There must have been afforded a certain satisfaction to a dying husband--of colonial times--through the confidence that, by unwavering rule, his widow would soon be cared for and cherished by another. There was no uncertainty as to her ultimate settlement in life, and even should she be unfortunate enough to lose her second partner, he still had every reason to believe that a third would speedily present himself. The Reverend Jonathan Burr when almost moribund, piously expressed himself to “that vertuous gentlewoman his wife with confidence” that she would soon be well provided for; and she was, for “she was very shortly after very honourably and comfortably married unto a gentleman of good estate,” a magistrate, Richard Dummer, and lived with him nearly forty years. Provisions were always made by a man in his will in case his wife married again; scarcely ever to remove the property from her, but simply to re-adjust the division or conditions. And men often signed ante-nuptial contracts promising not to “meddle” with their wives’ property. One curious law should be noted in Pennsylvania, in 1690, that a widow could not marry till a year after her husband’s death. There seem to have been many advantages in marrying a widow--she might prove a valuable inheritance. The second husband appeared to take a real pride in demanding and receiving all that was due to the defunct partner. As an example let me give this extract from a court record. On May 31st, 1692, the governor and council of Maryland were thus petitioned:-- James Brown of St Marys who married the widow and relict of Thomas Pew deceased, by his petition humbly prays allowance for Two Years Sallary due to his Predecessor as Publick Post employed by the Courts, as also for the use of a Horse, and the loss of a Servant wholly, by the said Pew deputed in his sickness to Officiate; and ran clear away with his Horse, some Clothes &c., and for several months after not heard of. Now we must not be over-critical, nor hasty in judgment of the manners and motives of two centuries ago, but those days are held up to us as days of vast submissiveness and modesty, of patient long-suffering, of ignorance of extortion; yet I think we would search far, in these degenerate days, for a man who, having married a relict, would, two years after his “Predecessor’s” death, have the colossal effrontery to demand of the government not only the back salary of said “Predecessor,” but pay for the use of a horse stolen by the Predecessor’s own servant--nay, more, for the value of the said servant who elected to run away. Truly James Brown builded well when he chose a wife whose departing partner had, like a receding wave, deposited much lucrative silt on the matrimonial shore, to be thriftily gathered in and utilized as a bridal dower by his not-too-sensitive successor.