Introduction. xcvii

Agreement" does not reveal the name of the "person", as the act calls him,
who was her intended husband.

The matter came before the Assembly in the form of a petition by Mary,
her father and mother, and her uncle, praying for the passage of an act legal-
izing the proposed settlement (pp. 291, 292). The preamble of the act recites
that Henry Darnall, Jr., and his wife, Rachel, Mary's parents, and her uncle,
Robert Darnall, have represented that Mary, "an Infant of the Age of 19
years—[had had] an advantageous offer of Marriage—and the sum of 300
pounds Sterling a year is proposed to be settled on the said Mary during her
natural Life in lieu and in Bar of Dower and of the Right she might have to
any Part of the Personal Estate of her intended Husband which Settlement
the Petitioners approve of and are willing and desirous that the same should
be executed." The preamble goes on to say that the intended Marriage is
delayed because the petitioners are doubtful whether the acceptance of the
settlement for securing the jointure by her, an infant, without legislative author-
ity can bar her from the right of dower and that part of her husband's personal
estate she might be entitled to. The act recites that Mary may, with the con-
sent of her father, mother, and uncle, accept a marriage settlement by which
she will receive £300 sterling annually, secured by sufficient land during her life
after the "Death of the Person with whom she may intermarry", this barring
her from any claim of dower or share of the personal estate (pp. 422-423).

When the bill came up in the Lower House it was passed and sent to the
Upper House, which also approved it, Daniel Dulany dissenting. He said that
while he thought the settlement proposed was unusual and liberal, he was against
the bill on legal grounds because it is a "Standing Rule of this House not to
pass Acts in Consequence of private Petitions, where the remedy or purpose
sought is sufficiently provided for by the general existing Laws." He cited
several English statutes which he considered validated a jointure of this kind
barring a wife from dower when made by a lady between nineteen and twenty
years of age. He feared that a settlement such as this, hitherto deemed valid,
hereafter "may unless great Care be taken, be affected by a particular Interposi-
tion of the Legislature, either on the Ground of its being necessary, or Proper"
(pp. 291-292, 293).

One cannot help speculating why Charles Carroll of Carrollton, the wealthiest
man in Maryland, should wish to bar his widow from her dower and one-third
interest in his personal estate, and why the Assembly acted contrary to the
opinion of that outstanding lawyer, Daniel Dulany, which was against the
advisability of legislative approval of the marriage settlement. Did the mem-
bers feel that the realist, Charles Carroll, might refuse to marry the young lady
did he not have his way? Certainly everyone must have known whom Mary
Darnall was to marry, although the prospective groom's name nowhere appears
in the act, or in the journal of either house. That Carroll outlived his wife
many years and never remarried, is not without interest in this connection.

FISH CONSERVATION

The first Maryland laws for the conservation of fish were enacted in 1768.
Fish preservation had come up for consideration at the November-December,