Mr. Punch's History of Modern England, Vol. 3 (of 4).—1874-1892Graves, Charles L. (Charles Larcom)
History
Mr. Punch's History of Modern England, Vol. 3 (of 4).—1874-1892
Graves, Charles L. (Charles Larcom)
Great Britain -- History -- Victoria, 1837-1901 -- Humor
In 1890 the "Dorothy" Restaurant was started for "Ladies Only," but
this condition, though the _raison d'être_ of the venture, was soon
modified: men were admitted from 6.30 to 10 P.M., and _Punch_ was
unchivalrous enough to make humorous capital out of the concession.
In regard to the suffrage and "Women's Rights" _Punch_ remained on
the side of the fence where he had got down after a good deal of
vacillation. In 1879 he publishes what is apparently a _bonâ fide_
letter from "A Lancashire Witch" protesting against Miss Lydia
Becker's claim to represent the general feeling of the district. "I
assure you," she writes, "that Miss Becker's followers are chiefly
ladies of her own pronounced politics, or semi-foreigners, and not
Englishwomen _pur sang_." _Punch_ observes that "no Lancashire
Witch need fear to be mixed up with the Representative Gathering of
vote-claiming Spinsters which Miss Lydia Becker threatens to bring
down on the Free Trade Hall. Witches who know whence comes the real
potency of their charms will certainly not seek to mix voting-powder
in the cauldron." This was not friendly to the Suffragists, but the
tone is preferable to that of 'Arry's views on Women's Rights in 1881
after attending a lecture. There is a certain admixture of shrewd
commonplace in his remarks, but the verses are chiefly remarkable as a
storehouse of cad-slang, fortunately mostly obsolete. Female emigration
comes up for comment in the same year, but, as the object was avowedly
matrimonial, the scheme had no political significance. The picture
of the large, self-indulgent, sultanic brother advising his adoring
sisters, cousins and aunts to assert their rights by learning to be
more independent of men is purely ironical and has no bearing on the
problem of women's economic dependence. The dialogue in two scenes
between Edwin and Angelina in 1883 on the working of the new Married
Women's Property Act is a rather cynical burlesque. The first scene
shows the Act as it is expected to work, to the advantage of women; in
the second we see it as it is sure to work--to the confirmation of the
_status quo_, the woman continuing to leave her money affairs entirely
in her husband's hands.
[Illustration: "THE ANGEL IN 'THE HOUSE'": OR, THE RESULT OF FEMALE
SUFFRAGE
(_A Troubled Dream of the Future_)]
[Sidenote: _Women Jurors_]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account