First, permit me to introduce you to Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), who shaped much of what we know of law in the Georgian Era. Sir William Blackstone was an English jurist, justice and Tory politician most noted for his Commentaries on the Laws of England, which became the best-known description of the doctrines of the English common law.

While most of what Blackstone wrote about the law stayed the same for the next century, there were changes, elucidation, and further commentary. 

Please note, for example, technically, a wife was not the husband’s property because that was impossible when they were considered by law as the “same person.” 

Blackstone had written ~ Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol. 1 The Rights of Persons (1765): “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law:  that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband:  under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything; is said to be . . . under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture.  Upon this principle, of an union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. . . .  For this reason, a man cannot grant any thing to his wife, or enter into [contract] with her: the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to [contract] with her, would be only to [contract] with himself . . . .The husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries [items necessary for subsistence] by law, as much as himself; and if she contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them; but for any thing besides necessaries, he is not chargeable. . . . If the wife be injured in her person or her property she can bring no action for redress without her husband’s concurrence, and in his name, as well as her own: neither can she be sued, without making the husband a defendant. . . . In criminal prosecutions, it is true, the wife may be indicted and punished separately . . . but, in trials of any sort, they are not allowed to be evidence for, or against each other; partly because it is impossible their testimony should be indifferent; but principally because of the union of person.

            “By marriage . . . [the property] which belonged formerly to the wife, are by act of vested in the husband, with the same degree of property and the same powers, as the wife, when [unmarried], had over them.  This depends entirely on the notion of an unity of person between the husband and wife; it being held that they are one person in law . . . . And hence it follows, that whatever personal property belonged to the wife before marriage, is by marriage absolutely vested in the husband.  In real estate, he only gains title to the rents and profits during coverture. . . . But, in [other property], the sole and absolute property vests in the husband, to be disposed of at his pleasure, if he chuses [sic] to take possession of them . . . .

            “The husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction.  For as he is to answer for his misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his servants or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases answer. . . . But, with us, in the politer reign of Charles the second, this power of correction began to be doubted. . . . Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their antient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in case of any gross misbehavior.

            “These are the chief legal effects of marriage during the coverture; upon which we may observe, that even the disabilities, which the wife lied under, are for the most part intended for her protection and benefit.  So great a favourite is the female sex of the laws of England.“

By the time of the Regency, the areas in which a wife could act on her own and be considered as her own person had broadened somewhat, especially in the area of crime. No man wanted to be considered guilty of a crime his wife committed on her own or while associating with another. Though a husband and wife could not testify against each other on most cases, a man could defend himself by distancing himself from the crime of his wife. Also, such distancing would take place out of the court room before the trial began. Notice that a wife could be excused from committing some crimes if she did so because she was forced into it by her husband. The exceptions were murder and treason. In cases of treason and murder, the case was so serious that it justified the  wife from not acting under the compulsion of the husband. That said, one wonders how far a wife would get if she opposed a husband when he committed treason or murder? Most likely, her corpse would be alongside the victim.

A wife could use the excuse that she only acted as her husband directed if both were implicated in a crime. By the late 18th century, at least, a wife could be convicted of a crime on her own. A Duchess would be tried in the House of Lords. She could try to implicate her husband but he would not automatically be indicted as a co conspirator.

Women and the Law

By Jone Johnson Lewis, About.com Guide

In the 19th century, American and British women’s rights–or lack of thereof–depended heavily on the commentaries of William Blackstone which defined a married woman and man as one person under the law. Here’s what William Blackstone wrote in 1765:

Source: William Blackstone. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol, 1 (1765), pages 442-445.  The major elements of this coverture held true through the Regency.

By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert, foemina viro co-operta; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities, that either of them acquire by the marriage. I speak not at present of the rights of property, but of such as are merely personal. For this reason, a man cannot grant anything to his wife, or enter into covenant with her: for the grant would be to suppose her separate existence; and to covenant with her, would be only to covenant with himself: and therefore it is also generally true, that all compacts made between husband and wife, when single, are voided by the intermarriage. A woman indeed may be attorney for her husband; for that implies no separation from, but is rather a representation of, her lord.

And a husband may also bequeath anything to his wife by will; for that cannot take effect till the coverture is determined by his death. The husband is bound to provide his wife with necessaries by law, as much as himself; and, if she contracts debts for them, he is obliged to pay them; but for anything besides necessaries he is not chargeable. Also if a wife elopes, and lives with another man, the husband is not chargeable even for necessaries; at least if the person who furnishes them is sufficiently apprized of her elopement. If the wife be indebted before marriage, the husband is bound afterwards to pay the debt; for he has adopted her and her circumstances together. If the wife be injured in her person or her property, she can bring no action for redress without her husband’s concurrence, and in his name, as well as her own: neither can she be sued without making the husband a defendant. There is indeed one case where the wife shall sue and be sued as a feme sole, viz. where the husband has abjured the realm, or is banished, for then he is dead in law; and the husband being thus disabled to sue for or defend the wife, it would be most unreasonable if she had no remedy, or could make no defence at all. In criminal prosecutions, it is true, the wife may be indicted and punished separately; for the union is only a civil union. But in trials of any sort they are not allowed to be evidence for, or against, each other: partly because it is impossible their testimony should be indifferent, but principally because of the union of person; and therefore, if they were admitted to be witness for each other, they would contradict one maxim of law, “nemo in propria causa testis esse debet”; and if against each other, they would contradict another maxim, “nemo tenetur seipsum accusare.” But, where the offence is directly against the person of the wife, this rule has been usually dispensed with; and therefore, by statute 3 Hen. VII, c. 2, in case a woman be forcibly taken away, and married, she may be a witness against such her husband, in order to convict him of felony. For in this case she can with no propriety be reckoned his wife; because a main ingredient, her consent, was wanting to the contract: and also there is another maxim of law, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong; which the ravisher would do, if, by forcibly marrying a woman, he could prevent her from being a witness, who is perhaps the only witness to that very fact.

In the civil law the husband and the wife are considered as two distinct persons, and may have separate estates, contracts, debts, and injuries; and therefore in our ecclesiastical courts, a woman may sue and be sued without her husband.

But though our law in general considers man and wife as one person, yet there are some instances in which she is separately considered; as inferior to him, and acting by his compulsion. And therefore any deeds executed, and acts done, by her, during her coverture, are void; except it be a fine, or the like manner of record, in which case she must be solely and secretly examined, to learn if her act be voluntary. She cannot by will devise lands to her husband, unless under special circumstances; for at the time of making it she is supposed to be under his coercion. And in some felonies, and other inferior crimes, committed by her through constraint of her husband, the law excuses her: but this extends not to treason or murder.

The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction. For, as he is to answer for her misbehaviour, the law thought it reasonable to intrust him with this power of restraining her, by domestic chastisement, in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children; for whom the master or parent is also liable in some cases to answer. But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds, and the husband was prohibited from using any violence to his wife, aliter quam ad virum, ex causa regiminis et castigationis uxoris suae, licite et rationabiliter pertinet. The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife: allowing him, for some misdemeanors, flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem; for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere. But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the second, this power of correction began to be doubted; and a wife may now have security of the peace against her husband; or, in return, a husband against his wife. Yet the lower rank of people, who were always fond of the old common law, still claim and exert their ancient privilege: and the courts of law will still permit a husband to restrain a wife of her liberty, in the case of any gross misbehaviour.

These are the chief legal effects of marriage during the coverture; upon which we may observe, that even the disabilities which the wife lies under are for the most part intended for her protection and benefit: so great a favourite is the female sex of the laws of England.

Source: William Blackstone. Commentaries on the Laws of England. Vol, 1 (1765), pages 442-445.

I love the last line: “…so great a favourite is the female sex of the laws of England.” 

I just wanted to say again: a wife might be her husband’s responsibility, but she was not actually his property.