argument had not won the parliamentary vote for women, and so now they
must adopt the more violent methods that had won enfranchisement for men in
the past. ‘The struggle had been too long drawn out’, observed Emmeline. ‘We
had to seek ways to shorten it.’^4 She had written to the Pethick Lawrences, who
were soon to embark on a holiday to Switzerland, asking them to break their
journey at Boulogne so that they could discuss the future direction of WSPU
policy. Neither Emmeline Pankhurst nor Christabel record details of the
meeting in their memoirs, although Fred did, some thirty years later. According
to Fred, the four walked together on the cliffs above Boulogne where he and
Christabel fell into conversation at some distance from the two Emmelines.
Always in the habit of telling Christabel what he thought, Fred pointed out
that the window-smashing raid had aroused ‘a new popular opposition, because
it was for the first time an attack on private property’, and therefore, before it
was repeated or graver acts of violence committed, there was need for an educa-
tional campaign to make the public understand the reasons for such extreme
action. Fred took it for granted that Christabel would return to London and
resume her leadership of the campaign, a move, he believed, which would place
the government in the awkward predicament of having to choose between
repeating the conspiracy trial in her case, or of declining to do so. Whichever
course they adopted, Fred assured Christabel, her position and that of the
WSPU would be enhanced. Christabel disagreed strongly with Fred’s analysis
and argued that any current popular opposition was not different from that
which had been revealed when other new forms of militancy had been intro-
duced, and that the right method of overcoming it was to ‘repeat and intensify
the attack in the early autumn’. She suggested that because her policy was
‘revolutionary’, it was necessary for her to remain outside the reach of the
government, so that whatever happened to the movement, she would be in a
position to continue to ‘direct it’. When the two Emmelines, who were some
paces away, heard the heated discussion, they came and joined in. ‘Mrs.
Pankhurst, as a born rebel, was even more emphatic than Christabel that the
time had come to take sterner measures’, remembered Fred. ‘She appeared to
resent the fact that I had even ventured to question the wisdom of her
daughter’s policy.’ Emmeline Pethick Lawrence, however, was of the same view
as her husband. ‘We did not pursue the matter further’, commented Fred, as he
closed his account of the meeting. ‘Next morning, after a friendly talk with
Christabel, we departed for Switzerland.’^5
Christabel and Emmeline talked the matter over, after the departure of the
Pethick Lawrences, thinking through the implications of the divided views
amongst the WSPU leadership – and Fred’s role in it all. That same day,
Sunday, 14 July, Emmeline’s ‘birthday’ and Bastille Day, Emmeline wrote to
Helen Archdale thanking her for telling her about the arrangements for Adela’s
holiday, which she thought were fine. ‘I should have liked to ask her to come to
me here for a time’, Emmeline lamented, ‘but am just on the point of going to
take a cure somewhere for I do not get well as quickly as I should like. The
BREAK WITH THE PETHICK LAWRENCES