User talk:77.96.118.122

Married Women's Property Act 1870 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-John (talk • contribs) 12:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The general tenor and the detail of this page are significantly wrong if the case of Lewis Buckley Bartholmew (sometimes spelled Bartholomew) https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000358/18571121/022/0004 is anything to go by. A transcription of the newspaper report follows. This is contrary to what the page maintains which is that a wife could not hold and exercise control over her own money.

I have no doubt that some husbands exercised coercive control over their wife and some wives rather than face the ignominy of social disgrace gave over control of her money. I also cite a Parliamentary research paper https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP13-14/RP13-14.pdf which states on about page 7, that before 1832 women were not prohibited from voting. The only limitation was the requirement to own land worth more than 40 shillings. It is true that, as reported in the Paston papers, when the husband was away it was seen as a good time by neighbours to make a land-grab.

Berkshire Chronicle - Saturday 21 November 1857	page 4 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000358/18571121/022/0004 COUNTY COURT—THURSDAY. (Before J. B. Parry, Esq., Q.C., Judge.) The court held an adjourned sitting Thursday last when the only case of any interest was that of application made for the discharge from custody of Lewis Buckle Bartholomew, an insolvent debtor. Mr. Williams, instructed by Mr. Shaw Smith, supported, and Mr. Thompson (barrister), instructed by Messrs. Blake and Snow (London), opposed the application. The case, which had been remanded from the last sitting of the court, was rendered somewhat complicated by the introduction of several deeds, respecting mortgages upon property belonging to the insolvent's wife; but these are of no interest to the public, nor did they appear to influence the decision of the Judge. The schedule set forth that the insolvent's debts, which extended over a period of three years, were £759 14[s], and his assets nil. Lewis Buckle Bartholomew, the insolvent, was called and examined by Mr. Thompson. He said: I have received the sum of £200 a year from my wife for many years. I have rented house lately of Mr. Holman, at Burnham, at a rent of £13 a year. Mr. Holman sued me for £20, for which he put distress into my house. At that time Holman owed me £36, and I brought action for trespass against him. The action was not proceeded with in consequence of the bad management of Mr. Binns. I wrote several letters to Mr. Binns, but do not recollect stating in one of them, that before I went over head and ears again, I should consider well. I do not remember saying that I would spend £1000 on the rascal. In the course of his examination the insolvent stated, that during the last three years he paid £130 for medical attendance, he, having had concussion of the brain, which made it necessary for him to have constant medical attendance. He had also expended £180 for clothing, £80 for travelling, and £295 in law expenses. Had no receipts and no vouchers for any of these accounts, neither did he keep any books or memoranda. Mr. Holman, the opposing creditor, having stated the particulars respecting his account, which was principally for rent, Mr. Thompson addressed the court and said, that although the insolvent had income of £200, he had made no offer to set apart any portion of for the benefit of his creditors. The manner in which the insolvent had given his evidence was very unsatisfactory. He guarded himself most pointedly from answering any question of at all "ticklish" character, and he (the learned counsel) never met anyone with so short memory. If it was true that the insolvent had been as ill as he had stated, that he had been — and every one in court who knew anything of his habits and pursuits might easily imagine how the concussion of the brain was caused — how was it that he had been spending four or five hundred year. The insolvent had frequently promised to pay the debt due to Holman, who was comparatively speaking poor man, and one who could ill afford to lose his money, and why should he be deprived of it by a man, who lived an idle life, who kept no books or accounts, and who could produce neither vouchers or receipts for anything he stated that he had paid. He (Mr. Thompson) trusted that such a man would not be discharged without some censure being passed upon him by the court. Mr. Williams said that it was impossible for Bartholomew to set apart any of his income for the benefit of his creditors, inasmuch as he derived the money from his wife, who could at any time have stopped the allowance if she thought proper. The learned gentleman then very ably replied to the other points in Mr. Thompson's address. The learned Judge said it did not appear to him that Bartholomew had any claim upon the indulgence of the court. In the year Bartholomew took the benefit of the act, and his creditors were then losers to the amount of nearly £2000. In being then a young man, the insolvent had married person of some property, and since that time he had made no exertions to gain a livelihood. It appeared also that he had not been living latterly under the same roof with his wife, as any prudent and well-conducted man would do, consequently there were two separate houses and two separate establishments to be maintained. The insolvent had spent the £200 a year allowed by his wife, and had contracted debts during the last two years to the amount of £750. Thus, it would appear that his annual expenditure was £450. The creditors had acted in most lenient manner, but if they had been so disposed, they might have proceeded against the insolvent for contracting debts without any probability of being able to pay the same. He (the learned Judge) should sentence him to six months' imprisonment, the term of his confinement to commence from the date of the vesting order, namely the 22nd September. Mr. Williams handed to the Judge certificate from Mr. F. A. Bulley, surgeon, which stated that during Mr. Bartholomew's imprisonment had had apoplectic seizure, and that lengthened imprisonment would probably be fatal him. The learned Judge said he really did not see that he could interfere.