[jt2190]

From the same wikipedia article:

> English common law before the reign of Charles II permitted a man to give his wife "moderate correction", but no "rule of thumb" (whether called by this name or not) has ever been the law in England.[2][8][d]

In other words, beating of wives was historically an acceptable practice under English Common law, notwithstanding my mistakenly using a debunked anecdote.

Thank you for "moderately correcting" me.

(edit: And to further the original point that historically English Common law allowed for wife-beating, from wikipedia:

> Prior to the mid-1800s, most legal systems viewed wife beating as a valid exercise of a husband's authority over his wife.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence#History)

[sparky_z]

> In other words, beating of wives was historically an acceptable practice under English Common law

You're assuming "moderate correction" means wife beating. In fact, if you look at the source Wikipedia cites for that phrase, it says:

>Such corrections specifically excluded beatings in favor of temporarily confining the wife to the household (like making a child sit in the corner). In fact, no British law, Common or Parliamentary, ever permitted wife beating under any circumstances.

[jt2190]

I guess you're right and I'm wrong. My apologies.

(edit: Perhaps I was confused by this quote:

> "In the early 1800s most legal systems implicitly accepted wife-beating as a husband’s right, part of his entitlement"

> https://www.britannica.com/topic/domestic-violence)

I took that to include English Common law (the article I quoted doesn't make that clear.) Bully to the English for always providing legal protection to their women!