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[1]: and therefore, in our eccleſiaſtical courts, a woman may ſue and be ſued without her huſband[2].
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 all deeds executed, and acts done, by her, during her coverture, are void; except it be a fine, or the like matter of record, in which caſe me muſt be ſolely and ſecretly examined, to learn if her act be voluntary[3]. 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[4]. And in ſome felonies, and other inferior crimes, committed by her, through conſtraint of her huſband, the law excuſes her[5]: but this extends not to treaſon or murder.
The huſband alſo (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction[6]. 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 ſervants 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[7]; 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[8]. The civil law gave
