Emmeline’s own petition for release on bail so that she could recover her
health and prepare her case was refused. She was, however, removed to a more
comfortable cell in the hospital wing but found a cockroach in her bed and
another on the wall; the officials advised her not to let her bedclothes touch
the floor as the insects probably came in through the grating of a disused
heating apparatus. Always fastidious about her person, Emmeline was repulsed
by such unhygienic conditions. The granting of permission to see her solicitor,
Alfred Marshall, and her secretary, was double edged since they could only
visit her in the presence of a wardress and a member of the prison clerical staff
who made notes on what she said, contrary to the rules governing prisoners on
remand who had to prepare a defence against a graver charge. Such conditions
made it difficult for Emmeline to prepare her case, despite the fact that she was
allowed access to copies ofVotes for Women, press cuttings and books of polit-
ical speeches. Such concessions could be granted to Second and Third
Division prisoners under Rule 243a, which the Secretary of State had approved
in 1910 with the suffragettes in mind; taking advantage of the new rule,
Emmeline also ordered in her own food, including a daily half pint of Chateau
Lafite.^44
On 17 March, Emmeline was suddenly released to the block where the other
suffragettes were held and placed in a cell adjoining that of Ethel Smyth. A
kind-hearted matron often bent the rules, leaving the two friends together in
Emmeline’s cell at tea-time, locking them in, and then forgetting to come back
to conduct Ethel to her own cell. Although glad of such kindnesses, Emmeline
would not let such favours soften her attitude to the prison authorities and
often said in cold scorn, ‘I would throw up any job rather than treat women as
you say it is your DUTY to treat us.’^45 Nevertheless, the more relaxed atmo-
sphere in the suffragette wing permitted various amusements which brought
some relief from the oppressive atmosphere of Holloway. Ethel recollected,
‘How we got the materials – calico, purple, white, and green tissue paper and so
on, not to speak of hammer and nails – I cannot remember, but designs and
mottoes breathing insult and defiance would embellish the courtyard walls for
hours before they were discovered and torn down.’ At one idea of Ethel’s,
however, ‘Mrs. Pankhurst drew the line.’ Ethel asked the tailoring section in the
prison to cut out a large pair of convict half-breeches but in two identical pieces
so that one could not tell front from back – and, presumably, neither male from
female needs. She sewed the pieces together, in the apple-pie-bed manner, and
then hung the garment up in the exercise yard together with the motto, ‘A
Mus. Doc.’s notion of small clothes.’ The prim Emmeline, deeply concerned
that a prank in such bad taste might damage the women’s cause, especially if
leaked to the press, scolded Ethel for her ribald sense of humour and ordered the
immediate removal of the offending object.^46
On 28 March the Second Conciliation Bill was due to have its second
reading. That very morning, The Timespublished a letter from Sir Almroth
Wright, MD, FRS, in which he claimed that women were unfitted for the vote
THE WOMEN’S REVOLUTION