For example of this let us look at the law of our own country in even recent times. Blackstone says:—“The husband (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction.... 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 suæ licite et rationabiliter pertinet_ (_i.e._, otherwise than to a man for the ruling and punishment of his wife, lawfully and reasonably pertains). The civil law gave the husband the same or a larger authority over his wife, allowing him for some misdemeanours, _flagellis et fustibus acriter verberare uxorem_ (_i.e._, to severely beat his wife with whips and cudgels), for others, only _modicam castigationem adhibere_ (to administer a moderate chastisement). But with us, in the politer reign of Charles the Second, this power of correction began to be doubted, and a wife may now (_circ._ 1750) have security of 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,” (query, were the women fond of it?) “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 misbehaviour.” (“Commentaries,” Edward Christian’s Ed., Book I., Chap. XV.) Such was undoubtedly the generally accepted and not infrequently acted upon assumption; and it is certain that the Courts of Law would, in the event of a wife absenting herself from her husband, order her return to his custody; and would, and did imprison her in default of her compliance. And this state of things continued until—as Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy records in her history of the celebrated “Clitheroe case”— “At length, in the year 1891, and, as in the case of the negro Somerset, upon the return to a writ of _habeas corpus_, there have been found judges bold enough and just enough to set aside the ancient saws and maxims, resting mainly upon _obiter dicta_ and loose phrases of previous judges used in reference to hypothetical cases never actually before the Courts, and to declare plainly and straightly that the personal slavery of the wife is no part of the law of England. The actual words of the Lord Chancellor in dealing with the return to the writ are, as reported by the _Times_, March 20th, 1891, as follows:—