538 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.—2 BLAND.

There seems to have been some difficulty in England npon this
subject; because it is said, of this claim's being founded upon the
misconduct of the husband, and of the Ecclesiastical Courts having
the exclusive cognizance of all matrimonial cases; and as the kind
of separate maintenance called alimony is never allowed but as a
consequence of a divorce a mensa et thoro, that therefore, a Court
of equity could not take cognizance of a claim for separate main-
tenance, founded only on the misconduct of the husband, until
after a divorce a mensa et thorn had been granted by the Ecclesi-
astical Court. The difficulty of the English Court of equity, it is
evident, arises from the claim for a separate maintenance of this
kind, involving the question of divorce, of which it has no juris-
diction. But it is admitted on all hands, that under such circum-
stances, the wife ought to be relieved, and should be able to obtain
relief somewhere.

In England, during the short existence of the Republic, after
the decapitation of the first king Charles, the Ecclesiastical Courts
were abolished; and, in consequence thereof, the entire jurisdic-
tion in all cases of alimony and of separate maintenance devolved,
as a matter of course and necessity, upon the Court of Chancery,
as the only tribunal fitted and competent to decide thereon. Whore-
wood v. Whorewood, 1 Cha. Ca. 250; Oxenden v. Oxenden, Gilb.
Eq. Rep. 1; Head v. Head 3 Atk. 550; Anonymous, 2 Show. 282, 1
Mud. Chan. ,386, note. And for the same reason, in several States
of our Union, there being no Ecclesiastical Court, the cognizance
of such matters has been held to belong most properly to the Court
of Chancery. Purcell v. Purcell, 4 Hen. & Nun. 507; Prather v.
Prather, 4 Desau. 33; Rhame v. Rhame, 1 McCord, 205.

In Maryland, there never was an Ecclesiastical Court, and there-
fore, the High Court of Chancery always had, even under the Pro-
vincial Government, entire jurisdiction of such cases of claims for
alimony, or for separate maintenance out of the husband's estate,
founded on his misconduct, Galwith v. Galwith, 4 H. & McH. 477;
Hewitt v. Hewitt, 1 Bland, 101; (e)' but this branch of the jurisdic-

(e) MACNAMARA'S CASE.—This case was brought before the Court by a
petition, filed on the 13th of October, 1707, by Margaret Macnamara against
Thomas Macnamara, her husband. It stated, that she having been before
constrained to seek redress from the Chancellor against the cruel usage of
her husband, was then, once more, compelled by his continued severities,
daily manifested to the world, not only by threats, sufficient from a man of
his ungovernable temper to frighten a poor helpless woman out of her life,
but also by merciless stripes, the most scurrilous language unbecoming a
man, by a tyrannical domineering carriage, too severe to be used even to
slaves, and by a beastly lust, she blushed to name, in the gratification of
which, his indifferency in the use of white or black, clean or foul, was
such, that nature's law, self-preservation, dictated the danger of any com-
merce with him. That there was no safety for her under the same roof with
him, he having frequently, in his mad raptures, exclaimed against himself