GALLERY VIEW

Ladies' men

SALLY VINCENT

When politicians concern themselves with matters of private (or as they would have it, public) morality, they are unlikely to distinguish themselves as philosophers. No doubt the zeal that takes a man into politics Is vulnerable to the fallacy that the inner aspect of humanity may be manipulated from outside and that the enforcement of

law and orders will ultimately guide society towards its proper feeling about itself. Such a politician would, of course, take it earnestly Upon himself to mastermind the emotional lives of those he imagines to come within his orbit of tender jurisdiction, He would also be a fellow somewhat limited by his outmoded principles who would not be called upon to be exactly over-active in modern politics. Someone, indeed, whose performance in the House would be something of a speciality. ' Which brings me to the tail-end of a boisterous week, to a near-empty gallery and an assembly of about forty members.for the second reading of Robert Hughes's (Lab. Aberdeen North) Divorce (Scotland) Bill. And to the astonishing sight and sound of one Sir Myer Galpern, former house furnisher and Lord Provost of Glasgow (Lab, Glasgow Shettleston) a man of Iberian disposition, dedicated to the cause of keeping Scotland morally pure.

Until Sir Myer rose to his neat little shoes, the debate had promised to develop into little more than a sort of border skirmish, with William Small (Lab, Glasgow Scotstoun) red of face, white of head and thick of accent, Harry Laudering into the microphones to urge his countrymen to consider harmonis- ing with the French before contemplating emulation of the English way of life, while members turned upon him the benign smiles of those watching an old music hall turn. It seemed, at the time, unlikely that opposition to Mr Hughes's excellently presented Bill could possibly exceed Mr Small's quaint adumbration of the Scottish wife, whose home is her castle, who would, if English Permissiveness were allowed to creep across the border, be flung on the scrapheap and for Whose sake and the community interest Mr Small will refrain from supporting Mr Hughes at voting time.

The Scots, in their hearts at least, have managed to keep themselves purer than most in the history of our troubled Island, and may be relied on to cleave to their Puritanical ways and even be admired for it, !o long, that is, as they indulge in accents as unprobably heavy as Mr Small's and arguments as weak. Sir Myer, however, does not have a particularly amusing Scots accent. In fact, unfortunately, it is possible to understand every word he utters, from the Moment he broke into the debate to throw a red herring, lightly oatmealed, across the Path of Mr John Smith (Lanarkshire North) Who was carefully pointing out to the House the absurdities of maintaining anomalies between the divorce laws of England and Scotland. Sir Myer's was a small, but poig- nant point, through which we may, if we Wish, see through to his very soul. So in- dignantly, so revealingly, he wonders if Mr Smith imagines that Scotland has suffered because it has not applied the Act dealing with homosexuals which is now operating in England. Sir Myer recovers his seat in tri- umph, a small round man with small round glasses and a small round belly, well waist- coated, leaving us to conjure images of kilted queers joining the race of faithless husbands across the stumps of Hadrian's Wall to com- mit their unnatural practices upon the loathsome and permissive soil of England.

In vain does the valiant Mr Smith reiterate Mr Hughes's inescapable argument, that with the law as it stands, a Scotsman may avail himself of the English law, while his wife, for reasons of her domicile, may not. Sir Myer bides his time while the Campbells and Hamiltons of Northern shores add their skirls to the debate. When his chance comes it is clear that his mind has not unclenched in the interim. If he was a judge, he says, he would not be prepared to fall for the sub- terfuge of a man who transfers his home to England in order to gain a divorce for himself. He would not (if he was a judge) grant a divorce in such a case. His col- leagues, for reasons best known to themselves, do not bother to point out to Sir Myer that he is not, in fact, a judge, and that any amount of wishful thinking is unlikely to alter the charmless prospect of the future.

Great is his anxiety at the prospect of myriads of unworthy men, shedding the yoke of marriage without the punishment and shame they deserve. 'Let us not forget', he declaims, turning slowly to place a read page of his notes on the seat behind him, let us not forget that under this controversial Clause allowing unilateral divorce after five years' desertion, if the male spouse has gone to live with a woman . . ." and here he is overcome by the vulgarity of his own pro- posal; he stammers and hesitates and is heard to bluster some curious words about not referring to 'a blonde' because the Rt Hon Lady the member for Chislehurst is present, a restraint for which the good lady was no doubt exceedingly grateful, since she later stood shoulder to shoulder with Sir Myer in the Noes lobby.

In the terrible world Sir Myer inhabits, full as it is of homosexuals, traitorous husbands and near-unmentionable blondes, Scotland alone stands firm in its concept of the durability of marriage. Sir Myer is sure that we all subscribe to the desire that mar- riage should be retained *as an institution and that everybody should be entitled to live happily. From the House, silence. Not a whisper, not a giggle to suggest that perhaps there are one or two people in this world who do not regard marriage as the kingpin of society, the root of all happiness nor happiness itself the natural right of man.

Taking, perhaps, silence for support, Sir Myer warmed to his theme. A woman's ap- proach to marriage, he declares, is fun- damentally different from a man's. Allowing a pause to permit maximum penetration of this gem of observation, he continues, 'Women regard it as the ultimate achieve-

ment in life. A woman hopes to live, as in the fairy tale, happily ever after. But this bill will alter women's approach to mar- riage and this is the big danger'. This is the danger!

There were two women present in the House at the moment this perfidy was ut- tered. Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith (Con, Chislehurst) and Janet Fookes (Con, Merton and Morden), sitting across the House where Sir Myer could not have failed to observe them, Dame Pat in Tory blue and Janet Fookes in a lurid shade of yellow. They gazed silently, and even a little sadly, at Sir Myer and if they knew better than to rise to his bait they certainly know better than I do.

But alas, Sisters, the words were spoken and they were unchecked. And if Sir Myer cares nothing for the liberation of women he has still less respect for his own sex. Men, he warns, will take advantage of this Bill by all manner of means. Men who previously had no intention of so doing will harbour in- tentions of renouncing a guiltless wife. Because he knows that after five years' deser- tion he will be able to divorce her, he will be able to securely lay his plans. Others will marry for a two-year try-out, without com- municating this base intention to their hapless wives.

Not that Sir Myer's expressions of doom were the only absurdities to go unmolested on this domestic day, and come to that, they were not even the most outrageous. One • gentleman, in favour of the status quo, remarked that great attention should be payed to the fact that some children prefer- red the legal fiction of their parents' mar- riage to divorce. And Mr Hamish Gray (Con, Ross and Cromarty) whose pate with its modest covering of sideways combed eight inch hairs would circumvent God, went so far as to supply evidence of moral dangers that had even eluded Sir Myer. Permissive marriage, you see, is portrayed on television and is having a distracting effect on young people. In vain, again, John Smith labours to explain that marriages are successful or unsuccessful regardless of the law of divorce.

But why, I still wonder, the silence for Sir Myer? Why the lack of response from a House invariably so ready to quibble at the smallest area of doubt, mock the minutest folly, deride the tiniest trip of the tongue?

Maybe it is considered unpolitic to argue with a bigot, and to la'ugh at one is to mock the cruelly afflicted and so gain him the sym- pathetic vote of the wavering spirit. Whatever the reasons, Sir Myer certainly won his day. Whoever came to support Leo Abse on his English Divorce Bill failed to turn up for Mr Hughes in his brave bid to bring Scotland into line, and, for sheer lack of numbers, the Divorce (Scotland) Bill goes back to the bottom of the pile. Politicians wishing to persist with the vanity that it is within their command to effect the nature of humanity are hereby encouraged to do so, and Scotland has more time in which to punish its deviants. And the noblest prospect (as Dr Johnson unkindly remarked) a Scotsman ever sees, is more likely than ever to be the high road that leads him to Engla.nd. .