> --- jeffrey fisher <jfisher at igc.org> wrote:
> > so, what does the otherwise clause mean, here?
> > especially in the
> > context of correcting women being like correcting
> > slaves?
> >
Btw, there were no slaves in England in Blackstone's time. Blackstone lists four sourts of servants, none of them slaves. 1 Blackstone, sec 14
Blackstone says:
"As to the several sorts of servants: I have formerly observed1 that pure and proper slavery does not, nay cannot, subsist in England; such I mean, whereby an absolute and unlimited power is given to the master over the life and fortune of the slave. And indeed it is repugnant to reason, and the principles of natural law, that such a state should subsist any where. . . UPON these principles the law of England abhors, and will not endure the existence of, slavery within this nation: . . . And now it is laid down,4 that a slave or negro, the instant he lands in England, becomes a freeman; that is, the law will protect him in the enjoyment of his person, his liberty, and his property.,"
Now the "correction" text as to wives is unclear, because he says there can be violence, but he approves moderate correction,a nd compares wivesto servants and children. The language that applies to servants seems to conte,plate some use of physical force by the master:
"A MASTER may by law correct his apprentice or servant for negligence or other misbehavior, so it be done with moderation:20 though, if the master's wife beats him, it is good cause of departure.21 But if any servant, workman, or laborer assaults his master or dame, he shall suffer one year's imprisonment, and other open corporal punishment, not extending to life or limb.22"
1 Blackstone, sec 14
That regarding children is more ambigious, but surely English law of the day approved corporal punishment for children:
"THE power of a parent by our English laws is much more moderate [than in ancient Rome]; but still sufficient to keep the child in order and obedience. He may lawfully correct his child, being under age, in a reasonable manner;28 for this is for the benefit of his education."
1 Blackstone sec. 16.
Spare the rod and spoil the child, etc.
Blackstone at the end of the discussion of wives, says that: " "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 case of any gross misbehavior." Apparently correction."
Which seems to say that the lower classes assert their right to beat their wives, but the current law will only permit a restraint of liberty. Given the no violence language in the context of the restraint of liverty clause, I think the comparison to servants and children has to be read loosely, and Blackstone must be taken to say that whatever the lower classes say, and whatever the law was before King Charles II's day, the common law no longer permits wifebeating.
So maybe I spoke over hastily when I said that Blackstone cannot be cited to show that the common law _never_ licensed wifebeating; there is a reading that it once did, but doesn't any more.
jks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree