lines, that he would give ‘written guarantees’ of this, and that he would ‘stake’
his ‘political reputation’ on it. In the meantime, he insisted that militancy was
suspended.^48 As Romero points out, Sylvia either incorrectly recalled the event,
or changed it to suit her own story line since Lloyd George, as a cabinet
minister, was unable to introduce a private member’s bill and was unlikely to
make such an offer.^49 A private member’s bill, however, was the antithesis of all
that Emmeline and Christabel had argued for, as well as the suspension of mili-
tancy. Here is also further confusion in Sylvia’s account since it is unclear as to
which suffrage organisation she is representing. Although she was no longer a
member of the WSPU, she apparently said to Lloyd George, ‘I do not know
whether Christabel would consent to a truce to militancy for anything short of
a Government measure’, to which, she claimed, he answered tartly, ‘I shall be
quite prepared to debate it with Miss Christabel.’^50
To Sylvia’s annoyance, the news of Lloyd George’s supposed change of heart
was told by a jubilant Lansbury to Henry Harben who immediately informed
Christabel. Once Sylvia knew of this leak, she wrote to her sister, saying that
she hoped to engage in negotiations that would resolve the suffrage issue and
that she would travel to Paris to see her. A furious Christabel deeply resented
Sylvia’s plan and interference in WSPU policy. ‘Tell your friend not to come’
was the sharp message in her telegram to Norah Smyth. In later issues of The
Suffragettethe unbending Christabel thundered that there could be ‘no private
communications from the Government or from any of its members’ on women
suffrage since there was nothing over which to compromise. ‘There is no room
for negotiation as to the termsupon which women demand the Vote’, she
insisted as she stuck to the principle of ending the sex discrimination that
women endured. ‘Those terms are clearly understood. They are – that women
shall vote on the same terms as men.’^51
Meanwhile, Emmeline, a fugitive on the run, remained totally loyal to
Christabel and the policies they had jointly agreed. On 18 June she wrote to
Eleanor Garrison in the USA asking if she would collect as much money as she
could from sympathisers in Boston for the WSPU cause. ‘Our struggle grows
more & more intense as we near the inevitable end’, Emmeline told her young
friend. ‘Pharaoh has indeed hardened his heart especially since we added the
moral crusade to the suffrage work. Indeed I think the opponents of W.S. hate
that more than the vote & now realise that votes for women means less moral
license for men.’ Emmeline had put just ‘London’ as her address on the top of
her letter, and Eleanor was asked to send any money collected to Christabel in
Paris. ‘My movements are very uncertain’, observed Emmeline, ‘& as you can
understand there are postal difficulties.’^52
The continued forcible feeding of militants, under horrendous conditions,
deeply troubled her; Frances Gordon in Perth was now even being fed through
the rectum.^53 When The Timeson 6 July published a letter by the Bishop of
London that offered more condemnation of militancy than of forcible feeding,
Emmeline was astounded. She penned a letter to that newspaper protesting
FUGITIVE