Punch: Punch (32.1857)

52

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI. [February 7, 1857.

MARY ANN'S NOTIONS.

like the selfishness of men! At the very
moment when Parliament is beginning, and there is some little interest
in the subject, I am told to drop it, that it may be left to your lie-
writers. I shall do nothing of the sort, and I do not believe that
you will be so unkind as to suppress my letters.1

"However, to-day I shall comply with your grumbling,2 because
I have something else to say. At least I don't know—is Divorce
politics ?3 I should not wonder if you made out that it was, and if it
is, I can't help it. How you can read that beautiful letter of Mrs.
[Norton's, and not ail of you set to work with all your might to try
and get what she says carried into effect, I cannot conceive, but I dare
say nothing will come of it.4 When a woman who can write such a
letter as that condescends to address you, you ought to pay the most
respectful attention, and be grateful for her advice—but not you ; and I
dare say the mean manly feeling (I consider manlvatermof contempt*)
that a Avoman ought not to interfere with the laws, makes you treat
her with even more coldness than if a man had made the suggestions
she does.

" As for divorce, the question is perfectly simple.6 A party of ladies
could draw up the law as it ought to be in ten minutes, oidy you must
fuss about it in the two houses of Parliament, and talk about the
Mosaic law, and the church, and the fathers, and the proctors, and
everything that has nothing to do with the matter. How can Mosaic
law concern it, unless to be sure a husband has made his wife presents
in Mosaic gold ? - and many are quite stingy enough ! As for the church,
we go to church to be married, not to be divorced. I don't know
much about the fathers, but if they were fathers of daughters they
would like to see laws made for their good, and as for the proctors,
I have met one or two at parties, and they are dreadful stuck-up old
things, whose opinion I would not take on anything but starching a
cravat ?7 If people who have nothing to do with a subject would leave
it to those who have—and it stands to reason now, my dear soul, that
the person who wears the shoe must know where it hurts 51— this
question could be settled at once.

"A man ill-treats his wife. Very well. Now we don't want
any Acts of the House of Lords, and all that, costing thousands
of pounds, but let a magistrate sign a paper, and send the
husband to prison, and take all the property and give it to the
wife. Let the husband, if he has any trade or occupation (and
if not let him be compelled to learn one) be made to follow it,
in prison, and let the money he earns be paid over to the wife and
chfldren. Now what can be simpler than that? The man would be
made industrious, the public would have the advantage of promoting
trade,9 the wife would be protected and the chddren educated. If,
after a great many years you thought he had thoroughly repented, you
might transport him and turn him loose in some colony; onlv make
him take another name, that his wife might never be shocked by hear-
ing of him. Of course, if she liked to marry again at any time she
should be free to do so; but most likely she would think she had had
enough of matrimony.

"There now, there is the whole thing provided for, and if lawyers
and talkers would not bring in stupid complications and objections,
those words might be made into a law, and there would be an end of
the matter. The oidy difficulty that I see is, as to what should be done
if a husband runs away; but I think that if you made another law,
saying that if they did this they should be executed, and any person
harbouring them should be transported for bfe, it would prevent
it. This would not be a bit too severe, because, you see, a person who
leaves his clrddren without the means of being educated is answerable
for all the crimes they may commit.10 But now we come to a question
which you will be sure to stir up, and which I dare say men would
avail themselves of to defeat the punishment they ought to receive, and
this is, what do you mean by ill-treatment ? Of course, if a man were
to raise his hand to a woman, or use bad words at her, or lock her in
a house against her, will, or any other flagrant and open outrage, there
could be no dispute. But there are thousands of other injuries which
the ridiculous law takes no notice of, because it was made by men who-
have hard and coarse natures, and do not even see or hear a thing that
will perhaps keep a woman crying all night.11 And then there are dif-
ferent grades of society; ana, what is an insult to a woman in one
sphere, is not an insult to a woman in another.12 Then again (I am
coming to something presently) there are cases in which a woman
miehtlike only to punish a husband a little, in the hope of reforming
and forgiving him. Also he might sincerely repent, after a short time,
which, if he was a man of any feeling, he would do. Therefore, and this
is what I am coming to, you ought not to attempt to make a law pro-
viding for every case that can possibly occur; for, when you had thought
over every injury which a man could do his wife, his evil ingenuity
would invent some fresh one. There ought to be a sort of Court estab-
lished, not a ridiculous one where'a parcelof lawyers chatter because they
are paid for it, and everybody tries for victory, not for what is right,
but more like a committee. Whv, when we had a committee at Worthing,
for giving away the bread, and flannels, and coals that winter, we dis-
cussed everything quietly enough; and, what is more, everybody got
bread, and flannels, and coals, which is a good deal more than men
can say when their precious administrative powers are put to the test,
remember the Crimea for that.13 But this committee should not be
all women, or else you would complain of partiality, but there should
be some dear old men upon it, fathers of daughters, with white hair
and benevolent old faces,14 and then I suppose you would be satisfied.
These questions of ill-treatment might be brought before this com-
mittee, and the magistrate might go by their decision. Now do you
mean to say that a woman can suggest nothing practical ?

" Of course, my dear Mr. Punch, there would be some unreasonable
complaints. A wife might bring up her husband for not being dressed
when she wanted to go to a party, and refusing to go (I made a little
picture of it the other day, and I send it you; you can put it in Punch
if you like, only mind and tell the printers to keep the face pretty 1S)
and though I don't say that he would not be a great bear and deserve
reprimand, this would.be irrational in her. But you may rely upon it
that there would be little of this. Women are too glad to keep their 1
husbands when they can. This is just a man's aggravating cavil, and I
have no patience with it.

"Your affectionate
"Monday." "Mary Ann."

" P.S. If you ask me, whether a man ought to be able to get rid of
his wife F—1 answer, Certainly not. A man has the choice of the whole
world before he marries, and if he chooses badly, that is his fault. A
woman can only have the husbands that offer to her, and when she has
got one, it would be too bad to take him away.16"

1 Tins mixture of pathos with defiance has just—and only just—saved your letter
from the basket that was yawning for it.

2 We do not grumble, we reprove. And you use vile English—comply with
grumbling, indeed.

3 "Politics" means that part of Ethics which consists in the government ov
regulation of a nation, for the preservation of its safety, peace, and prosperity. i
" Ethics" means —but look it out for yourself, and answer your own question.

4 Sir Richard Bethell, Her Majesty's Attorney-General, has promised
legislation upon the question, Miss. Watch the debates.

s It is nothing of the sort. But it always makes us think of Mr. John Cooper,
of the Theatres, delivering a pleasing and elevated sentiment.

6 You said that about the Income-Tax.

7 The preceding passages convey an impression of discreditable pertness on the
part of the writer.

" And that he knows how to alter it. eh ?

0 Please, please spare us your political economy, second hand from Papa. That
is rather too afflicting.

10 This is a glimmering of sense after a mass of feminine wisdom.

11 No woman ever cried all night, though thousands courageously declare that
they have done so. We class the assertion with that other favourite womanly com-
plaint that the eyes were never closed once all ni^ht.

12 Not put with exactitude, and therefore false. The same insult is equally felt \
by both women. A pound «f feathers weighs the same as a pound of lead, and
vie." versd.

13 Fair enough. ,

" What ugly daughters to have !

15 We have used your picture as an initial. Do not be too proud.

16 We insert this P.S because it evidently occurred to you that you had forgotten
that there were two sides of the question. But we will never insert another. This :s
final, so get your last words over before you sign your letters. Do you hear, young;
woma.n 1