HELMS v. FBANCISCUS.—2 BLAND. 535

It has been thought that, without putting at hazard any regu-
lation necessary to insure conjugal felicity, a woman might, very
beneficially lor herself as well as her husband, be indulged with
some more latitude of free will as to contracts, and a large extent
of individuality of character in relation to the right of property.
By the common law, her will and her rights, in those respects, are
so absolutely submerged and covered over by those of her husband,
that she is not only made dependent on him for domestic happi-
ness, but is tied to his fortunes, and deprived of all means of saving
herself from the most abject penury in cases where, by means of
a larger share of independent right, she might rescue herself and
children from the wayward or the luckless course of her husband,
and thus promote, instead of disturb, conjugal harmony. But
those stern and uugallant general rules of the common law, by
which marriage so sinks the wife under the absolute sway of the
husband have been made, in many respects, to yield to a better
feeling, and have undergone many wholesome modifications
chiefly by the direct, or indirect application of the principles of
equity.

* The father is the rightful and legal guardian of all his

infant children; and in general, no Court can take from him 563
the custody and control of them, thrown upon him by the law, not
for his gratification, but on account of his duties, aud place them
against his will in the hands even of his wife. St. John v. St.
John, 11 Ves. 531. But although the Courts of common law can
enforce the rights of the lather, they are not equal to the office of
enforcing the duties of the father; and therefore, where the
children have any property, which can give this Court the means
of acting in their behalf, it will protect them as well against the

the wife, upon a supposition that they are to live together. Head v. Head,
3 Atk. 550; Wavering's Case. 2 P. Will. 202; King v. Ring, 2 Ves. 578; Heyn^s
Case. 2 Ves. & Bea. 182,

BREAD'S CASE.—Charles, &c.—To the Sheriff of Charles County, greeting,
Whereas Jane, the wife of John Bread, of your county, hath made supplica-
tion unto us. that she hath been grievously and manifestly threatened by her
said husband of her life and of mutilation of her members, we being willing,
in this behalf, to provide for the security of the said Jane, do command you,
firmly enjoining, that you cause the said John Bread personally to come
before you, and him compel to find sufficient security, under a certain
penalty by you, for our use, reasonably to be imposed, for which to us you
wilt answer; that he, the said John Bread, the said Jane well and truly will
treat and govern: and that the said John do not, by any means, do, nor pro-
cure to be done, any damage or evil to the said Jane of her body, otherwise
than what to a husband, by cause of government and chastisement of his
own wife, lawfully and reasonably belongeth. And if this before you to do
he refuseth, then, that you take him, and him safe keep until he find security
in form aforesaid. Dated 9th September, 1681.—Chancery Proceedings, lib.
C. D. fol. 319.