Ah, Sir Humphrey.           

 

Good afternoon Prime Minister.

 

I’ve got some good news. We slipped your little amendment to the Matrimonial Causes bill through this morning.

 

So I heard Prime Minister.

 

There were only forty four MPs in the house and most of them were, well, ‘one of us’. So it passed by forty three for, none against and one abstention, and that was only because old Pollender-Smythe fell asleep and couldn’t get out of his seat to vote. So you’re all good.

 

As long as it gets through the Lords, Prime Minister.

 

The Lords? That bunch of piss-stained old farts, most of them don’t even know what day of the week it is, let alone what they’re voting for. It will be on the statute books before the weekend.

 

Thank you Prime Minister.

 

I had a look through the bill just now. I see what you’ve done. You’ve written out the wife’s right to petition for divorce because of her husband committing adultery. Very clever.

 

Well I wrote a little justification in the preamble Prime Minister. It basically points out that since it is a wife’s duty to fulfil the sexual needs of her husband, then if the husband strays it can only be because the wife has failed in her duty. And to allow her to petition due to her own failure is somewhat anomalous with common sense. Would you not agree Prime Minister?

 

Oh indeed Humphrey. You don’t need to justify it to me. I’m ‘one of us’ you know. I noticed you added a little clause here too.

 

Where would that be Prime Minister?

 

On page 645, clause 3, paragraph 4. It says “a husband shall have a right to petition a court for an order to allow him to use appropriate measures to protect his wife’s fidelity. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, permanent or semi-permanent barriers to penetration. Permission shall not normally be refused if there is reasonable suspicion that the wife has, or may in the future commit adultery, unless it can be proved that the wife has not, and will not commit adultery.” Does that mean what I think it means?

 

That would depend on what you think it means Prime Minister.

 

Well does it mean that I can keep Mary in, well you know, a belt?

 

That would be one possible interpretation Prime Minister. I was thinking of using the cellar door myself.

 

Ooh Humphrey. You are a dark horse aren’t you. And what would constitute reasonable suspicion?

 

Well I would imagine that if the husband suspects, then the magistrate would consider that reasonable suspicion.

 

And how could the wife prove that she hasn’t and won’t commit adultery?

 

Exactly Prime Minister.

 

Ooh, lovely.

 

And if I might indulge in a little self-congratulation, Prime Minister, I am rather proud of the fact that I have left it unspecified as to what exactly can be protected from penetration. It is after all possible for a wife to commit adultery not just with her lower openings, but with her mouth too, and if that were to be protected from penetration then it might also have the useful side effect of enhancing quiet inside the matrimonial home and preventing gossip outside of it.

 

Humphrey! Have I just passed a law that says a husband can keep his wife gagged?

 

Well I believe in medieval times a device known as a scold’s bridle was commonplace.

 

This is excellent Humphrey! But err… we couldn’t be accused of anything underhand here could we? Corruption or anything like that?

 

Corruption Prime Minister? Well you don’t have shares in a company that makes stainless steel err… belts do you?

 

No.

 

Well it would be a flimsy case against you if you didn’t stand to benefit more than any other man, would it not?

 

Ah, I suppose so Humphrey. A great day for the country then. And we haven’t even got to your plan to get women properly attired? You do have a plan don’t you?

 

Indeed Prime Minister. I’m still working on some of the finer details. Would tomorrow be all right?

 

Tomorrow will be fine Humphrey.