara had asked if she could stay over if they missed the last train together with a friend. Given the late hour the two women might return Isabella gave Clara a key. She did not ask any details about Clara’s friend. The prosecution responded ‘What? They were going to occupy your house? They are suffragists’. Isabella replied ‘That is good enough for us. We will trust anyone who is a suffragist’.  The case was sent to the Assizes. The prosecution pointed out that it was strange that Kitty and Clara had been wearing cloaks when they entered Isabella’s home, but Clara’s had not been seen since. Isabella did not recollect Clara’s outer garment.

During September 1913 Eileen and her sister, Kathleen were charged with setting fire to a letter box in Peel Square, Bradford. In 1910 Kathleen had married Charles Holtam, a bank cashier. Eileen was denied bail but, on an undertaking, to be of good behaviour Kathleen, who was seven months pregnant was freed, pending a further hearing. The evidence was that a young man called Thomas Artus had seen two women near the letter box whom he later identified as Eileen and Kathleen. One pushed something into the aperture which began to emit smoke. Later, two glass test tubes, containing phosphoric acid, wrapped in paper which was burning were found in the letter box. The matter, after an initial hearing, was referred for trial on 3 October with, this time, both sisters being granted bail. The Bradford Branch of the WSPU rallied supporters to attend the hearing. Kathleen, she stated, had been moving to Huddersfield where her husband had been transferred. Eileen had come to help. Kathleen had not seen her sister do anything nor had she been party to any wrongdoing. Eileen was found guilty and sentenced to three months with hard labour, Kathleen was acquitted. The suffragettes in court cried out ‘Shame. Votes for Women’.

Eileen was sent to Armley Goal. She sent a statement to the Suffragette detailing her time in prison. Eileen refused food and water from the day of her trial, a Friday. The following Tuesday the prison wardress realised that Eileen was not taking any water. This was the day attempts were made to take her fingerprints. She locked her fingers together. As Eileen struggled five wardresses blindfolded her, held her by the waist and grabbed her arms in an attempt to take a satisfactory print; all of this was witnessed by the prison governor, matron, and medical officer. Eileen describes herself as ‘very prostrate … unable to walk’ – two wardresses had to help her back to her bed. Her statement concludes with a long-reasoned argument about force-feeding. By the 7th Eileen was still refusing food and water; her condition was described as ‘decidedly weaker’. The following day it was noted she had lost nine pounds since admission and was now walking with ‘some difficulty’. The medical officer considered that Eileen could be force-fed without detriment. The medical report for the 9th recommends discharge as ‘nervous symptoms’ had appeared.
 
Eileen was released, having refused food for six days, on a nine day licence under the Cat and Mouse Act into the care of Mr and Mrs Bowers of Frizinghall. The Globe, a few weeks later, reported that Eileen had gone missing. Mrs Bowers informed the police, when they visited her home on the expiration of the licence, that Eileen had gone out and not returned. Claims were made that the police had failed to mount surveillance. Eileen purportedly left disguised ‘in a silk hat and frock coat, in imitation of a medical man’, similarly attired to the two doctors who had regularly attended since her discharge from gaol. Kathleen had now moved to Huddersfield where the police now mounted a watch and journalists jostled for information. Kathleen informed one she had not seen her sister; ‘as far as she knew, she might be in Timbuctoo’. Kathleen gave birth to a baby girl, baptised Eileen, on 19 November.

Eileen was not found until the middle of June, the following year. King George and Queen Mary were undertaking a three-day tour of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, and Yorkshire. Police were drafted in from all three counties. An officer from Bradford recognised the woman, in his lodgings, as Eileen. In consequence, she was placed under surveillance. When she was spotted examining a grandstand which had been erected for the Royal visit and then making a telephone call; she was arrested. The police also claimed to have seen Eileen in the company of a suffragette the previous evening. At the police station Eileen, who was carrying a green suitcase, was searched, and placed in the cells where she smashed the windows and refused food or water. Her suitcase was found to contain:
Four 1/4lb packets of cheddite (an explosive)
Twenty feet of fuse
Fuse matches and two other boxes of matches
A bottle of benzine
Two bundles of firelighters
Two electric flash lamps
A glass cutter, pliers, chisel, trowel, rubber shoes, scissors
A street map of Nottingham with the market place marked
A map of Derbyshire
A motorcycle road map
A map of the Home Counties
Views of Derbyshire churches including one of a church recently burnt at Breadhall
A guide to Southwell Cathedral
Suffragette Literature
One newspaper dubbed Eileen ‘A Walking Arsenal’.

​At her initial appearance in court, charged with loitering with intent to commit a felony, Eileen kept up ‘a constant chatter’ making it hard for the witnesses to be heard. She shouted out ‘I protest against being here, and shall not be quite’. Remanded in prison, she gripped the handrail of the dock so tightly she had to be forcibly wrenched free. The court was filled with suffragettes including Charlotte Marsh who, protesting at Eileen’s treatment, was removed kicking and screaming from the court. Initially, Eileen was committed to Bagthorpe Jail in Nottingham but was then transferred to Holloway Prison from where she was taken to appear again at court in the city where she had been charged. Suffragette support gathered but women were refused admittance. Again, Eileen kept up a continuous monologue. The police informed the court that discussions were taking place with the Attorney General to bring charges under the Explosives Act. Placed on further remand, Eileen shouted ‘No surrender, women, no surrender. They are forcibly feeding me at Holloway Prison three times a day’.

Reports on the official files record the force-feeding. Below are extracts from reports that record a process that took place twice a day:
27 June Fed Nasal tube. Very resistive. Retained all food. General condition satisfactory
30 June Very resistive. Retained all food
2 July (the day Eileen was taken to Nottingham) Fed twice by nasal tube. Retained all food
3 July Resistive. Retained all food
7 July Resistive. Fed nasal tube. Retained all food.

A week later, Eileen was again taken from Holloway Prison to court in Nottingham for a charge under the Explosives Act to be added along with wilful damage of six panes of glass in her cell. Again, Eileen chatted throughout the proceedings. This time she was sent to Winson Green in Birmingham. The admission report on 9 July notes ‘a thin anaemic looking woman with a patch of lupus (a sore) on her left cheek…Mentally calm and composed.’ Eileen was taking water but refusing food. On admission she was fed by nasal tube, a process which was repeated three times the following day: ‘She resists being prepared for the feeding but is quite passive during its progress’. Eileen weighed just under seven and half stone, six pounds less than when she was arrested. Five days after her admission the medical officer reported that force-feeding three times a day had led to a gain of three pounds. By now Eileen was not taking any water voluntarily.

Eileen tried to send to her friends some clothes; among which she had concealed a handkerchief on which she had sewn ‘health A1 feeding painless’. At the bottom of each report is a note that the information has been sent by telegram, presumably to the Home Office. As time passes the reports become more perfunctory, just noting how many times Eileen was fed. Several letters are on file from medical practitioners expressing concern at the continuation of force-feeding given her medical history of Raynaud’s disease and tuberculosis of the skin. The medical report, following receipt of the letters, notes that when questioned about how she felt, Eileen replied ‘I think I feel as well as I ever did’. This response, the medical officer noted ‘is a sufficient commentary on the attached … received last evening’. The possibility that Eileen might have said this regardless of how she felt is ignored. On 24 July Eileen was found guilty and sentenced to fifteen months with hard labour. She was taken by train back to Winson Green; out of the window Eileen shouted, ‘No surrender’. No further reports are on the files.

Eileen went to Japan as a teacher of English. In 1929 she gave a talk to the Women’s Freedom League on the life and work of women in Japan. She recounted visiting a political room in Japan adorned with photographs of Emmeline Pankhurst, Millicent Fawcett, and Charlotte Despard. Kathleen, whose husband was killed, during the First World War, settled in Lewes, Sussex close to her widowed father who died in 1928. Their brother, Edmond, also died during the war. Isabella died in 1922, Kathleen in 1971 and Eileen, a year later.

​Below is a link to a blog which includes photographs of Eileen.
https://blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk/the-hunger-games

Sarah Jane Carwin was born on 16 August 1863 in Bolton, Lancashire. Her father was John, a carder who disentangled wool ready for spinning. John and Sarah’s mother, Jerusha, had two sons who died young. Three daughters followed: Ethelina, Mary and Sarah. In 1865 they had a son, John. The family were Methodists who worshipped at the Bridge Street Chapel. There in November 1865 John was baptised. Russia had a burgeoning textile industry which relied on the import of machinery from England and the provision of a workforce with the skills to, not only, construct and install the equipment but train the Russian workforce. It appears that John, his wife and four small children made the journey to St Petersburg; adapting to Russian life must have been very hard for the family. In 1866 Russia had an outbreak of cholera which killed ninety thousand, probably among them was Jerusha and her youngest son, John.
 
Another son was born in St Petersburg in 1868, John William, who was baptised at the Bridge Street Chapel in August 1871, the family residence is recorded as Russia. Three years later, Sarah’s father married Elizabeth Berry. John and his wife may have returned to Russia as their son is at boarding school at the time of the 1881 census. Seven years later Sarah’s father died.
 
The first time Sarah appears on a census return is 1891, by which time both of her sisters had married. Sarah joined the Wesleyan Methodist Sisterhood which in a newspaper article assured an interested women that no vows were imposed only an undertaking to give three months’ notice of any intention to quit so ‘the work may not suffer.’ The women wore a plain grey suit described as of ‘a peculiar cut’ spending their time caring for the sick, aiding the poor or teaching children. Sarah left and by the time of the 1891 census return is living with Hilda Tindall in Marylebone part of a worker’s dressmaking cooperative.  
 
From 1893 to 1896 Sarah trained as a nurse at Great Ormand Street. The 1901 census records Sarah, living in Caterham caring for five children under three in her home for illegitimate babies. Later, Sarah worked as a nurse at the Passmore Edwards Settlement. Founded in 1897 and based at 36-37 Tavistock Square, adjacent to Great Ormand Street which is probably how Sarah became aware of their work, the settlement provided adult education, provision for children while parents worked or help with invalid children. It is, today, more widely known as the Mary Ward centre. In 1903 a visitor to the settlement wrote of a visit to the Invalid School at dinner time: ‘Nurse Carwin … kept order and moved from diner to diner, encouraging delicate appetites and looking after things from the medical point of view’. The children were collected in a ‘roomy ambulance’ under the care of Sarah. Twice a day Sarah and the driver made three journeys to Somers Town, Clerkenwell and Soho to collect and return the children. 
 
Sarah was first arrested during February 1912 along with twenty -eight others including Emmeline Pethick Lawrence. A group had attempted to present the Prime Minister, Asquith, with a petition at the House of Commons. Sarah was charged with obstruction. In the witness box she gave a lengthy speech which garnered a round of applause from the public gathered to witness the trial. Sarah commented that ‘the duty of the police was to protect the weak against the strong, but they were now engaged in protecting the strong man, Mr Asquith, against the weak women.’ Found guilty, Sarah refused to find sureties and was sentenced to one month in Holloway Prison. In an interview for Votes for Women, Sarah commented that she ‘was roused to take militant action on hearing of Mrs Pethick Lawrence’s determination to go to the House of Commons.’ 
 
The authorities found themselves in a quandary. The women were clearly anticipating the same treatment as Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst had received before them making requests for a newspaper, visits, or exercise with each other. The request for a newspaper was declined. A letter on file accepts that the Pankhurst were granted this privilege, but it was ‘very exceptional circumstances’. It continues ‘there are not the same exceptional reasons in the present case; and having regard … to the inadvisability of allowing such very special privileges … I do not think I ought to repeat the permission’. On another page there is a handwritten note ‘It was allowed to the Pankhursts only on special medical grounds’. The Governor of Holloway wrote requesting guidance on the question of exercise as ‘it will be remembered … that the prisoners Pankhurst [were] … allowed to exercise together without any restriction as to talking’. A report considering the letter is robust ‘To accede to it or any part of it would … at the root of prison discipline and lead to endless trouble in the future…. The case of the Pankhursts was exceptional and easily be distinguished’. The writer reasons that the Pankhursts were related, and Emmeline was ill. 
 
Sarah was released along with others on 26 March. A crowd greeted the prisoners dressed predominately in suffragette colours, seven ‘draped and decorated’ carriages and a band, who as the women stepped through the small door in the prison gates, struck up the Marseillaise. A procession formed headed by Christabel Pankhurst and Annie Kenney followed by the band, four women representing each country of the United Kingdom, nine women riders on white horses and then the carriages. They wended their way from Holloway to High Holborn to the Inns of Court Hotel for breakfast. In the evening, the WSPU held a celebratory dinner at the same venue. Sarah informed the assembled company that while in prison she had written ‘Glorious Christabel’ on every spoon she could.
 
Sarah returned to the fray soon afterwards. During a demonstration, a policeman knocked Sarah to the ground. William Hutcheon came to her rescue and was himself arrested and charged with assault. Called as a defence witness Sarah testified that, perhaps, she had been knocked down by accident but either way William had assisted her by pushing the policeman away. The magistrate ruled that Sarah had contradicted William ordering him to be bound over to keep the peace. 
Sarah was arrested for a second time at the end of June, again in connection with a demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament. In a report in Votes for Women, 2 July 1909, Sarah, now living in Letchworth, commented that after twenty years working with women and children she knew ‘how necessary it is that women should have the freedom to deal with social conditions’. Alongside Sarah, charged with damage to property for window smashing at the Board of Trade, were co-defendants Mary Allen, Eugenie Bouvier, and Kathleen Brown [see earlier blogs]. Sarah informed the court that ‘apparently women had no other means of getting political redress except by violence. It seemed to be the only language politicians could understand. In the past men had always had to resort to violence to gain their ends’. Sentenced to one month in prison, Sarah, whose conduct in prison was described as bad, petitioned, as a political prisoner, to be placed in the First Division and granted privileges in accordance with her status until this occurred, she would not abide by prison rules. The authorities declined her request: Sarah’s actions were ‘a political offence in the same sense that the assassination of … Lord Frederick Cavendish was a political offence – less reprehensible morally but more dangerous to society’.
 
When the prisoners arrived at Holloway, they collectively refused to wear prison clothes or be medically examined. Most, including Sarah, broke the windows in their cells – in part as a protest about the poor ventilation. In response the visiting magistrates convened a meeting to consider the women’s behaviour. Although only one is named specifically it appears that Sarah was among them as, on her release from prison, the press reported her time in solitary confinement – the punishment handed out by the magistrates. The women were charged with gross misconduct. As well as refusing to conform and smashing cell windows the women were disorderly, singing and shouting. A room close to Holloway Prison had been secured from where fellow suffragettes used a megaphone to communicate with the inmates. Tried separately; ‘all admitted the charges and gloried in their offences’. No one undertook to conform. In solitary for six days, Sarah refused food. She was released on 20 July. In September Emmeline Pankhurst sent to Sarah a gold badge decorated with flint; the accompanying letter read ‘This is in memory of the flinty message you sent through the Government windows on 29 June’. 
 
Their refusal to take sustenance led to the consideration of force-feeding a process, thus far, metered out to ‘lunatics and weak-minded persons’. While it was considered that starvation and early release on health grounds actually constituted a more severe sentence than serving the full term the fear that this policy would release prisoners to offend again led to the adoption of force-feeding. Sarah was not active within the WSPU on a day-to-day basis preferring to join demonstrations and protests. Not unsurprisingly Sarah is not recorded on the 1911 census. She was next arrested for breaking a window at Black Rod’s residence valued at 1 shilling and 6 pence. She was discharged. Again, she was arrested for her part in Black Friday when the charges were dropped. Sarah gave an account of her experiences in the report prepared by Henry Brailsford and Jessie Murray. Present of the 18th and 20th of November Sarah did not receive any serious injury although her ‘arms were twisted backwards, and she was ‘crushed and banged about’. She pointed out that she had heard remarks by a policeman that ‘should only be applied to brood mares’ and had witnessed Mrs Cobden Sanderson being knocked down.
 
During March the following year Sarah was arrested and charged with breaking nine windows at four different premises valued in to total at £81, the press deemed her ‘one of the most successful of that night’s raiders’. In court Sarah said she ‘would like to repudiate the charge that the women were dupes in this matter. She was not the dupe of anyone. What she did was done with the firm conviction that there was need for such action’. Found guilty, she was sentenced to six months. Due to the number of prisoners some, including Sarah, were sent to Winson Green in Birmingham. One report states Sarah, refusing food, was suffering from nervous debility, weight loss and her condition was fair. Her probable date of release was 20 August but she was actually freed on June 25 when she was provided with a taxi to the station and a train ticket to Euston. Both Violet Aitken and Winifred Bray (see earlier blog) were released at the same time. Votes for Women, July 12 1912, included an article headed in bold capital letters The Roll of Honour beneath which was a quote for Reginald Mckenna, the Home Secretary: ‘It is impossible to allow any prisoner to determine the length of his own sentenced by setting him at liberty if he chooses to refuse food for a few days.’ Under his words it reads ‘This statement has been refuted by the following list of prisoners, all of whom have been released before the expiry of their sentences, in consequence of the hunger strike. It is a powerful message.
 
Sarah was one of five women brought before the court following a disturbance at a hearing the previous day. In the dock Sarah ‘kept up a running commentary during the evidence’. She was ordered to be bound over to keep the peace. She left the dock still protesting. This prosecution does not appear on the amnesty record.
 
Sarah died in Kent in 1933. Frances Unwin, an artist, was her executor and wrote a short biography of Sarah now held by the Museum of London. Diane Atkinson in Rise up Women: The Remarkable Lives of the Suffragettes writes that Sarah lived in the countryside with a friend to whom she was ‘devotedly attached’. After her friend died, Sarah lived in France and Italy before settling in Kent. Frances wrote ‘she spared herself nothing in the pursuit of her ideals … a few weeks before her death she said that if she could choose any part of her life to live over again she would choose the part she had devoted to the suffrage. It had seemed the most worthwhile’. ​