the anguish caused by their separation. The scene was affecting
in the extreme, even to the mere spectator. It was one which must
have softened the hardest heart, as it drew tears from every
eye which witnessed it; what, then, must the actual realization
of it in all its power have been to the parties themselves? The
separation did take place; the poor woman was wrenched from the
almost death-like grasp of her husband. She was transferred to
the workhouse; and he was left alone in the miserable hovel in
which they had so long remained together. And what followed?
What followed! That may be soon told: it is a short history. The
former pined away, and died in three weeks after the separation;
and the husband only survived three weeks more. Their parting was
thus but for a short time, though final as regarded this world.
Ere six weeks had elapsed they again met together—
Met on that happy, happy shore,
Where friends do meet to part no more."
Here was an outrage, shocking to every heart of ordinary sensibility,
committed by authority of the British government, in due execution
of its "charitable enactments." In searching for a parallel, we can
only find it among those savage tribes who kill their aged and infirm
brethren to save trouble and expense. Yet such actions are sanctioned
by the government of a civilized nation, in the middle of the
nineteenth century; and that, too, when the government is parading its
philanthropy in the face of the world, and, pharisaically, thanking God
that it is not as other nations are, authorizing sin and wrong.
It was said by the advocates of this regulation of separation, that
paupers themselves have no objection to be separated from each other;
because, generally speaking, they have become old and unable to
assist each other, before they throw themselves permanently on the
parish—in other words, that the poor have not the same affection for
relatives and friends that the wealthy have. Well, that argument was
characteristic of a land where the fineness of a man's feelings are
assumed to be exactly in proportion to the position of his ancestry
and the length of his purse—perfectly in keeping, as an artist would
say. A pauper husband and wife, after living together, perhaps for
thirty years, become old and desire to be separated, according to the
representations of the British aristocrat. His iron logic allows no
hearts to the poor. To breathe is human—to feel is aristocratic.
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