neglected to inform ourselves’.^26 The Pethick Lawrences then walked out. The
following day, Elizabeth Robins wrote to Emmeline, tendering her resignation
from the Central Committee.
Although it had been agreed with the Pethick Lawrences that the statement
about the leadership split would appear for the first time in print in the 18
October issue of Votes for Women, Emmeline sent a brief account of events to all
WSPU members in a letter dated 16 October. The tone of her letter was tactful
and complimentary to those she had ousted, as she sought the backing of the
rank-and-file for her continued leadership. ‘History has taught us all’, she
commented, ‘that divided counsel have been the ruin of more good causes than
anything else of which we know, and when such a situation arises separation is
inevitable.’ Although Mr. and Mrs. Pethick Lawrence were no longer working
with us as colleagues, ‘our hearts are full of gratitude to both ... for all they have
done with unsparing generosity and unfailing sacrifice of time, energy and devo-
tion for the Union in the past, and the memory of our association with them
will always be cherished as a treasured possession.’^27 She enclosed with the
letter a subscription form for the new official journal of the WSPU, The
Suffragette, to be edited by Christabel from Paris, a move which brought home
forcibly to the deeply hurt Pethick Lawrences the extent of the pre-planning.
Fred’s objection to the news of the split being leaked before the agreed date
elicited an icy reply from the leader of the WSPU. ‘My instructions were that it
[the letter] was to be so posted as notto reach the addresses earlier than Votes
for Women was published. If a few copies were posted earlier than was intended
it must have been by accident. It was certainly without my knowledge.’^28
Thus ended for the Pethick Lawrences their personal association with
Emmeline and Christabel. ‘There was something quite ruthless about Mrs.
Pankhurst and Christabel where human relationship was concerned’, mused
Emmeline Pethick Lawrence some twenty-five years later. ‘The cleavage was
final and complete. From that time forward I never saw or heard from Mrs.
Pankhurst again, and Christabel, who had shared our family life, became a
complete stranger. The Pankhursts did nothing by halves!’^29 She firmly believed
that their dismissal from the WSPU was the work of the impetuous and fiery
Emmeline Pankhurst who, she told Nevinson, was known as an ‘enfant
terrible’.^30 She contended that ‘Mrs. Pankhurst’ had accepted with ‘extreme
reluctance’ the temporary truce of militancy, and had ‘little use’ for the exercise
of patience. ‘Excitement, drama and danger were the conditions in which her
temperament found full scope. She had the qualities of a leader on the battle-
field.’ While Christabel lived with us, she continued, she agreed that we had to
advance in militancy by slow degrees, but since she had escaped to Paris,
Christabel had gone completely over to her mother’s standpoint. Mrs.
Pankhurst, the former Honorary Treasurer of the Union pointed out, ‘had
always regarded Christabel, and to a lesser extent herself, as the main, if not the
sole, inspiration of the movement. She had been distressed by the way in which
Christabel consulted us about everything and was influenced by our opinion.’^31
BREAK WITH THE PETHICK LAWRENCES