Emmeline on her return from America, the fund organisers and Ethel felt that
Emmeline’s plans depended on Christabel who was now a Second Adventist. In
plain language and without any varnishing, Ethel tried to explain to Emmeline
the dilemma in which the fund organisers found themselves. Emmeline was
deeply offended by the tone and sentiments that were expressed and on 10
March 1921 returned Ethel’s letter, attaching to it a brief note. ‘My dear Ethel, I
return your letter. You may wish to destroy it. I would if I were you. Em.’
Emmeline wrote once more to Ethel, pointing out that the efforts of her old
suffrage comrades in trying to ease her financial situation were wounding to her
pride. Reflecting on the days when she had been an impoverished widow,
Emmeline could not bear this new humiliation. How could they treat her like a
pauper? Ethel, however, surmised that the ‘real sting’ was that ‘certain persons,
including myself, should venture to question the propriety of any mortal thing
her daughter thought, said, or did’.^29 When, sometime later, half of the money
raised was spent on buying and furnishing a country house in England,
Westward Ho in Devon, Emmeline could not afford to maintain it; the property
had to be let and it was, finally, sold.^30
After the break with Ethel, a bruised yet proud Emmeline, still in New York,
ploughed herself into her lecturing and was very persistent in chasing Dr. Bates
for talks she might undertake, since she needed the money. She had already
written to him in early March and wrote again, on the 13th, explaining that she
had met some of the officials of the American Society for Combating Venereal
Disease and also watched some of their films. She advised him that if he wanted
to interest the masses in the movement, then it was wise to take advantage of
real-life tragedies that had attracted public attention. ‘In England we got legisla-
tion for better care of Infant life through bad cases of “Baby Farming”; for the
mother’s right to a share in guardianship of Infants because of a lawsuit that
revealed a father’s abuse of his legal power; the married women’s property Act
came for the same reason.’ Again she pressed her point that she was free after
the 25 April and could go to Montreal the following day, give interviews to the
press and meet representative people as a way of working up interest for the
CNCCVD meeting on l May. ‘Would it not be well to secure some prominent
local man or woman as Chairman of the meeting?’ Perhaps mindful that she
might be seen as too eager and forceful, Emmeline added tactfully, ‘I am making
these suggestions because when we met you invited me to make them not
because I am interfering.’^31
When the Edmonton Women’s Institute wrote to Emmeline saying they
would be very pleased to have her speak for them, for a fee of $100 plus hotel
expenses, Emmeline asked Catherine Pine to write to Dr. Bates, on her behalf,
as her ‘secretary’, enquiring again as to whether this talk and others in her
proposed tour, could be conducted under the auspices of the CNCCVD. Dr.
Bates replied that there was now no opposition to the scheme since eleven of
the nineteen members of the Executive of the Council were in favour of it, six
were doubtful and only two opposed. He also asked Emmeline for a summary of
LECTURER IN NORTH AMERICA