QUESTION: I am writing about a widow whose husband was reckless with money and left her with nothing when he died. She lives in a small village. If she has incurred debts to tradesmen, etc., and cannot pay, what danger/threat does she face? I figured it would be debtor’s prison in London, but did they have such things in the countryside? I am trying to figure out the stakes in a new story so am free to go where the research takes me.
Response: Not all debts were chargeable to a widow or heir. What was her husband’s rank or status? What did he own ? Who inherited what?
Yes, there were debtor’s prisons in the many towns. If you have access to the British Newspaper Archive (it’s worth the fees!) you will see that almost every newspaper has lists of bankruptcies,and also sales of goods.
What was the difference between debtors and those declaring bankruptcy? Debtors owed personal debts for services to tradesmen and commercial enterprises. The tradesmen who were not paid, could not pay their wholesalers and suppliers and they went bankrupt. Claiming bankruptcy meant was one who was doing business of some kind and who did not pay for the supplies. That person seldom ended in debtors’ prison for his actions. However, both could have their land and property seized and sold for debts. The number of trades men who went bankrupt because the upper classes didn’t pay their bills was quite high.
Heirs and widows were not automatically responsible for all debts. I am not saying that a tradesman or anyone might not come threatening a widow about money her husband had owed, but not all situations were legally enforceable.
The legal debts from the tradesman had to be in legal form, and it was the executor of the man’s will who had the duty to deal with them. If the widow was the executor, she would have to deal with the creditors, otherwise, the executor did. Her house could be sold and all her furniture and clothes if the court said the debts were valid and there was enough in the estate to pay them.
I have not read of any widows being sent to debtors’ prison because of her husband’s debts. If someone has, please let me know, as I am interested. Also, the courts usually thought the widow should have something to live on.
I also found similar laws for 1800’s gaming and up to the Victorian era for a high ranking peer to owe another high ranking peer that the obligation could go beyond one’s death for the settlement. Tradesmen came AFTER honor-bound debts.
“Chits” are debts of honor because they were not enforceable by law. Some would say that the son was obliged to pay his father’s debts, but most believe he should tell the other man he will pay if he ever has money left over from essentials. The son did not incur the debt so he was not bound to pay it.
People looked down on a man who demanded payment for gaming debts when a family depended on on the inheritance to survive. The earl who has his chits is not considered honorable if he demands payment when a family needed to pay more bills.
I found a fantastic resource re prisons – State of the Prisons in England, Scotland and Wales, By James Neild in Google Books (link below). It lists *every* prison, gaol, Bridewell, etc. in the country, including the accommodation available and often other very interesting information about particular prisons.
Link: https://books.google. com.au/books?id=SwEMAQAAMAAJ& dq=bridewell+yorkshire&source= gbs_navlinks_s
Nobles could not be tossed into prison for debts. Courtesy peers could be. Sometimes a father would let his heir–or other son–be tossed into prison for debt as a way to try to bring him to his senses about those debts. Informal gambling debts (IOUs) did not someone to be tossed into prison, but debts to a money lender when one has signed a regular loan receipt did. Quite often a wastrel would find his tailor in debtors’ prison with him. Many small businesses failed because the aristocrats did not pay their bills.
I am confident many of you have read several stories where the peer has to marry an heiress to avoid debtors’ prison. It is far more likely that he marries her to avoid having property sold out from under him, despite entails and settlements.
Debtors had their goods and property taken and sold for debts. That was unusual for a peer. Usually, he arranged the sale himself.
On another thought, unless a peer had an Irish peerage and was seated in the House of Commons, he could not be sent to jail for debts. Even if he were an Irish peer who sat in Commons, he could not be sent to jail for debt while Parliament was sitting nor for 45 days before or after the session. So basically, though a peer could be in debt, he would not be in debtors’ prison.
(Mary Williams’ brother, John Trumbull, became famous as a painter of the Revolution. His works include the portrait above of William Williams, and the four large paintings of the Revolution now hanging in the Rotunda of the U. S. Capitol. 
“Williams was a delegate to the convention which adopted the Articles of Confederation, and then again in 1788 he was a delegate to the ratifying convention at Hartford to consider the adoption by Connecticut of the Constitution of the United States. He voted for it, but objected to the clause forbidding religious tests.
Wythe first exhibited revolutionary leanings in 1764 when Parliament hinted to the colonies that it might impose a stamp tax. By then an experienced legislator, he drafted for the House of Burgesses a remonstrance to Parliament so strident that his fellow delegates modified it before adoption. Wythe was one of the first to express the concept of separate nationhood for the colonies within the British empire.
Despite Virginia’s deepening disputes with the Crown, Wythe maintained close friendships with governors Francis Fauquier and Norborne Berkeley, baron de Botetourt.
Every Woman Dreams... 
