immediately cease’. No name was given of the informant about these matters
but on 22 October 1915, WSPU member Rose Lamartine Yates had chaired a
meeting of like-minded colleagues who had passed a resolution, later forwarded
by registered post to Emmeline and Christabel, protesting against the WSPU’s
abandonment of the cause of women’s suffrage and asking for an audited state-
ment of the accounts. No reply had been received.^80 Six days later, at a Union
meeting held at the London Pavilion on 28 October 1915, another incident
had occurred that caused anger amongst some members. Mary Leigh attempted
to ask a question and was accused by Emmeline of supporting the enemy,
Germany. ‘[T]hat woman is a pro German and should leave the hall. ... I
denounce you as a pro German and I wish to forget that such a person ever
existed.’ Many of those present, as well as ex-Union members, were shocked by
Emmeline’s public condemnation of an old comrade. Emmeline was asked to
retract her statement and to offer an apology at the next meeting at which
several women interrupted her speech, repeating the demand. ‘I will not apolo-
gise’, announced a proud Emmeline, to loud applause from different parts of the
theatre. The interruptions continued for some time, until the protesters left the
theatre.^81 But the criticisms being now so strongly expressed against Emmeline
and Christabel would not die down, especially when another ‘pro-German’
denouncement was made, this time against Annie Bell who had been a hunger
striking suffragette. When Annie tried to attend the next Union meeting, she
was refused admittance and, since she protested vigorously, was arrested for
obstruction and sentenced to a month’s imprisonment. She secured a release in
five days by going on a hunger strike. The parallel with her suffragette past,
‘even down to minor details, is painfully obvious’ observed the press.^82
A group of discontented Union members decided that they should take
matters into their own hands. On 25 November 1915, Elinor Penn Gaskell
chaired a meeting of the dissidents, at which a manifesto voicing concerns
about the control of finances and the formation of WSPU policy was unani-
mously approved and adopted. It was also stated that ‘the time has now come’
when Christabel Pankhurst could resign as one of the leaders of the WSPU, ‘or
else offer a clear explanation to the members of her continued absence from this
country, at a time when the services of all women of capacity and goodwill are
so sorely needed here’. Emmeline was hurt by the comments, but she was too
autocratic to bend to the requests of her critics, too accustomed to having her
own way, too old to change her style of leadership, and too confident to ques-
tion what she was doing. As she explained to a Weekly Dispatchinterviewer,
‘The Women’s Social and Political Union is a fighting body and as such it must
have autocratic control if it is to wage war successfully. ... When going into
battle a general does not take a vote of his soldiers to see whether they approve
of his plans. They are there to obey his orders.’ She continued: ‘That is how the
W.S.P.U. has been run and that is how it will continue to be run. Any member
who does not approve of our plans must acquiesce or go. There is no time to
waste in talk.’ She also explained that since the war began the WSPU’s work
WAR WORK AND A SECOND FAMILY