562 HELMS v. FRANCISCUS.

a separation is tolerated as a means of preserving the public peace
and morals may be so considered, it does not, in any respect what-
ever, impair the marriage contract, or for any purpose, place the
wife in the situation of a feme sole. (l)

It has been thought that, without putting at hazard any regu-
lation necessary to insure conjugal felicity, a woman might, very
beneficially for herself as well as her husband, be indulged with
some more latitude of free will as to contracts, and a larger 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, out 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 ungallant 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 di-
rect, or indirect application of the principles of equity.

(l) Lister's case, 8 Mod. 22; Rex v. Mead, 1 Burr. 542; Whorewood v. Whore-
wood, 1 Cha. Ca. 250; Williams v. Callow, 2 Vern. 752; Head v. Head, 3 Atk. 548;
St. John v. St. John, 11 Ves. 529; Wellesley v. Beaufort, 3 Cond. Chan. Rep. 1;
Westmeath v. Westmeath, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 55.

The having obtained a writ of supplicavit, is no reason that the wife should elope,
or be separated from her husband, for it is a security taken for the wife, upon a sup-
position that they are to live together. Head v. Head, 3 Atk. 550; Covering's
case, 2 P. Will. 202; King v. King, 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 supplication
unto us, that she hath been grievously and manifestly threatened by her said hus-
band 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 will 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 procure 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 him
own wife, lawfully and reasonably belongeth. And if this before you to do he refu-
seth, then, that you take him, and him safe keep until he find security in form afore-
Mid. Dated 9th September, 1681.—Chancer Proceedings, lib. C. D. fol. 319.