MAY 10, 1906

VANITY FAIR

591

MUDIE'S

SUBSCRIPTIONS OPENED AT ANY DATE
FOR THREE, SIX, AND TWELVE MONTHS. Town
Subscriptions, 21s. Yearly. Books of past Seasons,
10s. 6d. Yearly.
Terms for Country, Suburbs, and Parcel Post sent on
application.

30-34, New Oxford Street, London.
Branch Offices 241, Brompton Road, S.W.
48, Queen Victoria Street, E.C.

The Mutual Life . .
Insurance Company
of New York . . . .

Assets over £90,000,000 Sterling.

Head Office for the United Kingdom: 16, 17, 18, CORNHILL, LONDON, E.C.
D. C. HALDEMAN, General Manager.

Total Income since 1843,
£261,055,733.

Of this sum, 82.3 per cent.
has been paid to Policy-
holders or is held in trust
for them.

The MAYFAIR ASSOCIATION

84, MOUNT STREET, GROSVENOR SQUARE, W.

Telegraphic Address: "MAYFAIRING, LONDON." Telephone: No. 6763 GERRARD.
Quickly Supply Governesses, Companions, Secretaries, Nurses, Housekeepers,
Cooks, and all Maids, Lady and Men Servants.
Advertising, Ladies' Partnerships and Business Transfer, House and General Agents.

THE
CARLTON

HOTEL and
RESTAURANT,

Telephone:
1598 Gerrard.

PALL MALL, S.W.

TERMS OF SUBSCRIPTION TO "VANITY FAIR"

(PAYABLE IN ADVANCE.)

In the United Kingdom, per Annum, post free ... £1 8 0

" " Half-yearly, " " 0 14 0

" " Quarterly, " " 0 7 0

For Abroad, per Annum, post free (thin paper copy) 1 12 6

" " (thick paper copy) 1 16 10

Cheques and Money Orders (on East Strand Branch) to be
made payable to VANITY FAIR, 125, Strand, London, W.C.

ORIGINAL DRAWINGS.

A number of the Original Drawings for the
"VANITY FAIR" CARTOONS

are for sale

At Moderate Prices.

A FULL LIST WILL BE SENT ON APPLICATION.

On View at Messrs. Sotheran & Co., 37, Piccadilly, W.; Messrs.
J. & E. Bumpus, 350, Oxford Street; and "Vanity Fair"
Office, 125, Strand, W.C.

ROMANO'S,
399, STRAND,

IS THE PARADISE OF GOURMETS.

NEW RUSSIAN AND VENETIAN ROOMS.

VANITY FAIR.

LONDON, MAY 10, 1906.

MEN OF THE DAY.

No. MXIV.—MAJOR-GENERAL SIR HUGH MCCALMONT.

MAJOR-GENERAL SIR HUGH MCCALMONT is one of the fine breed of Irishmen who are designed by Providence for war, sport, good fellowship, and the promotion of gaiety amongst nations. He was educated at Eton and at the "House," subsequently joining the 9th Lancers. It was a time of peace; therefore he took to that sport which offers the excitement of war with, as Mr. Jorrocks has it, "only five-and-twenty per cent. of its danger." He was Master of the 9th Lancer Hounds when that regiment was quartered at Cahir, and won many races at various Irish meetings. It was in '69 that, without changing horses, he rode for a wager from Newbridge Barracks to Island Bridge Barracks, Dublin (or five-and-twenty miles), in one hour fifteen minutes and thirty-two seconds.

In 1870 he went forth to war. Nor do I suppose that any soldier ever saw more of the globe in a shorter period. He volunteered for service with the Red River expedition under Colonel Wolseley, as he then was; next followed the Ashanti War, where he was A.D.C. to the same distinguished officer. He next appeared in North China on special service, though a kindly fate carried him to the other end of Asia in time to be present at the siege of Kars on the staff of Sir Arnold Kemball. In 1878-80 we discover traces of him in Cyprus, in South Africa, where, single-handed, he captured part of Cetewayo's wardrobe, and in the campaign against the Maris.

In 1881 he took a rest of eighteen months with his regiment, the 7th Hussars, in Natal. He was probably bored.

In 1882 he was off again as Brigade Major to the First Cavalry Brigade in the Egyptian War. Mahsawah, Kassassin, Tel-el-Kebir—he saw them all. In '85 he was up in the Soudan, doing long-distance rides on camel-back. On his return, to prove his versatility, he contested an Irish seat and was beaten.

As Colonel of the 4th Royal Irish Dragoon Guards he went steeplechasing once again, winning many cups. But as no war was in prospect he retired, and was elected for North Antrim. He had not done with military life, however, for he was presently appointed to the command of the eighth division at Cork, where he had much to do with the organisation of the most successful and realistic manoeuvres ever seen in Ireland. In 1900 he won the Grand Military Steeplechase at Punchestown to keep his hand in. It was in 1900 that he received the distinguished service reward of £100 per annum and the K.C.B.

The Irish General with the Scottish name holds by his country as the best of all possible islands. He is of opinion that its inhabitants are more placidly peaceful of disposition than those of any territory which he has encountered in his journeyings. It was in 1885 that he married a very charming lady, the daughter of the fourth Baron Clanmorris. She is hard to beat across country. The greater part of the fortune of the late Colonel Harry McCalcmont was left to their eldest son.

He owns an enterprising chauffeur. He is a fine judge of a horse or a camel. He does not like Mr. Arnold-Forster.

JEHU JUNIOR.

MAY 10, 1906

VANITY FAIR

591

VANITY FAIR.

LONDON, MAY 10, 1906.

Telegraphic Address "MAYFAIRING, LONDON."

Quickly Supply Governesses, Companions, Secretaries, Nurtas, Housekeepers,

Cooks, and all Marry Lady and Men Servants.

In the United Kingdom, per Annum, post free ... £1 8 0
" " Half-yearly, ... 0 14 0
" " Quarterly, ... 0 7 0

For Abroad, per Annum, post free (thin paper copy) 1 12 6
(thick paper copy) 1 16 10

ORIGINAL DRAWINGS.

On View at Messrs. Sotheran & Co., 37, Piccadilly, W.; Messrs. J. & E. Bumpus, 359, Oxford street; and "Vanity Fair" Office, 125, Strand, W.C.

MEN OF THE DAY.

The Irish General with the Scottish name holds by his country as the best of all possible islands. He is of opinion that its inhabitants are more placidly peaceful of disposition than those of any territory which he has encountered in his journeyings. It was in 1885 that he married a very charming lady, the daughter of the fourth Baron Clanmorris. She is hard to beat across country. The greater part of the fortune of the late Colonel Harry McCalmont was left to their eldest son.

97L

50L

20L

(These charts are for monitor calibration only)

Yale Center for British Art, 2013

592

VANITY FAIR

MAY 10, 1906

# JUDICIOUS SEPARATION,

## HAPPINESS AS THE SUPREME MORALITY.

It has been borne in upon Sir Gorell Barnes that the judicially separated do not lead exemplary lives. He considers that divorce outright might give tone to their morals, and he has said so; and everybody has been discussing the problem.

Let us consider the ordinary pleasure-loving man when he is in the not uncommon position of having married a wife who does not appreciate him. A bride generally decides within a few weeks of her wedding whether her husband is or is not a disappointment. If he is not, he may have to endure many things at the hands of her temperament—she may be cross, jealous, exacting, and she may seek admiration which he regards as superfluous for her—but she will not wage really destructive war against his self-esteem and his interests unless she is made aware of his flirtations. If he is a disappointment, there are degrees in which he may be classed. He may be an intolerable disappointment, or he may be a disappointment which is borne with manifest resignation, or he may be an irritating disappointment because he is so nearly not a disappointment. In any and all of these events he is in for a distressing time, chiding because in social and domestic tactics and address a man can never hope to be a woman's equal.

Women, for instance, are brilliant adepts in combining all the advantages of war and peace for themselves. A discontented wife will not only let her husband know her opinion of him in the most mortifying terms and reinforce the point by still more decomposing silences, but she will convey her distaste by her conduct far more poignantly than she can by words and reticence. Yet at the same time her husband will be made to feel that unkindness of word, look, or behaviour on his side is a just cause of resentment, and is producing unmerited unhappiness in a tender and wounded bosom. She will claim as a manifest right to seek elsewhere that solace of companionship and sympathetic appreciation which he has failed, and need not hope, to give, and at the same time any efforts of his own in a similar direction will be presented to him as hideous additions to his pile of iniquity. She will discuss him without reserve with her most gossipping friends, but criticisms from him will only widen the gulf which his own grossness and unworthiness have made between his better half and himself.

And now let us suppose that the moment has arrived when the bear refuses to dance upon hot bricks any longer. Will he find himself better situated if he is divorced, or if he is judicially separated? Divorce means complete freedom. But then, no sooner has your average colt stretched his limbs and congratulated himself on the fact that once more all the world is before him, that he is out of harness and can gallop up wind or down according to his choice, than he follows after attractions which may again bring him within the halter. Whereas if a man is only separated he can explain to the inspirers of his flirtations that, much as he would wish to find himself under so sweet a subjugation, for him the staid bliss of matrimony is unattainable. And he can make effective appeals to pretty little feminine ears on the ground of his enforced loneliness and the unhappy fate which has forced it upon him. One is inclined to conclude that *l'homme moyen sensuel*, if his marriage has proved a bed of few roses and many thorns, is better off when he is judicially separated than when he is divorced.

But one has to consider the feminine point of view in these matters. Marriage is more a woman's than a man's subject; wifehood is, and will remain, the leading profession for women as well as their chief emotional safety-valve. Women's difficulty arises from the fact that, according to our notions of equity, wedlock has to put almost the same restrictions upon both sexes. And women are the victims of conflicting tendencies. They know that men are evasive; if they are allowed to rove, they will rove. It is always, therefore, the feminine wish to rivet the bonds of wedlock tightly and securely. Women look with disfavour upon any change which makes the matrimonial yoke sit loosely upon men. At the same time, they like the fetters to fit easily upon themselves—not with laxity, of course, but still without galling rigour. Now, they will never arrive by the way of legislation at more comfortable conditions of marriage for women than for men so long as the suffragettes fail to intimidate even the Prime Minister and the coarser sex continues to make the laws.

From the feminine point of view, therefore, it seems that there are many advantages in the system of judicial separation. A woman who is judicially separated from her husband is certain of the sympathy of other men. If she is pretty or in any way charming, they will take it for granted that all the blame for the failure of the marriage was on the husband's side. Other women may not be so sympathetic, but that is of less importance. Then, a judicially separated wife has a large freedom, and can, within wide limits of discretion, win all the admiration she desires. She can be infinitely tantalising, and women love to be tantalising.

From the nature of the case, none of her admirers can think that she is fooling him because she refuses to leave the fairy-land for flirtation for the high road of marriage. She can sentimentalise to her heart's content, and she will always be a sweet, wronged, hapless martyr to the men who form her court.

There is a point of view which is very generally neglected, but which should give the governing considerations—the point of view of the children. Here, again, there are strong arguments for judicial separation as opposed to divorce in the case of unhappy marriages. It is an advantage to children to be rid of a bad father, but their state may well become worse instead of better if an unsympathetic stepfather, with a natural preference for his own bairns, succeeds to the vacated seat by the hearth. A woman's rule in the nursery and schoolroom may be rather ineffective, but it is usually lenient and seldom lacking in the sympathy and affection which, when all the experts and theorists have finished contending, is the essence of education for the young. In fact, the judicially separated woman, if she knows how to find safety in numbers and does not become unwisely *éprouise* as to any one man, may be thoroughly happy herself in the feminine way, and a source of unlimited mild and wholesome pleasure to others.

Sir Gorell Barnes has condemned complete judicial separation, and a number of magistrates have endorsed his opinion. But, then, the legal view is narrow. It is an old habit of the magisterial mind to be preoccupied about strict ethics, and it is on grounds of what one may call judicial ethics that they recommend divorce as an alternative. But the probability is that in this country we attach too much importance to morals commonly so-called. The very worst immorality is the abolition of happiness and the imposition of tyranny, especially upon children. The one sound system, that upon which Nature has accomplished her entire progression from the lowest types to the highest, is that the feminine being should find the mate of her choice—not of her bygone or mistaken choice, but of her present and real choice. It is the refusal to recognise this fact which has brought paralysis upon the Mohammedan East and is putting the Latin nations of Europe behind the northern races. Judicial separation is not a complete step in this direction, but in our complicated social conditions it is the safest form of release for the unhappily wedded, and, above all, it drags the scent of romance across the arid practicality of twentieth century customs.

B.

# DISQUIETING RUMOURS,

## ANTI-IMPERIALIST LABOUR.

BY THE WATCH DOG.

IMPERIALISTS should very carefully note the strong line being taken by the Labour Party, and particularly by that very astute politician Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in regard to affairs in Natal. They have, indeed, formed themselves into a pro-Zulu party, and they are intent on hampering and misrepresenting the Natal Government. After the astounding results of the General Election there were sanguine persons in the Unionist Party who predicted that the Labourites would not share the particularly obnoxious obscurantism of the Radicals. I had no such illusions, and I am not surprised to find the new party walking in the ways of Little Englandism and Exeter Hall ignorance.

Mr. Keir Hardie interviews Zulus, forgetting the wise reflection, "How can he know the black man who has only seen him in a top hat and frock coat at Westminster or in the Temple?" I want to force this moral, that the Labour Party is the real enemy. They stand for everything we hate—secularism, socialism, republicanism, anti-Imperialism. And they are militant, energetic, full of confidence and pluck. Sooner or later the fight will be between them and the Unionists, with C.-B. and his opportunists flung out of the line of battle. Let us prepare without further delay to spread the truth in places made dark by neglect.

In the House, in the clubs, and from the constituencies I hear that nothing is yet being done to reorganise the party. A very grave responsibility rests on Mr. Balfour. Speeches at the Albert Hall are well enough, but organisation is a hundred times better. Before the winter the local associations ought all to be overhauled, and young and vigorous candidates approached. The London County Council elections are approaching, and nothing is being done to defossilise the anti-Socialist party.

There is a disquieting rumour, too, that the House of Lords will hesitate to throw out the Education Bill. This comes to me from a young peer who held office in the last Government, and he added that the Peers are fearful of abolition, and will temporise. I am thoroughly convinced of the futility of this fear, and I still believe that the Bishops will be warmly and enthusiastically backed. But there are days when a man wants a faith that will remove mountains.

592

VANITY FAIR

MAY 10, 1906

JUDICIOUS SEPARATION,

IT has been borne in upon Sir Gorell Barnes that the judicially separated do not lead exemplary lives. He considers that divorce is the ground to their morals, and he has said so; and everybody has been discussing the problem.

Let us consider the ordinary pleasure-loving man when he is in the not uncommon position of having married a wife who does not appreciate him. A bride generally decides within a few weeks of her wedding whether her husband is or is not a disappointment. If he is not, he may have to endure many things at the hands of his temperament—she may be cross, jealous, exacting, and she may seek admiration which he regards as superfluous for her—but she will not want to be the first to war against his self-esteem and his interests unless she is made aware of his flirtations. If he is a disappointment, there are degrees in which he may be classed. He may be an intolerable disappointment, or he may be a disappointment which is borne with manifest resignation and unrelenting irritation disappointment because he is so nearly a disappointment. In any and all of these events he is in for a distressing time, chiefly because in social and domestic tactics and address a man can never hope to be a woman's equal.

In such a case, there are brilliant adepts in combining all the advantages of the opposite sex. A discontented wife will not only let her husband know her opinion of him in the most mortifying terms and reinforce the point by still more discomposing silences, but she will convey her distaste by her conduct far more poignantly than she can by words and more effectively by her act. A woman's husband will be made to feel that unkindness of word, look, or behaviour on his side is a just cause of resentment, and is producing unmerited unhappiness in a tender and wounded bosom. She will claim as a manifest right to seek elsewhere the satisfaction of her own sentiment and sympathetic appreciation which he has failed, and need not worry to give, and at the same time any efforts of his own in a similar direction will be presented to him as hideous additions to his pilloil iniquity. She will discuss him, without reserve with her most gossipy friends, but criticisms from him will only widen the gulf which his own grossness and unworthiness have made between his better half and himself.

And now let us suppose that the moment has arrived when the bear refuses to dance upon hot bricks any longer. Will he find himself better situated if he is divorced, or if he is judicially separated? Divorce means complete freedom. But then, no sooner he has your average colt stretched his limbs and congratulated himself on the fact that once more all the world is before him, that he is out of harness and can gallop up wind or down according to his choice, than he follows after attractions which may again bring him within the halter. Whereas, if he is only separated he can explain to the inspirers of his flirtations that, much as he would wish to find himself under so sweet a subjugation, for him the staid bliss of matrimony is unattainable. And he can make effective appeals to pretty little feminine ears once more to peace for their enforcement and the unhappy fate which has forced upon him. One is inclined to conclude that *Homme moyen sensuel*, if his marriage has proved a bed of few roses and many thorns, is better off when he is judicially separated than when he is divorced.

But one has to consider the feminine point of view in these matters. Marriage is more a woman's than a man's subject; wifehood is, and will remain, the leading profession for women as well as their chief emotional safety-valve. Women's difficulty arises from the fact that, according to our notions of equity, wedlock has to put almost the same restrictions upon both sexes. And women are the victims of conflicting tendencies. They know that men are evasive; if they are allowed to rove, they will rove. It is always, therefore, the feminine wish to rivet the bonds of wedlock tightly and securely. Women look with disfavour upon any change which makes the matrimonial yoke sit loosely upon men. At the same time, they like the feters to fit easily upon themselves—not with laxity, of course, but still without gallling rigour. Now, they will never arrive by the way of legislation at more comfortable conditions of marriage for women than for men so long as the suffragettes fail to intimidate even the Prime Minister and the coarser sex continues to make the laws.

From the nature of the case, none of her admirers can think that she is fooling him because she refuses to leave the fairyland of flirtation for the high road of marriage. She can sentimentalise to her heart's content, and she will always be a sweet, wronged, hapless martyr to the men who form her court.

There is a point of view which is very generally neglected, but which should give the governing considerations—the point of view of the children. Here, again, there are strong arguments for judicial separation as opposed to divorce in the case of unhappy marriages. It is an advantage to children to be rid of a bad father, but their state may have more become worse instead of better if an unsympathetic stepfather, with a natural preference for his own bairns, succeeds to the vacated seat by the heat. A woman's rule in the nursery and schoolroom may be rather ineffective, but it is usually denied and seldom lacking in the sympathy and affection which, when all the experts and theorists have finished contending, is the essence of education for the young. In fact, the judicially separated woman, if she knows how to find safety in numbers and does not become unwisely *eprisa* as to any one man, may be thoroughly happy herself in the female's case, and the source of unlimited mild and wholesome pleasure to others.

Sir Gorell Barnes has condemned complete judicial separation, and a number of magistrates have endorsed his opinion. But, then, the legal view is narrow. It is an old habit of the magistracy to ignore all about strict ethics, and it is on grounds of what one may call judicial ethics that they recommend divorce as an alternative. But the probability is that in this country we attach too much importance to morals commonly so-called. The very worst immorality is the ability to sin and the imposition of tyranny, especially upon children. The same sound system, that upon which Nature has accomplished her entire progression from the lowest types to the highest, is that the feminine being should find the mate of her choice—not of her bygone or mistaken choice, but of her present and real choice. It is of參考 importance to remember that the most common and most brought paralysed upon the Mahomedian East and is putting the Latin nations of Europe behind the northern races. Judicial separation is not a complete step in this direction, but in our complicated social conditions it is the safest form of release for the unhappily wedded, and, above all, it draws the scent of romance across the arid practicality of twentieth century customs.

B.

DISQUIETING RUMOURS,

ANTI-IMPERIALIST LABOUR.

BY THE WATCH DOG.

IMPERIALISTS should very carefully note the strong line being taken by the Labour Party, and particularly by that very able politician Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, in regard to affairs in Natal. They have, indeed, formed themselves into a pro-Zulu party, and they are intent on hampering and misrepresenting the Natal Government. After the astounding results of the General Election there were sanguine persons in the Unionist Party who predicted that the Labourites would not share the particularly obnoxious obscurantism of the Radicals. I had no such illusions, and I am not surprised to find the new party walking in the ways of Little Englandism and Exeter Hall ignored.

In the House, in the clubs, and from the constituencies I hear that nothing is yet being done to reorganise the party. A very grave responsibility rests on Mr. Balfour. Speeches at the Albert Hall are well enough, but organisation is a hundred times better. Before the winter the local associations ought all to be overhauled, young and vigorous candidates approached. The London County Council elections are approaching, and nothing is being done to defosslise the anti-Socialist party.

There is a disquieting rumour, too, that the House of Lords will hesitate to throw out the Education Bill. This comes to me from a young peer who held office in the last Government, and he added that the Peers are fearful of abolition, and will temprise. I am thoroughly convinced of the futility of this fear, and I still believe that the Bishops will be warmly and enthusiastically backed. But there are days when a man wants a faith that will remove mountains.

97L

50L

20L