Getting the Goods, Ruling a Province, Keeping the Peace: Restoration-Era Merchant- Planter Elites in Maryland, 1661-1679

Dissertation

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

James Howard Weeks, B.A., M.A.

Graduate Program in History

The Ohio State University

2014

Dissertation Committee:

Dr. Margaret Newell, Advisor

Dr. John Brooke

Dr. Richard Shiels Copyright By

James Howard Weeks

2014 Abstract

From her founding in 1634 up to 1660, Maryland had not enjoyed a settled government for more that a few years at a time, experiencing attacks by zealot Puritans, invasion, civil war, and even an attempted rebellion by Lord Baltimore’s hand-picked governor. Considering this history, it would have seemed a safe bet that when the next crisis hit in the Chesapeake, that it would be Maryland that would once again burst into violence and disorder. Yet, when that spark did land in September of 1675, setting off a chain of events that ultimately launched Bacon’s Rebellion, it was Virginia that exploded, not Maryland.

From 1661-1676, a new merchant-planter elite emerged in Maryland. Like any successful merchants in the seventeenth century, they built and maintained extensive networks within the Province and throughout the Atlantic World. Faced with dramatically different conditions in the Chesapeake, they adapted their practices in innovative ways that foreshadowed developments that would not take firm hold until after the 1720s. As they confronted the economic uncertainty inherent in reliance upon a single, marginally profitable cash crop, they moved to diversify their economic endeavors not only within their trade but also in their agricultural endeavors, and into other fields as well, such as the Indian trade and into careers at law. As the leading

ii members of the community, they came to enter and dominate politics, where the

Calverts cultivated their loyalty with patronage appointments. And in the crisis months of the late summer and autumn of 1676, the leading men of this new elite were in charge. Half of the Delegates to the Assembly were merchant-planters, as were two- thirds of the Council. And one of their own, Thomas Notley, sat as Governor.

In the face of the crisis Governor Notley, with a secure power-base, was swift and decisive in his actions to protect both Marylanders and the Calvert Government.

After the immediate crisis had passed, Notley pursued a pragmatic and thoughtful policy of addressing the concerns and passing reforms that had long been desired by opponents to the Calverts’ rule. Thomas Notley was a most unusual leader in 1676, bridging both the proprietary and anti-proprietary parties in Maryland. Maryland did not implode in

1676 as Virginia did because a deeply interconnected merchant-planter community that had built strong ties among the poorer Marylanders through their trade had come to dominate the government just at that critical moment. Those connections enabled them to maintain the trust of most Marylanders in the face of the crisis. Though the storm came, and the winds blew, the house did not fall.

iii Dedication

For Amy and Maguire, the two great joys in my life.

iv Acknowledgements

No words can adequately express the debts I owe my dissertation committee.

Dr. Margaret Newell has been supportive and endlessly patient as an advisor, a critic, and as a cheerleader. Her insights and guidance have been invaluable, and the completion of this dissertation is in no small part due to her support. Dr. John Brooke has always had time for me, to ask questions, to ask for advice, and to occasionally (I hope) to allow me to enlighten him with some small tidbit from Maryland’s fascinating history. Both have helped me grow as a scholar in ways too numerous to list here. I owe no small measure of thanks to other professors at Ohio State, especially Dr.

Kenneth Andrien, Dr. Paula Baker, and Dr. Alan Gallay, all of whom offered invaluable advice, suggestions, and recommendations. I have enjoyed every challenge they presented me with, and I am profoundly appreciative of their support and guidance. Dr.

Donna Guy deserves special mention. She changed my life by opening up entirely new fields of history to me, and has also been a ceaseless supporter, and gentle task-master. I can never repay the debt of gratitude I owe her. I would not be here were it not for her.

The staff and archivists at the Maryland State Archives at the Hall of Records in

Annapolis, Maryland who helped me with the research deserve special thanks. They helped me navigate the finding aids, locate microfilm, and find gems that I would never

v have been able to locate by myself. Their stewardship and dedication to making the records of Maryland readily accessible not only in the Hall, but online, has made my research a joy, and I look forward to returning.

Thanks are also owed to my fellow graduate students. Their collegial support and friendship could always be counted on, and I thank them all for help in proofreading and critiquing my work. Rebecca Barrett, Rob Denning, Cameron Jones, Emre Sencer,

Robert Padilla kept me laughing and moving even when I did not feel I could. I’d like to especially thank Michael Alarid and Anna Glaze, for their friendship and support in difficult times. I have been profoundly transformed intellectually and personally by knowing all of them. The greatest debt is owed to my colleague Steve Hyland. I can never repay what I owe him; I would never have been able to finish were it not for him.

I hope that my assistance with his dissertation was half as helpful as his insights were for mine.

I also owe a great deal of thanks to my family, who has been endlessly encouraging. My parents have always been boundlessly supportive of my interests and intellectual pursuits. My Aunt Barb and Uncle Joe kindly allowed me to stay with them multiple times as I researched at the Hall of Records in Annapolis, only minutes from their home. And lastly, to my wife, Amy: I am lucky to have found my biggest and most patient cheerleader in the middle of the most difficult intellectual task I have undertaken. The completed dissertation is a monument to her love and support.

vi Vita

1987...... Cardinal Stritch High School 1992...... B.A. History, University of Toledo 2001...... M.A. History, Bowling Green State University 2001 to 2008...... Graduate Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University 2008-2012...... Adjunct Professor of History, Wittenberg University 2010-present...... Lecturer in History, The Ohio State University, Newark Campus

Fields of Study

Major Field: History Specializations: Early United States, Modern United States, Latin America

vii Table of Contents

Abstract...... ii

Dedication...... iv

Acknowledgments...... v

Vita...... vii

List of Tables...... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction...... 1

Chapter 2: Connections...... 16

Chapter 3: Merchanting...... 53

Chapter 4: Diversity...... 90

Chapter 5: Merchants in Power...... 131

Chapter 6: Maryland and Notley before 1676...... 183

Chapter 7: Navigating the Crisis...... 220

Chapter 8: Epilogue...... 269

Bibliography...... 292

viii List of Tables

Table 4.1 Labor Supply of Members of the Assembly Who Died 1671-1681...... 116

Table 5.1: Merchants on the Council of Maryland, 1661-1688...... 132

Table 5.2: Council of Maryland Members in Selected Sessions...... 135

Table 5.3: Number of Patronage Appointments held by Delegates...... 139

Table 5.4: Delegates, Merchants, and Religious Affiliation, 1671-75...... 140

Table 5.5: Delegates, Merchants, and Religious Affiliation, 1676-78...... 140

Table 5.6: Legislators’ Years in Maryland, Before Election to Named Assembly...... 143

Table 5.7: Delegates, Number of Previous Elections to the Assembly, 1671-78...... 144

Table 5.8: Delegates, 1671-78, Named to County Justiceships by 1678...... 151

ix Chapter 1: Introduction

For England, the seventeenth century was not just transformative, but tumultuous.

In 1601, she was a minor power on the fringes of Europe, led by an ancient and beloved

Queen. Over the next century England saw pernicious unemployment, nigh-on constant political and religious crisis, two civil wars, a regicide, a dictator, a restoration, a major rebellion, an invasion and the overthrow of another monarch, ending with a rather radical restructuring of the English Constitution. But after all this, in 1700 England was one of the leading imperial powers, with colonies and contacts that spread across the world; the

English economy was entering the earliest stages of industrialization, and it was one of the premier commercial nations on Earth. The English people had placed on the throne a

King of their own choosing and had a written Bill of Rights, guaranteeing certain basic liberties. Parliament was at last a permanent and central part of the government. The

English were proud of their rising power, their rising economy, and thought themselves— not without some justification—the freest people on Earth.

None of the English were immune to the disorder of the seventeenth century, whether they lived in England or in one of her overseas possessions. Although each crisis in the metropole found expression in the Anglo settlements in the New World, they joined with local conditions and controversies and were expressed in unique ways.

Maryland, founded and ruled over by an openly Catholic proprietor was especially

1 tumultuous, not surprisingly considering the importance religion played in many of the crises. From its founding in 1634 to 1660, Maryland had been viciously attacked and nearly wiped out entirely, taken over by Parliamentary representatives, and had a brief civil war of their own when Calvert loyalists made a failed attempt to re-establish their government by military force. Through his skill as a courtier, Cecil, second Lord

Baltimore was confirmed in his rule by the Commonwealth, and sent a new governor, seemingly putting to rest the confusion over who ruled in Maryland once and for all.

Such appearances were misleading. Within a year, Baltimore’s hand-picked governor joined with one of the largest and most disgruntled landowners in the province and attempted to reduce the Proprietary to a figurehead status. With the Restoration, however, Cecil, Lord Baltimore once again reclaimed his rights.1 For two and a half decades, Maryland had not enjoyed a settled government for more that a few years at a time, and had shown the existence of deep fissures in her population. It would have seemed a safe bet that when the next crisis hit in the Chesapeake it would be Maryland that would once again burst into violence and disorder. Yet, when that spark did land in

1 For a general history of these events see Aubrey C. Land. Colonial Maryland: A History. (Millwood, NY: KTO Press, 1981) pp. 3-81; see also: Robert J. Brugger. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634- 1980. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988) pp. 3-33. For a comprehensive summary of Maryland’s political history and tumult in the pre-Restoration period see David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) Cecil Calvert, second Lord Baltimore, like his father George, was a talented politician / courtier. He was able to convince the Puritan Commonwealth that his colony was loyal, which undoubtedly aided him in reclaiming his rights from the Parliamentary Commissioners who seized control in the early 1650s. After the Restoration, he was able to re-secure his authority after his Governor’s attempted treason. He was able to restrain the Jesuits, pass freedom of conscience into law, and successfully deflected efforts by the Anglican hierarchy to impeach him for not establishing the state church. See John D. Krugler. English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008) pp. 49-232

2 September of 1675, setting off a chain of events that ultimately launched Bacon’s

Rebellion, it was Virginia that exploded, not Maryland.

From 1661-1676, a new merchant-planter elite had risen in Maryland of whom

Thomas Notley was one of the most successful. Like any successful merchants in the seventeenth century, they built and maintained extensive networks within the Province and throughout the Atlantic World. Faced with dramatically different conditions in the

Chesapeake, they adapted their practices in innovative ways that foreshadowed developments that would not take firm hold until after the 1720s. As they confronted the economic uncertainty inherent in reliance upon a single, marginally profitable cash crop, they moved to diversify their economic endeavors not only within their trade but also in their agricultural endeavors, and into other fields as well, such as the Indian trade and into careers at law. As the leading members of the community, they came to enter and dominate politics, where the Calverts cultivated their loyalty with patronage appointments. And in the crisis months of the late summer and autumn of 1676, the leading men of this new elite, based in the long-settled southern counties along the

Potomac were in charge. Half of the Delegates to the Assembly were merchant-planters, as were two-thirds of the Council who ran the colony and one of their own, Thomas

Notley, sat as Governor.

In 1676, the key member of this elite was Thomas Notley. He had arrived from

Barbados sometime in 1661 or 1662, settled on St. Clements Manor as a tenant, and by

1676 was a major landholder and manor lord in his own right, owning twenty-nine slaves to work his lands. With a single exception (session one of the 1671-75 Assembly), St.

3 Mary’s electors chose him as a delegate to every session of the Assembly after 1662; in

1666 he became the speaker, a position he held in every session but two (1669 and first session of the 1671 Assembly) before his elevation to the council after the first session of the 1676-1682 assembly. He was one of the leading attorneys of restoration Maryland, representing both the proprietary and the Calvert’s most strident opposition in the highest courts of the Colony from 1662-1676. He proved to have a keen ear for the grievances of his fellow Marylanders and worked diligently to ameliorate their complaints and concerns; as a resident Maryland merchant-planter himself he shared them. In the face of the crisis he was swift and decisive in his actions to protect both Marylanders and the

Calvert Government. After the immediate crisis had passed, Notley secured the absent

Baltimore’s hold on his province by pursuing a policy of addressing the concerns and passing reforms that had long been desired. Thomas Notley was a most unusual leader in

1676, bridging both the proprietary and anti-proprietary parties in Maryland. By carefully and firmly maintaining the Calvert’s prerogatives, and reforming the worst abuses Governor Notley achieved a rarity in politics, he successfully served two masters.

Maryland did not implode in 1676 like Virginia because a deeply interconnected merchant-planter community that had built strong ties among the poorer Marylanders through their trade had come to dominate the government just at that critical moment.

Those connections enabled them to maintain the trust of most Marylanders in the face of the crisis, trust that was well placed, as these leaders worked diligently over the next two years to pass deeply desired popular reforms.

4 The events of 1675-1677 in Virginia that are known in history as Bacon’s

Rebellion loom large in the historiography of the seventeenth-century Chesapeake. The basic narrative of the events and the underlying causes of the uprising were understood rather quickly. In his 1705 History of Virginia, Robert Beverly believed that the immediate cause of the rebellion was the violence between backcountry settlers and natives in the summer and autumn of 1675. But he also understood the social, economic, and political developments that had increasingly marginalized the poorer whites in

Virginia as the deeper causes, going back at least two decades before the uprising. Ever since, histories of the Rebellion have largely centered on the meaning of the events. Like most writers of the events before the American Revolution, Beverly concluded that

Bacon was a dangerous demagogue. After Independence the idea that Bacon was a kind of proto-Washington and his rebellion was a prelude to the Revolution took over. In

1940 this idea reached its apogee with Thomas Jefferson Wertenbacher’s Torchbearer of the Revolution. For Wertenbacher, Bacon was a proto-patriot, and the fundamental issue was who should be in charge of the government in Virginia: the people of Virginia or the

Mother country. This interpretation was, however, on its last legs. In the late 1950s after uncovering new records on the events in Virginia from Henry Covington, Secretary of

State for the colonies, 1674-1680, Wilcomb E. Washburn in The Governor and the Rebel rejected the idea that the Young Bacon and his men were proto-patriots, fighting for important constitutional principles. Instead he argued that Bacon and his men were genocidal racists and their violent overthrow of Berkeley was motivated by their desire to wage indiscriminate war on the natives, not important constitutional ideals, noting that it

5 was Berkeley’s consistent refusal to allow war to be waged on the all Natives in order to seize their lands that had sparked the violence. Washburn patently denied that Bacon was the torchbearer of the Revolution. In 1960, Richard L. Morton’s treatment of the

Rebellion in his two volume Colonial Virginia, synthesized Wertenbacher and Washburn.

Morton agreed with Washburn that Bacon’s Rebellion was rooted in Indian troubles, but noted that its outbreak opened an avenue for the poor freedmen’s complaints against

Berkeley’s tyrannical rule over the previous decade and became also a struggle for liberty and political change, as the reforms demanded by them, and eventually passed in Bacon’s

Assembly of 1676 shows. In the 1970s, in his seminal American Slavery, American

Freedom, Edmund Morgan used the events to help explain the Chesapeake’s shift to slavery. Morgan agreed with Washburn in that racism was at the root of the uprising, and like Morton, understood that it was also ultimately about those deeper socio-economic developments that were rapidly relegating freedmen to crushing poverty and with changes in the suffrage, political impotence. In part, Morgan argued, the rebellion was warning that the elite should treat their servants better, but it was also a warning that continued reliance on servants was a recipe for another rebellion.2

In a twist on Wertenbacher’s old thesis, Steven Saunders Webb in 1676: The End of American Independence argued that the Rebellion in Virginia was not an attempt to

2 Robert Beverly. The History of Virginia in Four Parts, Second Edition, 1722 (Richmond, VA. H.K. Ellyson’s Steam Presses Reprint 1855) pp. 60-79 at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32721/32721-h/32721- h.htm. Thomas Jefferson Wertenbacher. Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon's Rebellion and its Leader (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1940). Wilcomb E. Washburn. The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957). Richard L. Morton. Colonial Virginia Volume I: Tidewater Period, 1607-1710 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960) pp. 238-280. Edmund S. Morgan. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Virginia. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975 (reprint, 1995)) pp. 250- 315.

6 establish popular control of the governmental apparatus, but rather that it, along with the other calamitous events in the New World of 1675-76, would lead Charles II to begin the process to end the ad hoc arrangement of his empire, and effectively bring the North

American colonies under much firmer imperial control, ending the first period of effective Independence. In 2006, Angelo Angelis argued that the uprising was neither a symptom of endemic chaos in Virginia, nor a dress rehearsal for the Revolution. Instead he argued that the ultimate goal of the rebels was not a revolution against the established government, but rather a demand for its reform. He calls it the first “Regulation” in

America; like the later movements in the colonial Carolinas, and Shaysites in the Early

Republic, the fundamental demands of Bacon’s movement were for reforms of the existing political system, demanding more involvement of the poorer planters in both local and provincial government and better integration into the growing Atlantic market economy. Brent Tarter in his “Bacon's Rebellion, the Grievances of the People, and the

Political Culture of Seventeenth-Century Virginia” argued that Bacon’s Rebellion swept up so many Virginians who were not under any real threat from the Indians whose attacks were its proximate cause because it was actually about ‘county grievances,’ namely, high taxes. The Counties hoped to alleviate the financial burden they had to impose on each county’s taxpayers. Also published in 2011, James D. Rice’s Tales from a Revolution offers one of the most detailed narratives of the events in Virginia, 1675-77, and argues that the events of 1675-1677 were only part of a process of class conflict that would culminate in 1689 when new Royal Governors would arrive in Virginia and Maryland,

7 take a hard line against the Natives, and complete the social transformation into the slave- societies of the eighteenth century. 3

These works almost always include some discussion of events in Maryland, but as a side-light to the main events. In almost every case, the Calvert’s province is discussed as if it too experienced a massive uprising. While there were tensions in the Colony,

Maryland’s government never collapsed. Why this was so has been rarely explored, even in literature focused on Maryland, like David W. Jordan’s Foundations of Representative

Government in Maryland, 1632-1715, in which the events in Maryland in 1675-1679 are only discussed in five pages. Although Jordan concluded that Governor Thomas Notley was able to keep the province from exploding, how and why Notley was able to do this is not explored.4 This present work is an attempt to answer how Maryland was able to avoid Virginia’s disaster.

The first three chapters describe how the merchant-planter community acted economically in the great bay, building and maintaining important networks both within and without Maryland, and how they modified their trade practices in the light of the conditions in the Chesapeake. They became a tightly interconnected community of ambitious and innovative resident traders whose efforts at developing their trade and

3 Steven Saunders Webb. 1676: the End of American Independence (New York: Knopf, 1984) pp. 3-163. Angelo T. Angelis. “’By Consent of the People’: Riot and Regulation in Seventeenth Century Virginia.” Colonial Chesapeake: New Perspectives. Debra Myers and Melanie Perreault, Eds. (New York: Lexington Books, 2006) pp. 117-140. Brent Tarter. “Bacon's Rebellion, the Grievances of the People, and the Political Culture of Seventeenth-Century Virginia.” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography. Vol. 119, Issue 1 (2011) p1-41. James D. Rice. Tales from a Revolution: Bacon’s Rebellion and the Transformation of Early America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 4 David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 118-123

8 diversifying the economy of Maryland presaged the successful efforts that only came in the early decades of the eighteenth century.5

Chapter Two, “Connections,” traces the building of the extensive networks by restoration-era Maryland merchant-planters. Not only did the build critical connections between themselves and the proprietary, but also with the smaller planters who were their customers, and electors. In the crisis of 1676, the masters of the tobacco fleet, with whom Maryland’s leadership had had over a decade of engagement, would provide the critical forces needed to reclaim Virginia and helped keep Maryland peaceful. The connections the Maryland merchant-planter elite built as part of their merchanting enterprise were central to their rise to provincial leadership and stabilizing Restoration

Maryland in 1676-1679.

Chapter Three, “Merchanting,” describes how the resident merchants of Maryland altered their trade in the light of the conditions of the Chesapeake. Forced to be creditors, they adopted loan-practices that were designed to limit their liabilities as best they could, and the most successful of them avoided lawsuits to recover from their debtors. They expanded their trade in what they sold and how they sold it. From fabrics to alcoholic beverages, they imported wide varieties of goods in type and kind, supplying their 5 For the emergence of a stable elite class, and the successful implementation of the efforts of the restoration-era Merchant-planters, see Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980). David W. Jordan. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979). pp. 243-273 Charles G. Steffen. From Gentlemen to Townsmen: The Gentry of Baltimore County, Maryland, 1660-1776 (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1993). Trevor Burnard. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776 (New York: Routledge, 2002). Charles Steffen traces the ultimate failure of Restoration-era merchant- planters and the rise of a stable elite in Charles G. Steffen. From Gentlemen to Townsmen: The Gentry of Baltimore County, Maryland, 1660-1776 (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1993).

9 customers with nearly everything they might need in order to capture as much of their trade as they could. Doing so required adapting new technologies like bottles for the sale of small quantities of alcoholic beverages to a deeply impoverished customer base that could not afford to purchase larger casks. Their practices foreshadowed economic developments that would only come into full fruition in the eighteenth century among a new set of planter-merchants. In the process of building their enterprises, they built networks and contacts that proved vital in the crisis of 1676.

Chapter Four, “Diversity,” explores how the merchant planters both bought land, and attempted to diversify their economic efforts away from the noxious weed. They were not only some of the earliest adopters of slave labor, but were also labor importers.

They moved to build a nascent victualling trade with the sugar islands, anticipating a market that would not be an important feature of Maryland’s economy until after 1700.

Not insignificantly, they were the most important and skilled attorneys in the Restoration period, practicing law before the County and Provincial Judges, and many would find seats on the courts themselves. Their ability to supplement or surpass their income from tobacco’s uncertainties, enabled them to rise to be the local social and economic elites.6

6 The diversification of the economy of the Chesapeake is covered by Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980). In the 1970s and 1980s, work done out of Maryland’s Hall of Records by Drs. Carr, Menard, Clemens, Jordan and even Walsh herself (among others), tended to dominate the understanding of the economy of the Chesapeake. This so-called Chesapeake School argued that there had been a persistent economic crisis caused by crushingly low prices. More recently, Lorena Walsh’s more nuanced understanding of the economic development of the Chesapeake has taken firm root. Walsh now argues that there were actually three sub-regional economies, each of which operated differently, and that had different developments, based upon what they produced. South of the Potomac, Virginians grew sweet-scented tobacco, with a good market and decent profits. There elites adopted black chattel slavery early, long before 1676. To the north of the Potomac, i.e, the Western Shore of Maryland, the planters grew the harsher tasting Oronoco tobacco, which had lower demand, and earned lower margins; there the elites switched to slavery more slowly. On the Eastern Shore, the market gradually shifted away from Tobacco to the growing of grains for the provisioning trade. It is now generally accepted that there was not a single economy for the entire region. Lorena S. Walsh. Motives of Honor, Pleasure, and Profit:

10 Chapter Five, “Merchants in Power,” explores the rise and importance of these new resident merchant-planter elites as they entered into politics. They disproportionally won election as Delegates, and became leading members of the Lower House. Charles

Calvert was always looking for ways to foster a self-aware and distinguished ruling class, ideally closely allied with his family; the wealthy and ambitious merchant-planters were a logical choice. The Calverts favored the merchant-planters with disproportionate granting of the considerable patronage controlled by the Proprietary. In these positions of power, they worked to pass laws that were in their own best interest, placing limits and regulations on non-resident merchants, attempting to force the breaking of reliance on tobacco. They led the calls for the stinting of tobacco, attempting to encourage the growing and exporting of grain and pork by their fellow Marylanders. They wrote laws that regulated debts and the litigation of debt recovery, in ways that both served their own interests, but also that made debt more manageable for smaller planters as well. In the process of leading the Delegates, they developed, and even shared, concerns over the regal power granted in the Charter to the Lord Baltimore. As Speaker of the House,

Notley presided over several attempts at passing popular reforms, as a resident merchant- planter himself he understood the problems did need addressed. At the same time, he

Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607–1763 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010). Walsh traces the development of diversified economic activities, noting that in the seventeenth century, there were really no viable alternatives to growing tobacco; other markets for other produce would not emerge until the eighteenth century. The Maryland merchant-planter elites had begun the shift to slavery long before 1676. In this way they were similar to Virginia’s elite. John C. Coombs has argued that they turned to slavery virtually immediately and expanded their holdings as quickly as their circumstances and finances (along with access to supply) enabled them to do so. Indeed, considering the considerable difficulties in getting blacks suggests that the elites preferred them over white servants. John C. Coombs. “The Phases of Conversion: A New Chronology for the Rise of Slavery in Early Virginia” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series. Vol. 68, No. 3 (July, 2011) pp. 332-360

11 faithfully protected the proprietary interests. By 1676-79 he was the keystone in the merchant-planter bridge between the proprietary and those inclined to oppose him.7

In Chapter Six, “Maryland and Notley Before 1676,” I discuss the history of upheaval in Maryland and how Maryland and Virginia developed differently before 1676.

7 Unfortunately this community was unable to become a permanent elite, it was not until the eighteenth century that a stable elite class would emerge. In part, this was because Charles Calvert, third Lord Baltimore in the 1680s sharply limited his patronage, relying on fewer and fewer individuals—mostly Calvert family members and men who had proven their absolute loyalty. This policy angered many ambitious young men in the 1680s who were denied access to the offices that brought both considerable economic and social status benefits; it is no accident that many of these men joined in the 1689 Protestant Association that overthrew the Calverts. David W. Jordan and Lois Green Carr noted how the holders of many appointive offices after 1690 were men who had been denied access to them in the 1680s. See Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974). Jordan would argue in 1979 that a stable, coherent political system emerged in Maryland only after1700, see David W. Jordan. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979). pp. 243- 273; David W. Jordan. “Maryland’s Privy Council, 1637-1715.” in Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland. Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979). pp. 65-87 See also Lorena S. Walsh. “The Development of Local Power Structures: Maryland’s Lower Western Shore in the Early Colonial Period.” Power and Status: Officeholding in Colonial America. Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, Eds. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1986) pp. 53-71. Walsh argued that Charles Co. officeholders, 1658-1720 were not outstandingly wealthy, and high (early) mortality rates prevented the ability of elites to pass on holdings to subsequent generations, and consolidate power in the hands of a few dominant families. She concluded that the critical component of gaining appointment was having a reputation for controlling ones family—indicating a deep concern for order in an unstable society. The rise of a stable dominant elite would not happen before 1720. In 1984 Lois Green Carr argued that despite the considerable historiography on governmental disorder, the area was not that unstable, that day-to-day informal, neighborly interactions preserved the sense of community and even served legal functions. While provincial government was unstable, reflecting her dissertation’s focus on continuity of county government, 1688-1692, Carr argued that, at the local level unremunerated officers performed most vital functions of daily governance, regardless of who the governor was, or was appointed by, see: Lois Green Carr. “Sources of Stability and Upheaval in Seventeenth-Century Maryland.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 79, No. 1 (March, 1984) pp.44-70. At the provincial level, however, Carr acknowledged that it was the high mortality rates in the seventeenth century that ensured high turnover rates among officeholders, and prevented the building of an intermarried elite class that could pass power from generation to generation. For life expectancies in the seventeenth century Chesapeake, see Lorena S. Walsh and Russell R. Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, 69 (1974), 211-227. Darrett B. and Anita H. Rutman, "Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in the Early Chesapeake," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., 28 (1976), 31- 60. Carville Earle, "Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia," in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society and Politics (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1979), 96-125. For marriages, see Russell R.

12 Thomas Notley’s career in the Lower House shows how he was consistently at the center of reform efforts, and simultaneously how he was closely tied to the Calverts.8

In Chapter Seven, “Navigating the Crisis,” I show how the merchant-planters had gained control of both houses of the Assembly and the Governorship. As Virginia descended into chaos in the Summer and Autumn of 1676, the merchant-planter elites now in control in Maryland were able to suppress the disaffection and even a furtive rebellion among the smaller planters, and keep the peace with the Natives. After the collapse of the Rebellion in Virginia, they continued to work to address many of the concerns that had sparked the violence in the first place, especially in keeping the peace with the natives, and Maryland in particular. In 1678 the Governor and Council called a

Menard, "Immigrants and Their Increase: The Process of Population Growth in Early Colonial Maryland," in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds., Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), 88-110. 8 The persistent tensions in Maryland have long been known to have been at least partially religious in nature. The significant population of Catholics and their relative overrepresentation in positions of profit and power was always a complaint of the opposition, and it is no accident that the successful rebels in 1689 named themselves the Protestant Association. In recent years, the important role played by religion throughout the English Empire has been explored. In 2009 Carla Pestana argued that religion became the driving force behind British imperial expansion in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was the weakness of the Church of England to impose conformity and uniformity, which led to diversity of religious expression in the Atlantic World that is key to understanding their Empire: By “only weakly establishing the Church of England, [the English] oversaw an increasingly diverse religious landscape. Yet [they] . . .established a broadly shared culture that united believers from different Protestant churches (and different ethnic and racial backgrounds) into a common Anglophone spiritual orientation” Carla Gardina Pestana, Protestant Empire : Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009) quote on p.6. That culture, however, was one that was deeply antipathetic and even fearful of Catholics. In 2011, Owen Stanwood argued that the perceived threat of the French Catholics was a guiding principle for Englishmen everywhere at the time, and that anti-popery was the touchstone of English politics, especially after the mostly imagined “papist plot” in 1678; that same year Louis XIV revoked the edict of Nantes and real fears about absolutist Catholicism rose. For decades before the Glorious Revolution, Native-French alliances scared English settlers, who constantly feared a Catholic-native sneak attack; rumors of imagined Catholic plots to use the Natives to murder Protestants were a constant. In 1688 those colonies whose governors did not take seriously the fears of French attack (New England, New York and Maryland) is where violence broke out and / or overthrew the governments. Those colonies that acted, investigated and made arrests and other aggressive actions, proved to the populace that they would protect them, and there were no upheavals. See: Owen Stanwood. The Empire Reformed: English America in the Age of the Glorious Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011) pp. 22-53

13 Session of the Assembly—of which half of its members were merchant-planters—to deal with a possible Indian war, but then allowed them to propose, debate and pass a series of reforms long desired by the poorer Marylanders. These new laws were accepted and enacted by Thomas Notley and the merchant-planter dominated council. By the end of

1678 Notley’s government was popular and stable, so much so that Charles, Lord

Baltimore, after his return from England in late 1678, allowed him to stay on as

Governor.

In the Epilogue, I offer a brief treatment of the developments of 1679-1688.

Notley’s swift illness and sudden death in 1679 saw the return of Charles Calvert, now proprietor in his own right, to the Governorship. Charles immediately began reversing the popular policies enacted by the merchant-planter elite. He removed John Coode, the leading member of the most disaffected family in Maryland, and his stepson Gerard Slye, from the patronage positions they had been placed in by Notley. Within two years Coode was caught conspiring to overthrow the Calverts. In 1688-1689, Coode and his brothers- in-law were the leaders of the opposition that overthrew Baltimore. In 1681 Charles,

Lord Baltimore vetoed most of the reform legislation passed in 1678. In response, the merchant-planter delegates in the Lower House exploded in anger, at this arbitrary and hated abuse of power to derail hard-won and deeply desired reforms that had actually operated for nearly three years. In less than three years, Charles had alienated the most strident opposition in the colony and re-ignited the angered controversy over the reform of the government that plagued Maryland since the 1660s that the 1678 assembly had seemingly put to rest. In 1684, just as Charles was leaving Maryland to defend his

14 Province’s boundaries from Pennsylvania’s encroachment, he disallowed all of the laws from Notley’s 1678 session, fatally wounding what little trust remained between the proprietary and the people of Maryland. The Council, which in 1676-1679 had five of nine members not related to the Calverts, and six merchant-planters (only one of whom was related in some way to the Calvert Family, and even then, only recently as he had married into the Proprietor’s stepfamily in the Spring of 1676) became increasingly less inclusive. Over the course of the 1680s, stung by the independence and willingness to reform shown by Notley’s 1676-1679 council, Charles pursued a policy of limiting membership in the council to Catholics and the Calvert family, effectively ending the hopes of the merchant-planter elites to aspire to the heights of power. In 1689, the

Protestant Association, led by John Coode, listed all of these actions in the Declaration of Protestant Subjects in Maryland to justify their overthrow of the Calvert’s government. This time, the enemies of the Calverts won, and Charles, Lord Baltimore was deposed.

15 Chapter 2: Connections

The initial plan for settlement of what would become English North America was under the aegis of the chartered monopoly company, the preferred mode of organization of foreign trade in Elizabethan England. These monopolies were comprised of individual adventurers or firms that had restrictive membership limiting entry into trade to the wealthy and well-connected. But, with the revocation of the

Virginia Company's monopoly charter following Opechancanough's 1622 attack,

American trade was opened to all English whether metropolitan or colonial. As a result, seizing new opportunities and markets, many smaller individuals entered trade and emigrated to English overseas possessions throughout the seventeenth century. 9

9 As a result of the revocation of the Virginia Company’s charter “...many small men [previously] ineligible for participation in the more prestigious trades- including retailers, retailer-wholesalers, ship- captains, and others- ...flock[ed] to the new trades to North America and the West Indies." The opportunistic spirit in England in the seventeenth century and “a willingness to experiment in new economic ventures are striking features of the period. Nowhere was this more evident than in the mercantile community.” As England expanded from a peripheral power and became one of the great centers of trans-oceanic commerce, merchants and gentry flooded into London, and thence into trade. Men with capital invested it into ventures and thus the upper middling sort, the gentry, and the aristocracy became investors in colonial schemes, see: James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) pp.50-51. Bernard Bailyn laid out the critical importance of networking to merchants in seventeenth century New England. In the mid to late seventeenth century, family ties remained critical to success; “Brothers, sons, and ‘in-laws’ continued as agents of English relatives.” But as trade expanded into new markets, new contacts had to made, and cultivated. In some cases, family, friends, or acquaintances fit the need, but in many other cases, fresh contacts had to initiated. For those with less capital, the sending of a small vessel, and authorizing the master to deal with a local at his own discretion—and over time these transient contacts might be expanded. “but for those who had capital to start with, and some knowledge of distant markets, the best method was to send letters of credit to someone of good reputation and this way found an agency that could be relied on for advice on new opportunities or dangers to avoid.” Of course, ‘weaving’ the network of connections was facilitated by the migration of merchants. Some New Englanders established themselves ion the West Indies, and vice-versa. Bernard Bailyn. The New 16 Most of these migrant traders had rather modest personal estates and were unable to self-finance entry into trade. But even those who possessed sufficient capital of their own needed a whole host of local and overseas suppliers, agents, etc. to enable them to ply their chosen vocations. Both types of hopeful merchant relied upon networking to supply them with the capital, goods, legal representation and other services trade required.10 Extending capital or taking on the duty of selling or acquiring cargos for a far distant colleague carried significant uncertainty and risk of personal loss. Some merchanting risks were simply inescapable. Voyages lasted months or even years, delaying payments and raising the cost of credit. Many times shipments were complete losses due to weather, war, or pirates. Even the most trustworthy of agents might die overseas before they could arrange for the cargos entrusted to them to sell or purchases could be exchanged. Other, more theoretically manageable risks like changing market conditions or simple fraud could also lead to the loss of partial or even entire

England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)) pp. 87-88. 10 For a discussion of the limited capital of export merchants, and the critical role credit from wholesalers played in their success see Jacob M. Price. "What did merchants do? Reflections on British Overseas Trade, 1660-1790" in The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 2 (June, 1989) pp. 273-274. David Hancock’s study of the Madeira trade showed how important these networks were to the wine merchants, noting that distribution began with customers the exporters already knew, “by blood tie or prior acquaintance.” David Hancock. “Self-Organized Complexity and the emergence of an Atlantic Market Economy, 1651-1815: The Case of Madeira” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, Ed.. (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) p. 37. The importance of personal contacts in launching and maintaining a trading career was illustrated by Trevor Burnard in Creole Gentlemen. The elite in Maryland moved away from merchanting, noting that as migrants became a smaller and smaller proportion of the population, the elite increasingly became a planter-elite. For one, trading was risky, labor was expensive, foreign markets could easily be glutted, wars and privateers were frequent especially post 1689, and ships could easily be lost at sea. While trade could deliver 15-20% profit, it required a considerable capital outlay and “few merchants invested large sums in trading.” (p.33) Even moderately wealthy native-born elite were more likely to become planters, dropping trading. A Creole with an inheritance of land and slaves could earn a comfortable and relatively stable living from planting. Credit was less available to creole planters than it was to immigrant merchants—who had better overseas contacts and could tap into the commercial world of the English Atlantic. Few could finance mercantile operations from Maryland sources alone. This tended to discourage Creole Maryland planters from commerce in the mid-eighteenth century. Trevor Burnard. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776 (New York: Routledge, 2002) pp. 32-35, 73-74 17 investments in an adventure. All of these problems together made the common contemporary nomenclature of merchant-adventurer ring true; the practice was as much about risking as it was about trading.11

Success in overseas trade required "capital, connections and an enterprising spirit"12 While an entrepreneurial bent was found in their own hearts, throughout the empire hopeful export merchants had to rely upon their networking skills to acquire the credit, capital, cargoes, and access to distant markets, necessary to enter and maintain trade. Mercantile endeavors were by nature inherently risky, but the potential rewards were great for the merchant who could most effectively manage their exposure by building the most trustworthy network possible. A competent, reliable agent / partner / contact could correct for poor plans, changed local conditions, and would neither commit fraud nor abscond with any profits. The new merchants who arrived in

Maryland after the Restoration like Thomas Notley, Benjamin Rozer, and Mark Cordea,

11 Trevor Burnard explained why the Chesapeake elite gradually abandoned merchanting over the course of the eighteenth century, explaining that Trading was risky, labor was expensive, foreign markets could easily be glutted, wars and privateers were frequent, especially post 1689, and ships could easily be lost at sea. See Trevor Burnard. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776. (New York: Routledge, 2002) p. 33 Bernard Bailyn summarized the difficulties facing merchants thusly: “Overseas commerce in the seventeenth century was capricious. Arrangements were interminably delayed by the accidents of sailing. Demand fluctuated incalculably as unforeseen crop failures created markets which the arrival of a few ships eliminated overnight.” Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century. (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)) pp. 31-79 12 Cathy D. Matson, Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) p. 26 “While a combination of industry, talent, and good fortunes made many prosperous, patronage and personal connection were the surest keys to success in colonial America.” Cynthia A. Kierner. Traders and Gentlefolk: The Livingstons of New York, 1675-1790 (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1992) p. 4. See also Jacob Price. Capital and Credit in the British Overseas Trade: the View from the Chesapeake, 1700-1776 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980) p. 50. A more recent exploration of the opening of trade to smaller merchants of “middling” origins, largely younger men in their thirties can be found in Naula Zahedieh. “Making Mercantilism Work: London Merchants and Atlantic Trade in the Seventeenth Century.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series Vol. 9 (1999) pp. 145-151; on the importance of credit to these merchants see also pp. 150-151. For a short discussion of the importance and inefficiencies of personal contacts in getting and giving credit in the Atlantic World, see also John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985) pp. 334- 335 18 et al., worked to build reliable networks among their families, fellow Marylanders— especially with the proprietor and his family—and with overseas contacts, building and jealously guarding the reputations that were critical to their economic success. The connections they built as part of their merchanting enterprise were central to their rise to provincial leadership and stabilizing Restoration Maryland in 1676-1679.13

Familial Connections

Being “citizens of the world” as David Hancock called them, merchants had to establish connections in multiple locations where they were themselves not resident or even frequently not at all personally present. Merchants in overseas trade had to depend upon others in distant ports to conduct trade for them, buying and selling cargos, collecting debts, and providing credit where the merchant himself was not present.

Choosing the right person was critical to success. Family was the foundation of many of the economic networks that enabled adventuring in trade and were relied upon whenever and wherever possible.14 For example, the great New England merchant, John Nelson, arrived in America apprenticed in trade with his uncle in Nova Scotia where he learned how to be a New World merchant, and rose to run a trading empire of his own.

Although the fourteen year old Nelson arrived already deeply in debt, he was able to

13 James Horn noted that resident merchants “focused on developing links with English merchants and captains, extending trading networks in their vicinity, keeping records of who owed them money, and perhaps running their own store.... Their contacts with settlers in their own region, with other parts of the tidewater, and with Europe were more intensive and extensive than those of lesser planters.” James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) p. 291 14 “Lacking the means by which to judge the financial capacity and business acumen of strangers, potential English creditors could only rely upon personal ties… Blood relationships were an exceptionally useful bond.” See Jacob M. Price. "What did merchants do? Reflections on British Overseas Trade, 1660-1790" The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 2 (June, 1989) esp. pp. 273-274 See also Bailyn, pp. 34- 39. On the importance of credit in trade, see Jacob M. Price Capital and Credit in British Overseas Trade, 1700-1776 (Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980). In Price’s study, familial connections were the most crucial in the earliest years. 19 enter into profitable trade in the colony because he was able to tap into his Uncle's extant

Nova Scotia enterprise.15 In Maryland, Thomas Notley and John Addison arrived in the

Calvert’s Province already established in trade. Family was important in the launching of both men’s careers. Thomas Addison, John’s brother, was a Liverpool Merchant in the tobacco trade, and John acted as his agent Maryland, gathering and preparing cargoes for shipment. But John Addison also quickly established himself as one of the leading merchant-planters in the young colony, trading in his own name. The Notley family of Ireland had long had an interest in Baltimore’s colony. In the 1630s Walter

Notley of Ireland had been offered 20,000 acres in Maryland by Lord Baltimore for him to populate with Irish tenants, although the land was never patented. Some thirty years later Thomas Notley, born on Cerne Abbey in Ireland, came into the Bay from

Barbados, where he had already been established profitably in trade, perhaps to attempt to secure the earlier land-grant. Well-funded and possessing a family network that

15 Matson, Cathy D.. Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) pp. 77-78 see also Richard R. Johnson. John Nelson, Merchant Adventurer: A Life Between Empires (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991) pp. 20-21; Although John Nelson had had a prominent and wealthy father, the father's will stipulated that John's mother inherit the entire estate. In fact, the fourteen-year-old came to the New World charged by the estate with a £1200 debt. A difficult apprenticeship on the Anglo-American / Canadian frontier in a fortified outpost was his introduction to his ultimately successful American trade. For other examples of the importance of familial connections to initiating trade, see: Cynthia A. Kierner. Traders and Gentlefolk: The Livingstons of New York, 1675- 1790 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998) pp. 11-47 As far as Livingston's building those relationships, in virtually every step of his life, familial and non-familial connections proved vital. Although his first four years brought him little success, and he frequently appeared in court as both creditor and debtor- he was building a network, and developing critical interpersonal skills. He would marry a Van Rensselaer and after this, his prospects improved considerably- his obvious ability to build profitable relationships and Van Rensselaer-brokered introductions into New York society and government proved critical. See also Bailyn p. 39 In his study of three Virginia merchant-planter families, Peter V. Bergstrom showed the same strategy. For hopeful merchant-planters, capital was accessed from familial connections and they came to the Chesapeake “expecting to found new enterprises which, while they would be allied with the family fortunes at home, were expected to become the basis of new wealth in a new land.” Peter V. Bergstrom. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700-1775 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983) p. 187 20 extended at least to Barbados and Ireland, Notley similarly quickly established himself as one of the leading traders in the province.16

In the practice of trade, many merchants were frequently absent from their homes, and in their absence, trust over day-to-day operations of their business was ideally placed with a family member who could be relied upon to follow the absent trader’s wishes. Perhaps the most reliable agents were their wives who could be trusted to faithfully conduct sales, make purchases, and settle accounts in their husband’s absence. Authors like Laurel Ulrich and Mary Beth Norton have described the role of women as “Deputy Husbands” who “entered and left the masculine sphere as dictated by the needs of her family. Hence, the manly activities of these women did not undermine the sexual division of labor and did not challenge the category ‘men’s work.’” Legally, as femme coverts, their estates were indistinguishable from that of their husbands, and wives’ economic interests were nearly identical to those of their merchant husbands.

These women acquired considerable business skills working alongside their husbands or, frequently bringing experience in trade from their own lives before marriage, expanded them. Mary Bateman not only brought a connection to her brother, Richard

Perry, merchant of London, and a £500 dowry to her husband, John, but as a child born into a rising merchant family of London, she probably also brought considerable

16 See the entries for Addison, John and Notley, Thomas in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp.100, 616. Notley was joined in his migration to Maryland from the sugar island by Benjamin Rozer and Jesse Wharton see the Entries for Rozer, Benjamin and Wharton, Jesse, ibid, pp. 707, 880-881. These men undoubtedly maintained some personal connection critical to trade there, much like the successful New England merchant family, the Hutchisons, who maintained a family network throughout New England, but also into the West Indies through the residence there of a cousin. Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)) pp. 88-90. 21 experience with the conduct of trade. Such experience and the trust it engendered came in handy. For example, merchants frequently had to sue to collect debts, and were frequently sued by their creditors. This was a normal and routine part of doing business; merchants appeared constantly before the courts. The intricacies and vagaries of common law procedure, which might force a suit to be heard over multiple court sessions, posed a singular difficulty for merchants who had to be absent as part of their trade. Their economic activity virtually assured that they would be absent for at least one of the year’s court sessions. In the common-law courts of Maryland, suits were often decided in favor of the party who attended the court session. Leaving the colony rarely if ever, women and wives perfectly fit the need, and they regularly appeared in the courts representing their absent husbands.17

17 For a description of a women’s role as deputy husband see Laurel Ulrich Good Wives : Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750. (New York: Knopf, 1982) pp.9-10; 36-50 The seventeenth century Chesapeake was a place where “environmental and economic factors conspired to prevent patriarchal family practices (as opposed to ideals) from taking root.” see Mary Beth Norton. “The Evolution of White Women's Experience in Early America” The American Historical Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, June, 1984 pp.593-619. The quote is from Julie Matthaei. An Economic History of Women in America: Women’s work, the Sexual Division of Labor, and the Development of Capitalism. (New York: Schocken Books, 1982) p. 71 “Under the Rubric of household necessity and with the approbation of a household head, a free female could engage in virtually any form of labor without censure.” Jeanne Boydston. “The Woman who Wasn’t There: Women's Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States” Journal of the Early Republic Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer 1996) p. 192 Lisa Wilson Waciega argues that the discussion of women in the public sphere of business described by Norton and Ulrich is too limited. In her sample of Pennsylvania widows she discovered that they engaged in complex business interactions not only after their husband’s deaths, but well before as well, evidencing considerable commercial competence that was learned both during and before their marriages. The men were well aware of this and “the husbands of these women generally trusted their economic acumen.” Lisa Wilson Waciega “A ‘Man of Business’: The Widow of Means in Southeastern Pennsylvania, 1750-1850” William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, Vol. 44, No. 1, (January, 1987) p.42. Mary Bateman’s dowry is recorded in “Margarite Perry v Estate of John Bateman” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., (Baltimore: 1883-present.) Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.319-321 (hereafter cited as Archives: 319-321). Mary Bateman was Margarite Perry’s daughter, see Thomas Truman, John Morecroft, and Thomas Manning. “Report of the Administrators of John Bateman’s Estate” Archives 57:50-51. Richard Perry is identified as ‘merchant of London” in the records. See Thomas Lawrence. “Bond to Francis Nicholson” Archives 20:255; see also Perry, Richard. in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3262-01. 22 While such gender flexibility was necessary in a frontier province, such public activities for women were upsetting to the gender-sensitivities of mid-seventeenth century European men. This came to a head in 1658 when then-Governor Josias Fendall and his council issued an order declaring that wives were forbidden from acting as

“Attorneys for their husbands in any Court of this prouince.” Instead, men who knew they would have to be absent from a court, were “requyred hereby to depute or appoynt some other Attorney in their Roome & steede, other then their Wifes.” In this way, the

Governor and Council attempted to re-establish proper gender order, commanding that wives not practice or prosecute suits themselves in the name of their husbands but rather through proper male representation.18

Even in 1658 this legal bar to women serving was unenforceable. Wives or other female relatives were too dependable to not be named attorneys by their merchant husbands. Not only did husbands continue to routinely officially deputize their wives or related women to collect debts and conduct business in their absence, but they often named them as executors of their estate, a position that required court appearances for all the multiple legal activities that go along with managing an estate. In the early 1660s,

Mary Bateman appeared frequently before the court as the ‘adminstratrix’ of her husband, sued for debts owed the estate, and prosecuted for the payment of judgments, all without any officially recorded controversy or comment. In 1680, merchant Mark

18 For Margaret Brent see John E. Douglass. “Between Pettifoggers and Professionals: Pleaders and Practitioners and the Beginnings of the Legal Profession in Maryland, 1634-1731.” The American Journal of Legal History Vol. 39 No. 3 (July, 1995) pp 363, 365 Douglass found few examples of women pleading. See also Lois Green Carr and Lorena S. Walsh “The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland” The William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, Vol. 34, No. 4, Oct., 1977, p. 550. For Fendall’s original order see Josias Ffendall. “A Proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor, 26 February, 1658/9” Archives 41:233. 23 Cordea drafted a detailed letter of attorney that not only authorized his wife, Hester, to conduct trade in his absence, including serving as his attorney before the court, but also enumerated complete authority over his plantations and servants in his absence. Cordea summarized the powers the letter granted and his confidence in his wife with “And finally all my whole Estate and Interest in the province and Colony aforesaid to Manage according to her discretion skill and Judgment.” Perhaps the most accomplished female attorney was the “spinster” Margaret Brent, who practiced in the 1650s and 1660s.

Many of her appearances before the courts were in some way related to her administration of her kinsman Leonard Calvert’s estate; she also frequently represented

Lord Baltimore in addition to representing her own interests.19

Governor Fendall’s order was attempting to institutionalize the usual way most women engaged the legal system: i.e., through a male mediator. Most women who were named as legal representatives by their husbands had a male co-attorney also named by the absent merchant; even female administrators often had a male representative named to serve as co-attorney. While wives of merchants like Hester Cordea and Mary

Bateman were trusted by their husbands in routine matters of plantation management and trade like how to negotiate the common law courts to recover debts, other areas of the common law were judged beyond them. In 1677 before he left for a trip to England and Ireland, Mark Cordea left a letter of attorney naming both his wife and his friend, neighbor, and partner Walter Hall to act in all respects as his agents in Maryland, authorizing them to sue to recover any and all debts, due “by bill money booke

19 For one example of Mary Bateman’s activity in the courts, see “Bateman v Chew” Archives 49:316. See Mark Cordea. “Letter of Attorney to Hester Cordea, 16 July, 1680” Archives 717:211. 24 or reckoning or any other way.” The two were further authorized to collect such judgments, accepting any and all “Goods Wares or Merchandizes as are due & payable unto me.” Cordea chose to name a co-attorney in 1677 for his wife because he was facing a suit by the proprietary for over 21,000 pounds of tobacco. His choice of Hall was no surprise, because the suit in question was against a partnership formed between

Cordea, Hall, and John Addison. Following Hall’s death in 1678, Robert Ridgely represented the two surviving members of the partnership and Hall’s estate in a legally complicated case involving accusations of smuggling, and condemnation of a vessel and parts of her cargo.20 In 1678 Cordea concluded that the complexities of this suit were beyond the capabilities of his wife. After the resolution of this suit in 1679, Cordea turned back to depending upon his wife alone as attorney in his absence. Similarly,

Mary Bateman had been raised in a merchant family, the Perrys of London, and was fully capable of representing her merchant-planter husband and his estate before the court as part of the routine operations of a merchanting enterprise. But, John Bateman judged her to be less than capable in prosecuting non-routine suits. When John Bateman

20 For Mrs. Cordea see Mark Cordea. “Letter of Attorney to Walter Hall 2 June, 1677” Archives 717:28. In 1678-79 Garrett VanSweringen served as Cordea’s attorney. See “Cordea v. Atwood” Archives 51:286 The case was first heard before the court in mid-1678, and final judgment was made on March 4, 1678/9 Robert Ridgley was Clerk of the Provincial Court and an established attorney in Maryland see “Lewis v Ridgely” Archives 65:21, 33 (as Clerk), See “Solly v Seed” Archives 65:331. Ridgley had been employed by Cordea in his suit against Evan Carew in 1670. See “Cordea v Carew” Archives 66: 262-264. While this suit was over the payment of debts for goods and merchandise purchased by Carew from Cordea, it was complicated by Carew’s counterclaim against Cordea. Carew had been a servant to Cordea. Carew was a skilled bookkeeper, and had been promised early freedom, and worked for Cordea for some time for wages, which Cordea had promised to use to defray his debt. Carew’s opinion of the account was that Cordea owed him over 700 pounds of tobacco. There was considerable question as to when Carew had earned his freedom, and when he was to be paid wages. These more esoteric questions were judged to be beyond the legal capabilities of Hester Cordea. Ridgley even represented John Addison’s suit against Cordea for not paying his portion of the debt in the case in 1679; see “Addison v Cordea” Archives 69:162. For Ridgley representing the entire partnership see “Lord Proprietary v Cordea and Addison” Archives 68:131-132. Hall was already deceased, but Ridgely was defending against a debt signed by all three men, as the transcript makes clear. See also “Cordea v Rousby” Archives 69: 172. 25 had to leave the province on trade in February 1659/60 when he was in the midst of his prosecution of the five men he accused of squatting on his land, he left a letter naming his fellow council-member and merchant Henry Coursey his attorney to continue the case in his absence, not his wife.21

Intraprovincial Connections

Where family capital and connections were unavailable, unwilling, or inadequate, the cultivation of informal networks and formal partnerships was critical to economic success. And, even if kin-ties had launched the merchant, expanding and building other connections were critical to establishing a successful trading career. Once

Nelson became resident in disputed Acadia, he not only tapped into the trade network established by his Uncle, but also originated and expanded his own contacts and thus future prospects for trade himself. Similarly, John Addison used his position as a factor to his brother, Thomas, to help establish himself in trade in Maryland, where he quickly established an independent partnership with his neighbors Walter Hall and Mark

Cordea.22

Merchants throughout the English Atlantic strove for political influence in order to secure their fortunes, and it was mercantile activity that was the crucial factor for

21 See John Bateman. “Letter of Attorney to Henry Coursey” Archives 41: 345. Coursey was empowered to act in this one case alone, leaving Mary Bateman responsible for the routine suits that merchanting required. 22 In their analysis of communications networks, Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard, and Lorena S. Walsh discovered a link between the size of Marylander’s networks and their occupations. Planter- merchants like Robert Slye of St. Clements had the widest communications networks. Most planters’ social worlds were very small. Prosperous planters and justices probably only encompassed about ten miles, whereas planter-merchants encompassed fifteen miles of significant contacts, and even out to twenty-five miles. Of course, mercantile contacts with ships captains, overseas merchants of all kinds, etc., regularly connected them throughout the Atlantic world as well. See Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard, Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) p. 141. 26 these men to gain access to power. One of the most important relationships to build in

Maryland was with the proprietor. Merchant members of the Calvert Family like Henry

Darnall, cousin to the third Lord Baltimore, arrived already possessing a close tie to the proprietor. Not having a blood relationship, marriage to step-daughters of Charles

Calvert offered merchants William Digges and Benjamin Rozer a familial connection to the ruling family.23 But Maryland merchant-planters without ties of blood or marriage to the ruling family tried to build as close a relationship as possible with the proprietary as an integral part of their wider economic, social, and political networks. The cultivation of these close relationships paid off. In both the 1668 and 1671 proprietor-granted charters of St. Mary's City, four post-Restoration merchant arrivals, Mark Cordea,

Garret VanSweringen, Benjamin Rozer and John Morecroft were named by the proprietor to be four of the six members of the city council. Proprietary stalwarts John

Morecroft and Thomas Notley would serve the Calverts together in the assembly in the

1660s and 1670s. When they were not returned as delegates for St. Mary’s County to the first session of the 1671-1674 assembly, for the second session they filled the two seats for St. Mary's City that had been created specifically for them by the proprietor to ensure their presence in the legislature. In 1676, Benjamin Rozer joined his close friend

23 Cynthia Kierner noted that “Politics, trade, and landownership were the route to wealth and prominence, but more often than not success in all three of these enterprises depended on personal contacts with highly placed individuals.” Cynthia A. Kierner. Traders and Gentlefolk: The Livingstons of New York, 1675- 1790 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998) p. 4. Similarly, Laura Croghan Kamoie discovered that in the eighteenth century, “[t]he wealthiest members of the planter class used their political clout, available capital, ability to get credit, and external contacts to dominate local business activities and even the broader regional domestic economy.” See: Laura Croghan Kamoie. “Planters’ Exchange Patters in the Colonial Chesapeake: Toward Defining a Regional Domestic Economy.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, Ed., (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) pp.321-4 See the entries for Henry Darnall, William Digges and Benjamin Rozer in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) 1985, pp. 271-272, 707 27 Notley on the Council. Notley, Morecroft, VanSweringen and Rozer would all be appointed to the powerful and lucrative office of sheriff by the proprietor at various times. Thomas Notley ultimately rose to Governor, succeeding Lord Baltimore’s stepson-in-law Jesse Wharton after his death in 1676.24

Close and friendly relationships with the ruling family offered obvious local benefits, like friendly judges and courts to sue debtors before, influence on the making and execution of policy, and maybe even easier access to land. These connections however were only one small part of the intra-provincial networks that Maryland merchants like Notley, Cordea, and Rozer would rely on. The post-Restoration arrivals built relationships with each other, as well. In addition to their political service, Notley and Morecroft frequently worked together as co-attorneys.25 Notley and Benjamin

Rozer were so close that Rozer would name Thomas to be the Godfather of his son

Notley Rozer, born July 1, 1673.26 Notley, Cordea, and Hall were neighbors in St.

24 For a copy of the 1668 Charter, see “Charter of St. Mary’s City, 1668” Archives 51:567-569, for the second, see “Charter of St. Mary’s City, 1671” Archives 51:383-394The government positions held by these men will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four. Notley was technically the Deputy Lieutenant Governor, as Cecil Calvert was officially in charge, but as he was only a child the actual powers of governing were held by the Lieutenant. 25 See, for example, “Wells v Stansby” Archives 57:180, see also “Snow v Gerrard” Archives 49:555-556 26 See “Birth Record of Notley Rozer, 1 July, 1673” Archives 60:510. Notley Rozer would be bequeathed Notley’s beloved Cerne Abbas Manor in Charles Co, on the Potomac. See Notley, Thomas Wills Liber 10, F 7 Maryland State Archives MSA film SR 4404-3 Notley’s manor is today known as the Capitol Hill District, Washington D.C. see Priscilla W. McNeil. “Rock Creek Hundred: Land Conveyed for the Federal City.” Washington History Vol. 3, No. 1 Special Bicentennial Issue, Washington, D.C., 1791- 1991 (Summer, 1991) pp. 35-51. Thomas Notley’s leaving of his beloved Cerne Abbas Manor to his godson, Notley Rozer was not unusual. “The importance of informal associations with friends and neighbors is amply illustrated in wills and court records throughout the Chesapeake... friends were most frequently mentioned in wills of married men after the immediate family and were much more likely to be left a minor bequest than either secondary kin... or in-laws. Among single males this trend was even more striking. Between 74 and 81 percent of bachelors left the bulk of their estates to friends, neighbors, and landlords.” James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) p.240 In the eighteenth century this pattern of bequest continued. Testators divvied up their land preferably to family first; to wives, children, and then to extended kin. When testators had no close kin, friends received the bequests, often before distant kin. Trevor Burnard. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776 (New York: Routledge, 2002) p. 143 28 Mary’s City and on their farms on St. Clement’s Manor. Sharing the characteristics of being both foreign in origin and Catholic in religion, VanSweringen and Cordea also had a close relationship: Mark was godfather to VanSweringen’s daughter, Elizabeth.27

All merchants sent and requested cargos from distant markets that they themselves would not or could not personally attend. A reliable agent was critical in this practice. Wives were not sent out on their own to conduct business overseas as a general rule and family could not be found in every port. Intra-provincial connections were a preferred way to deal with the problem. Neighbors could be relied upon to access distant markets, but if something went wrong, recovery at law was easier; the men could be expected to return home, and thus made answerable to a suit in a Maryland court.

Certainly, any merchant could be sued in Maryland, and absence or refusal to answer the suit was grounds for a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, but if the defendant did not return to the colony, or could not be otherwise found, collecting such judgments were at best difficult. Relying on fellow Marylanders was one technique employed by

Benjamin Rozer, for example. Although he was himself occasionally personally in trade with Barbados, in the summer of 1670 Rozer consigned to Baltimore County merchant

Henry Spry four hogsheads of tobacco to be taken the tiny sugar-island aboard the ship

Primrose. Rozer directed that his tobacco and cask be exchanged in the island for 1352 pounds of muscavado sugar. Spry did not deliver the sugar as arranged and Rozer eventually sued for and easily won 3572 pounds of tobacco for debt, damages and costs.

27 In 1678-79 Garrett VanSweringen served as Cordea’s attorney. See “Cordea v. Atwood” Archives 51:286. Elizabeth VanSweringen received from her Godfather Cordea his new house and lots in St. Mary’s City. See Cordea, Mark. Last Will and Testament.” Wills. Maryland State Archives, MSA film SR 4400 Liber 4, F162. 29 Interestingly, Spry came to the court himself in May of 1675 and admitted the debt, as well as his non-payment of it. 28

The intra-provincial connection made with Spry enabled Rozer to access the distant Barbadian market when he was otherwise unable or unwilling to actually go there himself. The Rozer-Spry agreement illustrates why these men worked to build such intra-provincial relationships with their neighbors. It came down to management of risk. Rozer, like all successful merchants, worked diligently to limit his exposure to potential losses. His detailed instructions to Spry were his first layer of defense.

Through their specificity, Rozer exercised as much control as possible over the

28 The failure of Spry in this instance is fortunate for the researcher of Maryland mercantile networks- connections that worked and fulfilled their obligations left little surviving record. Failures illuminate the process because they record its existence in lawsuits; see “Rozer v Spry” Archives 65:543-544. The case was “agreed” in 1675 see “Rozer v Spry” Archives 66:380 What, exactly, Rozer intended to do with the sugar is not recorded, but it is interesting that in the eighteenth century, planter-merchants imported and refine raw sugar for sale to Europe. It is possible that Rozer, a former Barbadian, may have intended to experiment with this process, or may have already been doing so. For the eighteenth century import and processing of raw sugar into the continental colonies, see John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985) pp. 290- 293. The West Indies trade was, in any case, a lucrative one for North American based merchants. Cathy Matson’s study of ambitious middling merchants in New York noted how post 1680, “[m]any of these middling merchants were identified with their energetic trade in coastal and West Indian markets. Although always subject to comparatively volatile fluctuations of prices and buyers, West Indian markets also offered the advantages to rising young men of being closer to New York City; requiring smaller ships and crews, and less start-up capital; and demanding commodities that exporters could acquire within their region.” Cathy Matson. Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) p. 4. In the 1630s and 40s, Bernard Bailyn described the thriving trade between New England and Barbados: see Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)), p. 81. On the Eastern Shore in the post 1680 period, Paul Clemens noted the demand in Maryland for West Indian molasses and alcohol, and found similar advantages in the West Indies trade for Marylanders, noting that “Only [the Maryland based merchant’s] year round residence in a region and the greater ease with which he could procure molasses and rum from the West Indies gave him any advantage [in Maryland] over ship captains who ran floating stores...” He used the example of Robert Bennett III in the second quarter of the eighteenth century: “His West Indian connections were of particular importance to Bennett. Trade with Jamaica, Barbados and the Leewards allowed him to ship slaves to the Eastern Shore, a highly lucrative business for the few Chesapeake merchants who had sufficient capital for it.” See Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) pp. 95, 123-124. As the Rozer-Spry arrangement shows, and as will be seen in the next chapters, the West Indies trade was a feature of trade for ambitious Maryland based merchants on the western shore decades earlier. 30 adventure. In them he left no doubt that the tobacco was to be exchanged for sugar, and he was conversant enough with the Barbadian market to know what the tobacco-sugar exchange rate was or was likely to be. Careful, detailed instructions, however were not

Rozer’s only insurance. Choosing a fellow Marylander was an attempt to ameliorate his exposure. Rozer had other options if he desired to trade in Barbados. The small island was often the first landfall of vessels from Europe, being situated at the end of the westerly trade winds that crossed the Atlantic from the east. After watering and trading there, they would then travel north to the North American coast. Travel between

Barbados and the Chesapeake was not unusual, and Barbadian merchants were no strangers to Maryland. Indeed, Thomas Notley and Rozer had both come to Maryland from Barbados themselves. Rozer could have found multiple merchants and ships willing to carry and conduct his trade to his former home. Doing so, however, would have opened him up to greater risk. If his overseas agent had failed to fulfill his instructions, he would have had to have sued to recover, just as he ultimately sued Spry.

Doing so, however, was at best difficult to attempt in a far-distant port. It was nearly impossible to collect from a mariner who may never be in Maryland again. Ideally,

Rozer would have relied upon family members who could be subject to informal strictures in addition to legal ones, and who were more easily tracked and held legally responsible if they failed. Although they lacked the blood tie, a resident neighbor who broke or mismanaged a deal would most likely return home to the province at some point, and could then be made legally responsible for their failure in the courts. This was precisely what happened when Spry failed to fulfill his side of the bargain. Rozer may not have gotten his sugar and any hoped-for profits, but, because holding Spry 31 accountable was easily done, at least he did not lose his initial investment. Similarly, both Cordea and Bailey, both frequently out of the province as overseas merchants, routinely returned to their home province and were able to access the Maryland courts and hold each other accountable. This tended to knit the local merchanting community ever closer together.29

Relying upon neighbors made ongoing mercantile relationships easier to maintain, because legal recovery in the face of loss was more likely to be successful. Not fearing Spry’s absconding, for five years the two men may have been successfully and unlitigiously, trading together. Spry’s response to the suit, admitting the legitimacy of the debt and offering no defense suggests that they did continue to trade over that half decade and that their relationship remained amicable and productive. There does not seem to be any genuine animus between the men. Spry's in-court admission of the legitimacy of the unpaid debt was far from unique. It may have been that lawsuits occasionally acted as official receipts of the discharge of debts—possible because Spry was based in Maryland; there was no hurry to rush to collect. After five years, perhaps

29 ibid. For a description of the usual routes to from Europe to the Chesapeake, and of Barbados’ role as first landfall for the transatlantic journey. In Tobacco Coast, Arthur Pierce Middleton detailed the two mains shipping routes to the Chesapeake, the northern and the southern. The Southern route essentially replicated the route of Columbus, and was used most of the time in the seventeenth century. On that route, a ship left Europe, sailed down the western coasts of Europe and Africa, jumping across to the Azores / Canaries, and capturing there the westerly winds that would propel them across the ocean to the Caribbean, for Chesapeake bound ships, this usually meant first landfall at Barbados. After a short stay in the sugar island, the ships would then sail north, up the coast until they arrived at the Chesapeake. The Northern route was more direct, and avoided the treacherous waters off Cape Hatteras, but the Southern Route dominated most voyages in the seventeenth century. Middleton also noted the importance of a West Indies trade to merchant-planters in the early eighteenth century. see Arthur Pierce Middleton. Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984 paperback edition (originally published by Newport News, VA: The Mariner’s Museum, 1953)) pp. 7-10, 122. The Southern route may have been so preferred because it offered the opportunity to stop in the Canaries, and /or the Azores for smuggling. Bernard Bailyn noted that New England merchants often purchased wines in Spain or the “Wine Islands,” i.e., the Canaries and Azores. Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)) p. 81 32 both Spry and Rozer wanted some official notice that their sugar business venture had been resolved, and desired an official closing of their books, a binding, legal remedy that was possible because Spry was a Marylander.30

But even among neighbors, it was imperative to choose agents wisely, a fact that

Captain John Bailey could attest to. As a mariner-merchant, Bailey spent a great deal of each year out of the province and needed a Maryland base of operations and a reliable partner to tend to their business in his absence. Unfortunately he never quite seemed to be able to find one. In the early 1660s, he and Raymond Staplefort formed a partnership, bought a plantation and together acquired a small boat—useful for collecting tobacco from debtors. A promising start to the partnership with Staplefort ended suddenly and acrimoniously in the autumn of 1664. As an only occasional resident in the province, after the break with his former partner, Bailey was forced to continue to store his goods in the rooms in the plantation that he had shared with

Staplefort. Bailey had taken his portion of their wares, his own bills and books and locked them in his rooms with a barred window in the house on the plantation. In

December 1664, while Bailey was in St. Mary’s sitting on a jury, Staplefort broke into

Bailey’s rooms, and

tooke out sundry sorts of goods belonging unto the s BaIley to the ualue of Twenty to Twenty fowre Thowsd pownds of Tob. or there abouts, As aliso all

30 This pattern of admission of the legitimacy of debts is seen routinely in the court records. Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard, Lorena S. Walsh felt that the lawsuit of Robert Cole, Jr, and his son-in-law Ignatius Warren against the administrator of the Robert Cole’s estate, Luke Gardiner, charging maladministration did not take place out of genuine rancor. “Indeed all parties may have thought the suit a convenient way to settle affairs and divide the assets.” Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard, Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World : Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) p. 2 33 the sd Balleys Bills & Bonds & some accounts, to the Import of aboue sixty Thowsd pownds of Tob. more, 31

The collapse of the relationship was complete and had turned fractious, including threats of violence: Staplefort had threatened to "break Bailey's pate." Even worse for a merchant, Staplefort refused to sell some of Bailey’s goods to a ready and willing customer, explaining to the patron that the goods were not his [Staplefort’s] to sell.32

Although Bailey’s chosen partner proved to be a disaster, in the end by relying on a resident Marylander, Bailey was able to bring his former partner to Maryland’s

Provincial Court for redress and recover some of his losses legally, a lesson he brought forward into his future contacts in Maryland. By 1672 Bailey had built an economic relationship with another resident merchant, Mark Cordea. The two merchants relied upon one another to supply trade goods, and Bailey found a new base in Maryland, renting lodging from the French expatriate. But this relationship fell apart when Cordea proved incapable or unwilling to fulfill his end of a bargain. But again, by relying on a fellow Marylander, Bailey was able to more easily seek redress, knowing that it would be possible, if necessary, to bring Cordea to answer for any failures.33 It may not have

31 John Bailey. “The Petition of John Bailey, 5 April, 1666” Archives 57:36-38 and “Bailey v Staplefort” in the Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670 Archives 57:38-40. Staplefort defended his seizure of Bailey’s goods by claiming that the goods were held in partnership, and thus he, as co-owner could not steal from himself. Testimony indicated that he had refused to sell some of the goods from Bailey’s stash to a ready customer, declaiming that the goods in question were not his to sell. The Court decided in Bailey’s favor on every count. 32 See “Bailey v Staplefort” Archives 49:498-500 Bailey, in fact, feared for his life. He was reduced to breaking into his own home and stealing his own bed and chest, only to have a furious Staplefort seize them "violently" and have them carried back into the house just as they reached the landing. 33 For Bailey and Cordea’s dealings in more detail, see Chapter Three. See also “VanSweringen v Bailey” Archives 65:384-386; “Cordea v Bailey” Archives 65:477-478. In a suit Bailey prosecuted against Garret VanSweringen in 1672, Bailey asked for a continuance in December so that Cordea, then in New York, could testify for him as he "was privy to all the transactions between the Said Garrett and the Said John [Bailey].” See “Bailey v Lynes” Archives 67:362 34 been possible to eliminate risk entirely, but knowing that it would be possible to bring a business contact to court was a good way to reduce risk significantly.

Neighbors were also more easily assessed in terms of trustworthiness and collateral that could be used to secure any losses. Men like Cordea, Addison, Rozer and

Spry were based in the province, their families resided there, and they all owned large amounts of real property. They were well-known within the province and as successful merchants, their reputations were well known. Bailey, despite the failure of his early efforts with Staplefort to secure a plantation-base, was a predictably yearly resident of the colony and even served on juries. Residents were more easily able to be held accountable by their Maryland creditors. Even if a debtor failed to return or fled the colony in an attempt to foil creditors, the seizure and sale of their provincial estates offered some hope of at least partial recovery.

This was exactly what happened to Thomas Notley, Daniel Jenifer and Richard

Allen et al, in 1664 when James Jolly moved his family and chattels to a plantation in

Virginia's Eastern Shore in an attempt to at least delay judgment against him; the creditors were able to secure the real property he left behind. It was small consolation perhaps, but better than nothing. Notley, along with Jolly’s other Maryland creditors, only resorted to the courts when Jolly and his family fled their debts and abandoned the province for Virginia. Arriving in 1662, by 1664 Notley had extended nearly 15,000 pounds of tobacco worth of credit to James Jolly and his family, who only partially paid and Notley sued for 11,075 pounds of tobacco still due. 34

34 “Jenifer v Jolly” Archives 49:296-297, 317. See also Jolly, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-2322. Jolly had been named the proprietor of the ordinary at St. Mary’s that housed the assembly and provided its meeting place. He owned four slaves (a man, a woman and two children) and three servants (a man, a woman and a boy). All were possibly 35 Similarly, merchant and attorney Captain John Quigley reliably returned year after year to trade within the Chesapeake. He established a household in St. Mary’s

County by 1669, sold two houses in St. Mary’s City by 1673, and was a well-known land-speculator in Virginia and Maryland. He bid on and won the contract to build the new statehouse in St. Mary’s City in 1676.35 Reliability, familiarity, and easy accountability were vital to the construction of successful trade, and when Garret

VanSweringen decided to build a brewery, despite the numerous English-based ships that traded with the Colony, he contracted with Maryland-based Capt. John Quigley to supply him with the necessary malt and hops.

As proprietor of Smith's Ordinary in St. Mary's City, VanSweringen enjoyed the patronage of both the provincial assembly (the lower house) and council (the upper house), hosting their meetings and lodging their members when in session.36 After several years of year-round operation, VanSweringen saw a better opportunity to make money with less effort and to only keep an inn at court times. He leased Smith’s to John

Deery in 1676, and began making preparations to enter into brewing on a large scale.

The barley malt and hops necessary for brewing were not yet readily available in the province and would have to be imported from Britain. In 1677 VanSweringen contracted with Quigley to import the brewstuffs required, an order valued at 60,000 used a labor in his ordinary. What land he held aside from his St. Mary’s holdings, if any, has not survived. 35 For John Quigley’s career in Maryland, see Quigley, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3430. For the Statehouse contract, see “Roberts v. Quigley” Archives 66:96-98; see also “Paine v. Quigley” Archives 66:95 see also Quigley, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3430-085, 088 36 In the settling of its accounts, the Assembly in October 1675 allowed 3000 pounds of tobacco to be given "To Mr Thomas Notley spent at Vansweringers [sic]" See “Public Charges of the Province, 1675” Archives 15:51 36 pounds of tobacco, or approximately £250 sterling. It was no surprise that

VanSweringen looked to Captain Quigley, he had proved that he was reliable and could be trusted to return to the province. Quigley did return, and he did import the brewstuffs into the Bay. He just did not deliver them to VanSweringen. But, like Rozer,

VanSweringen did not lose everything, and by relying on fellow land-owning resident, he was able to hold him accountable and make some recovery in Maryland’s courts.37

The VanSweringen v. Quigley case also demonstrates another reason why choosing agents was so important. Successful mercantile enterprises relied upon accurate information to make decisions. Benjamin Rozer used his personal knowledge of Barbadian sugar markets to inform his orders to Spry. One large problem merchants throughout the Atlantic World had to face was the difficulty in acquiring reliable information in a timely manner. Communication took months, and when intelligence was acquired it was often fragmentary, incomplete, or inaccurate. This reality would haunt Quigley and VanSweringen's arrangement. While Quigley was off in Britain procuring the necessary supplies, VanSweringen suffered a crisis. His St. Mary’s tavern and many of his outbuildings burned to the ground, but not the brewery. When Quigley made landfall in Virginia, he heard rumors that a fire had destroyed all of

VanSweringen’s properties including the brew house, that VanSweringen was ruined and unable to pay his debts. Captain Quigley had to make a choice: either sell the goods

"in Virginia, up the Potomac" or deliver them as promised to a customer who by all accounts was bankrupt and would be unable to pay. Quigley chose to distribute the malt and hops to households in Virginia rather than risk no payment. VanSweringen was

37 See “Vanswearen [sic] v Quigley”Archives 69:223-224 37 waiting for the brewstuffs to arrive to launch his brewery and rebuild his estate. When

Quigley at last returned to St. Mary’s city, but without the ingredients, VanSweringen sued, ultimately winning 44,280 pounds of tobacco and costs.38 Quigley’s career in

Maryland was just about over, however. Between the loss of the VanSweringen case, and his failure to adequately complete the new Statehouse in St. Mary’s City, Quigley had begun to withdraw from activity in Maryland. When Joseph Eaton sued Quigley in

1678, he asked that the sheriff take the Captain into custody in order to make certain of his appearance to answer the suit, explaining to the court that he feared that "Whereas the Said John Quigley is upon his Departure out of our S.d Province of maryland & may depart before he hath answered the afores.d action." This was a reasonable fear; there is no record of Quigley returning to Maryland after 1678. Eaton was aware of Quigley’s withdrawal, and his efforts to arrest Quigley reflect a genuine fear that he might not return to answer the suit. Eaton was himself a mariner-merchant and knew the ease with which a mariner could escape a court appearance. Without property in Maryland, it would prove difficult if not impossible to secure any judgment won in absentia, and

Eaton chose to secure Quigley as best he could.39 Every merchant knew that local

38 ibid. That the brewhouse survived the fire is not explicitly stated. VanSweringen was adamant about procuring the brewstuffs- he claimed to have suffered more from the want of malt than the bond he produced called for. If the brewhouse had also burned, Quigley's actions in selling the goods could have been a blessing, which it clearly was not, suggesting that the brewhouse was still standing, and standing idle for lack of malt. 39 Quigley was a land speculator in Virginia. He authorized William Calvert to sell his two houses in St. Mary’s city, “Towerhill” (a plantation?) and another home in the possession of Robert Ridgely, in 1672. In 1673 he sold his interests in Smith’s Town Lots on which Smith’s Ordinary stood to Garrett VanSweringen, with whom he had purchased them in 1672. It does not appear that he had purchased any additional lands in Maryland after his divestiture in 1673, and Eaton would have not been able to recover real estate to cover any judgment See Quigley, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3430-002. In fact the case was over a bill of exchange where Quigley had promised to pay a debt of Benjamin Rozer to Arthur Taylor, to pay the 30,000 pounds of tobacco debt of Joseph Eaton due to Taylor. Rozer owed Eaton, Eaton owed Taylor, Quigley owed Rozer. Quigley did not pay Taylor, hence the suit. See “Eaton v Quigley” Archives 69: 33-5. 38 situations could change over the course of a months-long voyage, transforming a sure bet into a desperate and unrecoverable debt, the seeming problem for VanSweringen and

Quigley. The ultimate problem for VanSweringen and Quigley was the accurate gathering of intelligence about changed local conditions.

While John Bailey had had bad luck in his choice of Raymond Staplefort as partner, he like any good merchant spread his risks by diversifying his contacts, and relied upon accurate and timely information from them to avoid potential losses. His trouble with Staplefort was somewhat smoothed over by the relationship he had with merchant Captain James Neale. Neale was one of the original backers of the colony and a fiercely loyal supporter of the Stuarts during the interregnum, when he left the nascent colony to join King Charles II's and the Duke of York's households-in-exile, serving them as both diplomat and merchant in Amsterdam, Spain and Portugal. He served the second Lord Baltimore as his agent in Amsterdam in 1660, and after the Restoration, he returned to Maryland, resumed his merchant-planting activities, owning over 6400 acres at his death in 1684.40 For an ambitious merchant like Bailey, Neale offered wealth, prestige, a base within the province as well as powerful friends in St. Mary’s and

London. The two men had a long relationship, dealing with one another since at least

1664, when Bailey had carried some of Neale’s goods. Three of the packs broken into and stolen by Staplefort in December, 1664 were in fact goods consigned to Neale.41

Returning from an overseas voyage in November of 1668, Bailey’s old colleague

James Neale provided him with vital information regarding changed local conditions.

40 See entry for Neale, James in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 609 41 “Bailey v Staplefort” Archives 49:498-500 39 Bailey returned to the Chesapeake carrying a cargo of Azorean wines he owned in partnership with John Nethway, merchant of Fayal. When his ketch, the Hopewell of

London entered into the mouth of the Bay, Captain Neale was in Kickatan, Virginia and at the invitation of the Hopewell’s master went aboard and

...did Informe the Complt. [Bailey] that there was great Alteracon in Maryld since the Compt. departure thence, Especially Concerning the Establishing of Townes with such strictnesse that noe pson Could have any Store or sell any Goods but at such Townes which was very Inconvenyent for Trade.

Because of these new legal restrictions in Maryland, the original plans for Bailey’s cargo of wine would have to change.42

Having a relationship with a local like Neale in the province was a benefit to a frequently absent trader like Bailey, providing a trusted source of information. Where

VanSweringen and Quigley's interactions had foundered on the shoals of inaccurate rumor, Bailey and Nethway avoided potentially devastating regulations, thanks to

Bailey’s pre-existing relationship with Neale. Capt. Neale was not just the bearer of bad news, but offered a way around the problem, telling Bailey "... that he had A priveledged place where the Complt' might freely Land his wynes. And that he would be asistant to him both in the sale of the said wynes and in receiving the produce." After discussing

42 “Bailey v Neale” Archives 51:412-424. The Act mentioned by Capt. Neale to Bailey was part of a series of seventeenth century attempts to increase the collection of Lord Baltimore’s tobacco tax which was assessed per cask. Neale’s opposition to the law was unusual. These laws were passed by Merchant- dominated assemblies. In Virginia in the eighteenth century, merchant-planters led the drive to legally establish towns, “Governance of the towns created by the town acts was delegated to prominent local citizens… In conjunction with the county courts the trustees supervised the survey and sale of town lots… selected sites for public markets and wharves, and where necessary provided for the erection of public warehouses. Given the immediate effect that these activities could have on commerce, it comes as no surprise that the trustees of Norfolk, Yorktown, and Urbanna included merchants and businessmen from the beginning. Virtually all of these individuals were also members of their respective county courts. Hence, from the earliest attempts at systematic town development, colonial merchants played an active role.” Peter V. Bergstrom. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700- 1775 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983) pp. 215-216. 40 the change with the ship's master, Bailey agreed to land his cargo at Neale's plantation,

"to be put into the Defendts storehouse... and ...to sell the wynes for the best Prize he could procure...." For this generosity, Neale was to account for the sales, and receive seven and a half percent of the sale for his troubles. Potential ruinous regulation avoided, and a new contract suitably made, Bailey landed "Twenty Pypes Eleven

Hogsheads and ffity nyne Barrells of Wyne making Together Twenty Tonnes" at Neale's plantation’s storehouse.43

Bailey astutely gathered all the information about conditions in Maryland as quickly as he could. The arrangements for the wine completed, Neale and Boone finished their arrangements for piloting the Hopewell into the Province, but not up the

Pawtuxet as Boone had originally planned. Neale had just learned of a judgment against him won by Raymond Staplefort, the unstable, violent, former partner of Bailey, and wanted to avoid the man if at all possible. Perhaps remembering his own earlier difficulties, Bailey did not object. Another timely bit of information arrived on Neale's second day aboard the Hopewell when Bailey had some conversations with some merchants and planters who informed him that there were "Certyne psons" looking for him to call him to account for four bales of silk he had carried for them from New

England to Bilboa in Spain. After this news came to the Hopewell, Bailey wrote out, in his own hand, the agreement made between himself and Neale:

Capt Neale Mr John Nethway of ffyall hath shipped on Board in the Hopewell of London Andrew Boone Master Twenty Tonns of ffyail wynes... as by the bill of Ladeing you may Se who consigned them to mee…

43 ibid. 41 Bailey also consigned to Neale 286 "millrays" (milreis, i.e., Portuguese currency) lent to him by Nethway, and additional papers including a bill recording Bailey's debt to a

Dutchman living in Delaware, possibly a negotiable bill of exchange. All in all, after hearing of his creditors, Bailey quickly rid himself of any cargo, coins or papers that could be seized to settle an old account. Bailey’s actions seem rather deceptive and paint Bailey in a rather damning light. But it appears that Bailey was simply attempting to be as good a steward for his Azorean partner Nethway as he could be. The silks in question had been Bailey’s alone, and were not co-owned with Nethway. While seizure of the wines to satisfy Bailey’s earlier debt to his New England contacts would have probably been ruled illegal, their being only partly the property of Bailey, by the time

Nethway would have been able to bring suit, win and collect the award, several years could have passed. The case that did erupt over the wines took over four years before some resolution was made. So, with this new information, Bailey was not avoiding his obligations but working honestly to protect his overseas partner's investment, as a good merchant would do. It is interesting to note the merchant network built by Bailey in this case. Probably typical of most, it reached from St. Mary's City, to London, the

Portuguese Azores, and even to New England and Spain.44

Networks and Collecting Debts

Lawsuits were routine for merchants, and finding trustworthy and capable attorneys was absolutely essential. Serving as an attorney and representing their fellow elites in court also worked to build and reinforce the geographically intimate

44 ibid 42 relationships the merchants already had. It was no accident that Mark Cordea turned first to his partner Hall, then to Ridgley when he required someone with wider legal experience then his wife. Both men were known to Cordea, and he was able to judge their abilities personally. Hall was his longtime neighbor and partner, and Ridgley was well-known among the merchants to be a good and reliable attorney. In 1676-78 when accomplished merchant-planter and attorney Thomas Notley was too busy acting as governor to appear in court himself, he chose Mr. Ridgley to be his representative.

Similarly, ten years earlier in February 1667/8, unable to prosecute a five-thousand pound debt against Henry Hough in his own right, merchant, and attorney John

Morecroft turned to Notley to be his attorney. Morecroft had intimate knowledge of

Notley’s legal abilities. The two men had served together as co-counsel in several cases in the early 1660s, and as two of the leading attorneys in the Province, had represented clients on opposite sides in dozens of suits in the 1660s and 1670s. William Calvert joined Morecroft and Notley as a third attorney in their representation of John Stansby in mid-1667. A good relationship with the proprietary family was a useful thing, and the law offered both Morecroft and Notley invaluable opportunity to serve them and reinforce that relationship.45

45 In the eighteenth century, “Lawyers served as commercial agents as often as merchants exercised powers of attorney.” Bergstrom, Peter V.. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700-1775 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983) p. 209. For Ridgley representing the entire partnership see “Lord Proprietary v Cordea and Addison” Archives 68:131-132. Hall was already deceased, but Ridgely was defending against a debt signed by all three men, as the transcript makes clear. See also “Cordea v Rousby” Archives 69: 172. Mark Cordea “Letter of Attorney to Walter Hall 2 June, 1677” Archives 717:28 For Ridgely as Notley’s attorney see: “Notley v Bonner” Archives 66: 231-233; “Notley v Semmes” Archives 66:465-7; “Notley v Lomax” Archives 67:183; “Notley v Williams” Archives 68:32. Notley represented Morecroft: “Morecroft v. Hough” Archives 57:240-1. Morecroft and Notley were, for example, both counsel for Thomas Gerard in several actions from Jan 1665/6 to at least April 1666: see Gerard, Thomas. “Petition of Thomas Gerard, 2 January, 1665/6” Archives 49:555-6, 559; “Errors inter Causa Snowe Plt & Gerrard” Archives 2:3; Gerard, Thomas. “Petition of Thomas Gerard 11 April, 1666” Archives 2:11, 13; For Morecroft and Notley on opposite sides in the same cause see: 43 The Calverts were impressed not only with Notley’s political loyalty, but also his demonstrated legal prowess. When Charles Calvert left Maryland for England in 1669, he made two letters of attorney to Notley. The first, dated May 15, 1669, specifically empowered him to act in Calvert’s purchase of land from Richard Eltonhead, completing a contract made in London. On June 4, a second letter was presented in the

Provincial Court devolving upon Notley more sweeping powers. Charles Calvert granted Notley full authority as his attorney. Notley prosecuted at least three cases for his client. On February 10, 1669/70, John Nuthall was the defendant in two and Thomas

Cosden, represented by Notley’s friend Benjamin Rozer, was the third. Notley’s legal skills were little tasked by any of Calvert’s cases. The sale of Eltonhead Manor had already been arranged before Calvert left Maryland, Notley was simply to take official possession. The suits against Nuthall and Cosden proceeded easily. In court both men readily “confesseth judgment” and were ordered to pay- Nuthall 15,000 pounds of tobacco, plus 319 pounds in costs, and Cosden, 1140 plus unspecified costs. Notley did not have to do anything further; there were no prosecutions for payment and the debts were paid.46 Whether the cases taxed Notley’s considerable legal expertise or not, they reflected the Calverts’ confidence in him. His good stewardship of his client’s interests served to reinforce that impression, and undoubtedly helped bolster his reputation with

“Abington v Paggett” Archives 51: 149 and “Blomfeild v Woodbery” Archives 57: 155. For the Stansby case see “Stansby v Wells” Archives 57: 180. 46 Legally representing the elite as an attorney was a not uncommon way for ambitious merchants to establish strong ties with the local political leadership. In the courts of Albany, New York, Robert Livingston represented Frederick Philipse, a member of the governor’s council, Captain Anthony Brockholls, friend of the Governor, and commander of the fort of Albany, and Captain Matthias Nicolls, the provincial secretary; see Cynthia A. Kierner. Traders and Gentlefolk: The Livingstons of New York, 1675-1790. (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1992) pp.16-17. Calvert, Charles. “Letters of Attorney to Thomas Notley” Archives 57:443-4. For the complete record of Notley’s representation of Calvert, see “The Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670” Archives 57: 443, 444, 521, 522, 547; Charles Calvert “Instructions to John Bloomfield” Archives 5:50-52. 44 the ruling family and throughout the merchant community, both in Maryland, and as it turned out, in the wider Atlantic world.

In the late 1660s, hoping to enter into trade themselves, Marylanders John

Emerson and Walter Storey traveled to England and entered into a partnership with John

Long, wherein Long supplied them with £500.0.5 worth of goods, including a final shipment of " divers parcells of Goods and merchandize… On board the Shipp Constant

Freindshipp." John Long held three-quarters interest in the venture, with Emerson and

Storey sharing the remaining quarter. It was wise of Long to choose two partners; when

Storey died at sea, Emerson, as per the agreement became the sole owner of the merchandise, protecting Long's investment. Unfortunately, Emerson also died at sea, shortly after Storey. Samuel Tilghman, the ship’s master, was left in charge of the cargo.

This development was potentially disastrous for Long. He had dispatched cargo in the trust of two men who would spend the next year selling them, acquiring the best prices, and securing the most tobacco. But Tilghman would depart with the spring fleet, and had little interest in taking time to diligently sell Long’s goods. Long stood to lose a great deal of money. After the arrival of the Constant Friendship in the bay, Mary

Storey, Walter’s wife, sued Tilghman for delivery of the goods, intending to complete her husband’s plans to enter trade. The ship’s master refused to deliver her the goods in question, arguing that Emerson became sole owner of the venture upon Story's death and that thereby Mary Story had no claim upon the goods in question. The Court agreed, ordering that the goods be "disposed off as the said Samuel Tilghman Shall thinke best

45 for the most advantage of the said John Long...." Tilghman informed the court that he had already addressed the issue, explaining that

he hath so carefully Secured the said Goods in the hands of Mr Thomas Notley a responsible person who did acknowledge in Court to haue the said Goods in his custody and that as it was desired by the said Long in his Letters to the aforementioned Walter Story and John Emerson to dispose of the same in the summer

The court agreed with this arrangement, confirming that Notley was a reliable person, and assured Master Tilghman that “he would doe well to leave the same at the said

Notleys disposeing for the Use of the said John.” Notley was a powerful, wealthy, successful merchant, who possessed an impeccable reputation locally and among the overseas traders and ships masters who came to the Chesapeake. Choosing him as the receiver was a wise decision for Tilghman to make. Notley did not waste the opportunity to confirm the trust placed in him.47

A reputation for reliability and good-stewardship was paramount for a merchant’s success. Thomas Notley’s good stewardship of Long’s interests paid off; he continued to represent the Londoner in Maryland. In 1669, in Long’s letter of attorney to his fellow London merchant Timothy Wright, Notley was named to be the successor- attorney in Long’s £243.8.7 suit against Storey’s estate, if Wright were to somehow be incapacitated. And by February, 1670/71 Notley was representing Long outright.

47 See John Long. “The Humble petition of John Long of the City of London” Archives 2:459-460; “Long v Story” Archives 51:45-50, 408; Interestingly, John Morecroft was the attorney for Elizabeth Storey: see “Storey v Tilghman” Archives 57:301-303, It is possible that Notley was also in business with William Aubone and Robert Swain. In a case remarkably similar to that of Emerson and Story, their factor, Robert Ffarrer died en route to Maryland, and Notley was their attorney to recover the goods and any proceeds from their sales from his estate. Notley is identified as Merchant of Wiccomico, the name of one of the tracts he held on St. Clements manor.: see Barbara Lathroum. “St. Clements Manor, 1659-1672” Honor’s Thesis, Oberlin College, 1969 pp 55, 58, 65 and map on p. 89. What other role Notley may have played is not clear. There is difficulty in discovering a great deal about Notley’s supply and sales of his proceeds overseas; unlike Cordea, his business activities were somewhat better run and did not engender lawsuits. 46 Notley won the case, but Storey’s estate was not wealthy enough to satisfy the judgment.

Ever the good and faithful steward of his clients’ interests, Notley negotiated a fourteen year lease of 175 acres of Storey’s land in settlement. Long placed the leased land in trust with Notley as manager, undoubtedly a most profitable arrangement for both men.48

Notley’s reputation was widely known and Long was not Notley’s only overseas merchant client. In 1670 he was named the attorney of Thomas Cole of Southampton and Stephen Rogers of Dover, Merchants. In a case resembling that of Long and Story,

Notley was named the attorney of William Aubone and Robert Swain of Newcastle-on-

Tyne in their 1676 suit against the estate of their factor, Robert Ffarrer who had died en route to Maryland. Notley again diligently secured the goods and disposed of them in the name of his clients.49

Even though Mark Cordea was not one of the great attorneys of Restoration

Maryland, the opportunity to build or bolster an overseas trading connection by legally representing an extra-provincial merchant was too important for him to pass up. When

Edward Roe died owing 7684 pounds of tobacco to John Codore, factor of Gabriel

Minivile, it was Cordea who successfully sued the estate for Minivile and secured a judgment for the full amount. In the May, 1678 proceedings of the Provincial Court,

Cordea acknowledged “to have received the full ballance in satisfaction of a Judgemt”

48 Long, John. “Letter of Attorney to Timothy Wright” Archives 57:535. Reputation was one of the most important currencies a merchant could have. New England fish merchants were able to use contacts in London to sell their cargoes and “without a good name they would not have received the contracts.” Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)) p. 82 49 See John Long. “The Humble petition of John Long of the City of London” Archives 2:459-460; “Long v Story” Archives 51:45-50, 408; “Storey v Tilghman” Archives 57:301-3, John Long. “Letter of Attorney to Timothy Wright” Archives 57:535 For Cole and Rogers, see Cole, Thomas, and Stephen Rogers. “Letter of Attorney to Thomas Notley” Archives 57:560. “Aubone & Swaine v Ffarrer” Archives 66:205 47 from William Combes of Talbot County, the administrator of Roe’s estate. Although not a trained attorney, as a merchant Cordea knew the legal process for the recovery of debt well, and knew that this acknowledgement was not sufficient. The payment of the decision required an official acknowledgement at the next Provincial Court session to officially end the suit. Accordingly, he promised

att the next Provinciall Court to acknowledge satisfaccon on Record of & on the said Judgemt & in the mean tyme & aliwayes doe acquitt & discharge the said Estate of the said Edward Roe & all other persons that are or shall be interested therein of & from the said debt of the said Imployers or Creditorrs & all other demands touching the same...

Cordea, like Notley, proved his reliability to an overseas merchant who might perhaps someday be turned to sue on Cordea’s behalf in England, to supply goods or an outlet for the sale of tobacco, or even to provide the credit that was so crucial for traders.50

A familiarity with the practice of law offered distinct advantages to those who practiced trade. It not only enabled them to protect their own business interests but also to build and reinforce the overseas mercantile connections that were their very lifeblood.

Whether or not John Bateman had ever attended the Inns of Court, or had apprenticed as a lawyer is not clear, but as he had been a haberdasher in London, like Cordea, it is unlikely he had any formal legal training. Whatever his formal education may have been, as a merchant he had some skill and familiarity with the law. In September of

1659, only a few months after his arrival in the province, John Bateman personally filed

50 “Codore v Roe: Receipt of Payment of Judgment, May 1678” Archives 67:419-420 Merchants expected to deal with the legal system. A contemporary guidebook for merchants, The Complete Tradesman, had an entire chapter devoted to common legal documents, such as indentures, wills, contracts, etc. See N. H. The Complete Tradesman, or the Exact Dealers Daily Companion (London: Printed for John Dunton, 1684) pp. 68-72 48 suit in his own name against five men for squatting on land he had just patented.51 John

Bateman undoubtedly found it easier to access the credit he needed to carry on his

Maryland trade by being able to reassure his English suppliers in his ability to stand before the courts and personally defend their capital investments. The land-claims that

Bateman so zealously guarded were acquired, at least in part, with those investors’ money. In correspondence with his English partners this active defense of his land- claims would have enabled him to demonstrate his reliability and good and faithful stewardship of their investment and allowed him continued use of their capital. Only

Bateman’s untimely death exposed his budding enterprise to a loss of his investors’ confidence, and sparked a convoluted and complicated lawsuit between Mary Bateman, her mother, and John’s partners.

As Bateman’s life so dramatically showed, in the pestilent and often violent tidewater of the Chesapeake, life frequently came to a sudden and unexpected end, even more so than the pestilent and violent seventeenth-century Atlantic world of which it was a part. Large estates like those possessed by the successful Restoration-era merchants required studious administration especially if there were minor heirs.

Choosing executors and administrators was a task of supreme importance, and one that required absolute faith in the nominee. And there were few family members closer to

51 For John Bateman’s training see “Act for the Recording an Indented Deed of Bargain and Sale being the Counter part or Duplicate of an Originall Deed of Bargain & Sale from Mary Bateman and Henry Scarborough to Richard Perry, 1727” Archives 38:413. John Bateman. “Letter of Attorney to Henry Coursey” Archives 41:345; “Bateman v Anderson” Archives 41:381. In the 1720s Samuel Chamberlaine started out in his trade on a nearly identical path as John Bateman had taken. He migrated to Talbot County on the Eastern Shore and in 1721, he married the daughter of a wealthy Oxford Merchant, a powerful figure in local politics. He had begun as a factor to a Liverpool firm, handling the trade of his Liverpool relatives. His marriage connections and success got him appointed to the County Court. Like Bateman he was an ambitious landowner as well, and owned between 4000 and 5000 acres during his life. Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) p.127 49 decedents then their spouses, and wives frequently served as executrixes like Mary

Bateman. Things had not changed that much over the next three decades. In 1685,

Mark Cordea named his wife, Hester along with his son-in-law, James Cullen as co- executors. As overseers of his estate he named Robert Carvile, James Pattison, Thomas

Grunwin, and his old friend Garrett VanSweringen (whose daughter Elizabeth was

Cordea’s god-daughter and was bequeathed “VanSweringen my new house and lotts of land lying in St Mary’s Citty”). Joseph VanSweringen, Garrett’s son, would continue to hold and administer some of Cordea’s lands into the 1720s. In 1690 Garrett

VanSweringen named his wife, Elizabeth, as his sole executrix.52

Wives, if they survived, were good choices for this trust, but in their absence, someone else had to be found, and sooner rather than later. John Morecroft’s death came suddenly and unexpectedly. Despite his long-residence in the great Bay and his legal expertise, Maryland’s best and most skilled lawyer died leaving his last will unwritten and without an administrator of his own choosing. The Provincial Court had to make the decision for him. The Court found a family member, Morecroft’s cousin,

Jonathon Squire and he was appointed as administrator of the estate and Chancellor 52 Cordea, Mark “Last Will and Testament.” Wills. Maryland State Archives, MSA film SR 4400 Liber 4, F162 Maryland State Archives MSA film SR 4400. Hester Cordea had served as Executrix for her first husband, Anthony LeCompte. See Cordea, Hester in the St. Mary’s Women’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc4040-0365-03. Wives were routinely named administrators of their husbands’ estates. See: Lois Green Carr and Lorena S. Walsh “The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland” The William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, Vol. 34, No. 4, (October, 1977) pp. 555-560, quote is in Note 47 on p. 556. “From 1640 to 1710, 17% (sic) of the married men named no executor. In such cases, the probate court automatically gave executorship to the wife unless she requested someone else to act.” For a brief discussion of Maryland’s customs regarding the naming of executors, see Trevor Burnard: “A Tangled Cousinry? Associational Networks of the Maryland Elite, 1691-1776” The Journal of Southern History, 61:1 (February, 1995) p. 24. Trevor Burnard in Creole Gentlemen retraces the analysis of executors. Wives were frequently named in wills in the seventeenth century, a measure of the social and economic importance of white women. In the eighteenth century, women were less likely to be named sole executors, and more likely to have a male named to join them. Trevor Burnard. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776 (New York: Routledge, 2002) p. 140 50 Philip Calvert himself named Patrick Forrest to be his inventory-taker.53 Morecroft’s long, loyal service to the men of the Council / Provincial Court paid off in their stewardship of his last interests.

When kin were completely absent, however, only the closest of friends and colleagues could be trusted. Thomas Notley had no family surviving in Maryland in his last illness, which was only slightly less rapid than Morecroft’s. On April 2, 1679

Notley composed his last will and it was proved the next day; Notley passed at most a few hours after its composition. In it he turned to his closest friend and his patron as executors / administrators, Benjamin Rozer and Charles, Lord Baltimore. Like Cordea’s bequest to his godchild, the daughter of his close friend Garret VanSweringen, Thomas’ godson, Notley Rozer—Charles, Third Lord Baltimore’s Grandson—was given Notley

Hall and Cerne Abbas manor on which it stood.54 Though Notley left no family of his own to inherit, his wealth and his name would live on in the Rozer family into the nineteenth century.

The Restoration-era merchant-planters who migrated to Maryland were taking advantage of new opportunities and a more stable imperial framework to further their own economic success. In the process of building a normal trade enterprise, they built networks of connection with family and non-relatives. Whenever possible they used fellow Marylanders to connect themselves to other markets, and doing so mitigated much of their exposure. Their own skill at the law not only protected their own interests, but also helped build and reinforce their relationships both within and without

53 “Dent v Squire, Administrator of the Estate of John Morecroft” Archives 65:222 54 See Notley, Thomas Wills Liber 10, F 7 Maryland State Archives MSA film SR 4404-3

51 the province. Their networks provided them with the ability to make their reputations, provided them with timely and accurate information that was critical to merchanting success. Ultimately, these connections amongst one another were the source of the most important deputation of all—managing their estates after their all too frequent early deaths. From 1660-1676 they built a community of interconnected merchant-planters who shared common interests. While early death complicated their efforts to build a stable permanent ruling class, they were successful enough to be in power in the crisis years of 1676-1678, and were the critical components of Maryland’s weathering of the storm that nearly destroyed Virginia.

52 Chapter 3: Merchanting

The networks built by Restoration-era Maryland merchants provided them with many things that were critically important in launching, building, and maintaining a trading concern. Perhaps nothing was more important than access to credit, but acquiring capital was only one part of adventuring. Not only did a hopeful merchant need creditors, he needed to become a creditor himself to his customers. These two edges of the same sword could cut deeply. In the northern reaches of the Chesapeake, in the frontier county of Baltimore, Godfrey Harmar, a former indentured servant in

New Sweden, entered into Maryland after the Dutch conquest, claimed a headright and began trading at the mouth of the Susquehanna River in the then frontier county of

Baltimore. By 1670 his luck had run out: he was drowning in debt and had ended his trade, no longer able to get the credit that he needed to purchase his stock. At his death in 1673, Harmar was broke and his estate was still owed over eleven thousand pounds of tobacco from his trade that he had ended three years before. Harmar followed the similar experiences of Johannes de Witt, Jacobus Backer and Francis Boon in New

Amsterdam, small merchants all of whose estates would similarly disappear under their debts.55 George Steffen concluded that seventeenth century native Baltimore County merchants like Godfrey Harmer were dismal failures, unable to pass any sizable estate to

55 George Steffen "The Rise of the Independent Merchant in the Chesapeake" Journal of American History Vol. 76, No. 1 (June, 1989), pp. 14-15 53 their children as a result of the crushing debt they owed and what proved to be uncollectable credit they had over-extended.

But sometimes the dictum "he who dares, wins" proved true. For those with little capital, expanding trade from modest, and often deeply indebted, beginnings could prove to be a plan for eventual success, despite the risks. Successful elite merchants, in the face of unique conditions in the Chesapeake, had to adapt their trading practices in interesting, and potentially dangerous ways in the Chesapeake. Trade in Restoration-era

Maryland required the acquisition and extension of credit, just as it did throughout the

Atlantic world. But in the cash-poor Chesapeake, debts were not easily collectible, except at harvest-time. Not collecting an entire debt, allowing part of it to ride for years, became part of the successful Maryland merchant’s technique, or his ruin, as Harmer’s example shows. Extending more generous credit over a longer period was part of an attempt to capture as much of their customers’ produce as they could, in order to be able to predict their outcargos from year to year. By not collecting the entire debt in a given year, and allowing it carry over to the next, the merchant assured himself of tobacco for export in the future. Being generous in credit terms and lenient in debt collection, a merchant not only built up a predictable store of exports from year to year, but also constructed local good will that could be exploited at an election. Even as they opened themselves up to greater risks in lengthy extensions of credit, they worked diligently to limit their overall liabilities as best they could. They traded livestock and alcohol in

Maryland, and like successful merchants in Virginia, they also looked to expand profitability by engaging in Indian trade, recognizing the risks in being too dependent on one market. Anticipating economic trends that would not come to full fruition until the 54 eighteenth century, they attempted to diversify their and the province’s exports and export markets, and launched a nascent victualling trade with the Caribbean. The larger merchants further diversified their trade by importing as large a variety of cloths, manufactured goods, wines, liquors, and even brewstuffs, as they could. They wanted to fill all the needs of their customer base, again, in order to capture as much of their customers’ produce as they could. Properly managed, with generous credit and offering one-stop shopping could enable them to somewhat predict what their exports would be from year to year, and with enough time, to build a stable, predictable trade whose receipts would eventually exceed its outlays.

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be.”

With Polonius’ advice to Laertes in Hamlet, Shakespeare echoed traditional

English beliefs about credit and debt. This ancient attitude was increasingly ignored in the seventeenth century and the expansion of lending and borrowing fed the growth of the English economy and trade in the seventeenth century. Credit helped solve the problem of the acquisition of the capital that was critical to launching merchanting endeavors. For men without much credit-worthiness or reputation, acquiring the necessary capital without familial assistance was a difficult endeavor. Some

Restoration-era Maryland merchants solved this problem by becoming factors of metropolitan merchants, even though the factory system would come to full flower in the eighteenth century, selling European goods and buying commodities for their employers, adventuring less of their own capital, reserving only a part of the proceeds for themselves. Although profits for the factor were much lower than independency would have brought, the risks were also partially shifted to their employer. Ideally, with 55 enough time, such arrangements would enable the agent in Maryland to build up enough wealth to import on his own and become independent; this was undoubtedly the intention of Emerson and Story, who jointly only invested twenty-five percent in their arrangement with John Long.56

Emerson and Story were small poorly connected traders, with poor resources.

With better connections and greater capitalization, frequently acquired by debt, a merchant could aspire to power and hope to eventually dominate local trade, and eventually capture enough of the locals’ trade to enable him to pay off his creditors.

This took time, probably at least a decade. In the late 1650s, John Bateman had great ambition and he supplemented the £500 dowry brought by his wife, Mary Perry of the merchanting family of London, by becoming a factor for Henry Scarborough of London.

The credit and employment extended by Scarborough and the capital supplied by his in- laws enabled Bateman to move to and successfully enter trade in Maryland. A promising start to his trading career was cut short by his death within three years of his arrival, leaving his wife "an estate much encumbered by debt.” As Mary Bateman found out, building a mercantile concern that would be able to pay off the debts that had launched it required more than three years of trade. What may, on the surface, seem to be poor business sense—being heavily indebted—was actually a very good start to a trading career in the Chesapeake. Bateman was able to exploit his position as a well-

56 One contemporary guide to merchanting, the Complete Tradesman, warned that “... they seldome prove well; who set up young...” he advised former apprentices starting out on their career ideally convert their former masters to partners, “Whereby; as Bears by their grown Cubs, they are taught to catch the prey with the greatest cleverness and certainty, and with the least hazard.” N.H. also advised that the wise young merchant start his trade slowly and to live frugally, so as not to become too burdened by debt; advice that many Restoration-Era Maryland merchants, as shall be seen, patently ignored. see N. H. The Complete Tradesman, or the Exact Dealers Daily Companion (London: Printed for John Dunton, 1684) pp. 73-74. The Emerson, Story and Long case was discussed in the previous chapter. 56 capitalized trader to come into a position of great power in Maryland. Recognizing his status, the Calverts elevated him to the Governor’s Council within months of his arrival.

Scarborough gained a powerful associate and an important connection to markets in the

Chesapeake.57

Of course, time was not the only factor in the eventual success of an endeavor.

Location and access to adequate numbers of productive enough customers to support a mercantile enterprise were also critical. Steffen’s failed seventeenth-century merchants in Baltimore County had the misfortune to choose to set up in trade in what was at that time a frontier county relatively sparsely populated by English settlers. With few

57 Jacob Price’s work largely focused on the trade between Britain and the Chesapeake. He notes the existence of three arrangements that dominated the export of tobacco from the great Bay and the import to the Bay of British made goods. Consignment was the classic form, in which a planter consigned his yearly production to a metropolitan merchant paying a commission. Any imports the planter made in a given year were charged against the proceeds of his crop’s sale. Frequently the larger planters acted as collection agents for smaller farmers’ crops, enabling smaller crops to be casked for shipment as opposed to being shipped in bulk, which was pricier in shipping costs but as it resulted in greater shipping damage, brought lower prices. With the advent of the stores and / or factors, local agents of metropolitan merchants acted as the consolidate the tobacco shipments directly for the merchants, eliminating the middle man and allowing the smaller planter to sell his crop at higher prices and with more liberal credit terms then merchant-planters extended. Price also identified what he called the cargo system, in which a Colonial merchant-planter ordered a large stock of goods on what was usually a one year term of credit that he then paid for by the marketing of his own goods, usually foodstuffs either into the Caribbean or directly to Southern Europe. Price’s examination of the trans-Atlantic trade however, all but completely ignores the seventeenth century. See Jacob Price Capital and Credit in British Overseas Trade, The View from the Chesapeake, 1700-1776 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980). See Bateman, John. in A Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 117. Bateman's wife, Mary (Perry) would survive him and serve as the administrator of the estate. Marguerite Perry, Mary's mother, would hire Thomas Notley and John Morecroft to sue the estate on a bond of £2000 wherein John had promised to leave an estate worth at least £1000. See Perry, Marguerite. “Letter of Attorney to Thomas Notley and John Gittings, 27 October, 1664” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., (Baltimore: 1883-present.) Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663- 1666, pp.291-294 (hereafter cited as Archives 49:291-294). Ensuring the nomination of an associate to the Proprietor's council was a wise choice in 1660. Over the interregnum Cecil Calvert had been overthrown, but had had his charter confirmed by both Cromwell and the restored Charles II. There was little fear that Calvert would falter in his holding of the Province in the foreseeable future, placing someone close to him was a wise way of ensuring access to the mechanisms of power. For an excellent exploration of Cecil, Lord Baltimore’s ability to maintain or reclaim his proprietary rights in the interregnum, see John D. Krugler. English and Catholic : the Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). 57 customers to purchase tobacco from, many of these traders looked to trade with Indians to make up the difference to establish a profitable concern. But with the upheavals in the backcountry, and Maryland’s at best tense relationship with the Susquehannock, and mistrust of the Iroquois, that trade proved lacking. As a result, the Baltimore County

Merchants of the seventeenth century were never able to secure enough outcargos to enable them to pay back their own creditors, or did so only barely. In the more heavily populated southern reaches of the Province, Bateman’s problem was not in being so heavily indebted, but rather by dying too early. Southern Maryland Merchants like John

Addison, Mark Cordea, Henry Darnall, John Morecroft, Thomas Notley, Benjamin

Rozer, and Robert Slye, for example, all lived and traded for nearly two decades or longer. All were able to pay their creditors at least enough to continue to have access to credit and to continue to trade. All built and bequeathed sizable landed estates, and all became politically powerful by the time of their deaths.58

Bateman’s and Harmer’s ultimately estate-ruining debts were not evidence of carelessness, quite the opposite. Paul Clemens has described how in the eighteenth

58 The difficulties with the natives in the Northern Chesapeake and Eastern Shore are detailed in Francis Jennings. “Glory, Death and Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (February, 1968) pp. 15-53. Jennings argues convincingly that Charles Calvert’s efforts to drive the Dutch from Delaware alienated the natives, arguing that by 1673, there were at the heads of the Chesapeake and Delaware Bays Indian populations— the Iroquois, the Susquehannock, et al.—deeply embittered against the English. It was difficult to build a trade among populations who has been alienated. Godfrey Harmer provides one example of these tensions spilling over to complicate trade. Harmar was well-prepared to profitably trade with the Indians, being able to speak native languages. This fact actually worked against him, as he was often tapped by the Government to act as diplomat and/or translator in negotiations with Maryland’s enemies. The constant upheaval and violence kept him busy in official duties, absenting him from his store. See George Steffen. "The Rise of the Independent Merchant in the Chesapeake." Journal of American History Vol. 76, No. 1 (June, 1989), pp. 9-33. For summaries of the mercantile careers of John Addison, Henry Darnall, John Morecroft, Thomas Notley, Benjamin Rozer, Robert Slye, see A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp.616, 707, 739. Mark Cordea traded in Maryland for most of his twenty-one recorded years in the Province. For a summary of his career in Maryland see Cordea, Mark in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0943-001 58 century Eastern Shore traders in Talbot and Dorchester Counties extended generous credit to their customers in order to assure that they would continue to sell their crops to them year after year. Debt was the mechanism that enabled the merchant to capture local planters’ trade. It reduced uncertainty by enabling the established merchant to predict from year to year their likely amount of exports. This system also brought a certain amount of efficiency into the tobacco export market by consolidating Maryland tobacco into cask. Properly prized and casked tobacco was of better quality and of greater value than loose, or bulk tobacco. By consolidating multiple planters’ crops into hogsheads and shipping less in bulk, the local merchant-planter could get higher prices and make greater profits.59 This same system was working on the western shore nearly a century earlier.

This ubiquitous debt meant that virtually every stage of trade was fraught with the potential for disaster. A failed leg, in or out, could doom a not yet established independent merchant trading hand-to-mouth. But if all went well, after a few years the credit extended by the merchants would secure for them a more or less steady and predictable supply of yearly outcargo from their customers, and the debts owed by the merchants would be smaller than the credit extended to local planters. Stagnant and

59 This fact was well-known to Chesapeake exporters, but finding a system to effectively consolidate tobacco was difficult, if not impossible, until Maryland adopted the warehouse system in the mid- eighteenth century. The Act mentioned by Capt. Neale to Bailey in chapter one that required the landing and exporting of goods from towns that was, in his words ‘ruinous to trade’ was part of a series of seventeenth century attempts to increase the collection of Lord Baltimore’s tobacco tax which was assessed per cask. Before the Inspection law went into effect in 1747, the attempts to raise the price of tobacco were limited to lowering or ‘stinting’ production See Mary McKinney Schweitzer. “Economic Regulation and the Colonial Economy: The Maryland Tobacco Inspection Act of 1747” The Journal of Economic History Vol. 40, No. 3, (September, 1980) pp. 551-569. See Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland's Eastern. Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1980). Local merchants on the Eastern Shore used credit to, in essence, trap smaller planters as customers and predictably capture their tobacco for export by the creditor. 59 falling tobacco prices over the period did not help, and even with the best plans, secure credit, and implementation, men like John Bateman who died too early in the process, were doomed to failure, leaving over-extended estates hopelessly burdened by unpayable debts. Similarly, Emerson’s and Story’s trade was cut short by their untimely deaths at sea, and their families could not secure the goods that they had planned on stocking their trade driving them into penury. The best laid plans were impossible to execute from an early grave.60

Thomas Notley’s merchanting career illustrates how credit was managed in a successful enterprise. It did not take long for the recently arrived former Barbadian to figure out how best to manage credit in the Chesapeake. Initially he limited the credit he extended and sued to collect relatively small outstanding debts. In 1664, he sued twice for amounts under 400 pounds of tobacco (roughly one-quarter of a man-crop).61 In

March 1664/5, Richard Roe was sued for 350 pounds and in court admitted the debt to

Notley, and in July, he sued Edmund Lendsey [Lindsey] for 398 pounds of tobacco.62

Notley quickly altered his practices: after 1665 he ceased to prosecute debtors for such small amounts and he allowed credit to his customers to build up and carry-over from year to year. Over the next fifteen years of his residence and trade in the province, he never again sued for less than 800 pounds, and only twice for under 1200, over half of a

60 “N.H., a Merchant in the City of London” saw the danger for young, inexperienced merchants and their greater potential for failure. His concerns centered around laziness and early over expenditure, on housing, land, or luxuries. See N. H. The Complete Tradesman, or the Exact Dealers Daily Companion (London: Printed for John Dunton, 1684) pp. 73-80 61 A man-crop is the amount of the crop of tobacco produced in a year by a single worker, from 1660- 1679, roughly 1500-2000 pounds of tobacco. See Table 2.3 Productivity per hand in Tobacco, 1640-1699 in Lois Greene Carr, Russell R. Menard, and Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) p. 42. See also Table I-2: Crop Size per Hand in Early Maryland (pounds) in Gloria Main. Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982) 62 “Notley v Lee” Archives 53:463, 483, 519 and “Notley v Roe” Archives 53:540, 542. 60 man-crop. After a short learning curve, Notley learned that offering a relatively generous extension of credit to his customers, in excess of what they could expect to be able to pay off from their crop at the end of the year, and allowing balances to carry-over from year to year was necessary in order to operate successfully as a merchant in

Maryland. Such practices ensured customers and secured predictable outcargos.63

John Bateman not only brought a huge amount of capital into the province, but he also had a good idea of what trade in the province would require in terms of credit management. Unlike Notley, he did not sue for small debts. During his short career in the Province, he only sued once on an action of debt in the records that survive. In late

1661, Bateman demanded a writ ordering the arrest of William Lawrence on a debt of

1900 pounds of tobacco. Extending copious credit and thereby building and maintaining a debt network was a critical part of successfully launching a trading career. His books undoubtedly carried significant debts from his customers within a few months of his arrival. Perhaps Lawrence had not even attempted a partial payment. 1900 pounds of tobacco was over an entire man-crop [the maximum amount of tobacco produced by a single worker in a year], which may have been the limit of what Bateman was willing to extend to most planters.64

Even though the survival of the records are somewhat spotty, examining the actions on debt that Notley did file it is possible to get a glimpse at the evolution of his credit-extension strategy in more detail. There are records of twenty-six suits for debt that include an amount sued for, ranging from Roe’s 350 pound debt to a 20,800 pounds

63 “Notley v Lendsey” Archives 53: 464, 483-4, 519. “ Notley v Roe” Archives 53:540 64 See “Bateman v Lawrence” Archives 41:488. 61 of tobacco debt owed by Garrett VanSweringen. Averaging all of the debts together,

Notley sued for 4339 pounds. Excluding the obvious outliers (the two amounts under

400 pounds discussed above and VanSweringen’s debt—both for its excessive size and the fact that it was filed by Notley’s estate’s administrators as part of their settling of the estate and may not have been filed if Notley had still been alive—and an 18,100 pound debt owed by innholder William Rosewell), Notley sued for amounts ranging from 828 pounds to 11,956, averaging 3538 pounds of tobacco, or a little over two man-crops.

But half of all of his suits were for debts under 2100 pounds, just over single-man crop, and close to the amount of the single surviving case that Bateman filed. Only five of the twenty-two were for unpaid debts in excess of 3700 pounds. On average, Notley was willing to carry a debt on his books of just over a single man-crop for most debtors. It is interesting that the five largest debts recorded all went to innkeepers, totaling 77,923 pounds of tobacco, or over sixty-three percent of all debts owed Notley by value. Sadly,

Notley’s estate inventory was incomplete and what debts were owed him in their entirety was either not recorded or has not survived. Add to this that at the time of his death he had been out of trading for at least three years—ending his merchanting around the time he became governor in 1676. Many of his debtors probably paid over those three years, and there may not have been any outstanding debts to collect from most of those who had been his borrowers. The only suit to collect debt filed by his administrators that survives was to collect the 20,800 pounds of tobacco debt owed by

Garrett VanSweringen, and that suit may not have been filed, had it not been for

Notley’s death.

62 Although, like Notley, Harmar had also ceased trading three years before his death, in 1673 he was still owed 11,017 pounds of tobacco. Four men still owed more than 900 pounds of tobacco each, and of the twenty-four other debtors, the outstanding balances ranged from a mere eighty pounds to 550, averaging 250 pounds each, but these accounts had probably been paid on in the three years since he had left trade, and likely do not reflect the original debt totals. Most telling here are the three desperate debts- debts that were judged by the court to be unlikely to be paid, probably because no payment had been made over the three years at all. They were worth 1010 pounds in total, and their average of 337 pounds each is tellingly close to the small amounts initially sued for by Notley in 1664. In Restoration-era Maryland the smallest, and least credit-worthy planters could expect to be granted about 350 to 400 pounds of tobacco in credit in a given year. It may be that Notley’s relatively greater success was because he did not engage with the poorest planters at all, a luxury not available to Harmar who could not risk turning away a customer. Or it may have been that Notley was more discerning in his extending of credit, and only lent money to small planters who proved capable of paying their debts. Harmer was not as able to be as discriminating in the frontier county of Baltimore.

Yearly payments on debts that left a balance to carry-over from year to year were the norm. The records of Notley’s lawsuits suits show this taking place. By May of

1675 Notley had sold 3071 pounds of tobacco (just over two man-crops) worth of goods and merchandise to John Waughop (Wahobb). Over the next year, paid off most of his account; in June of 1677 Waughop came into court and admitted to still owing 1441.

The court ordered him to pay the balance, plus 164 pounds of tobacco court-costs. He 63 had probably paid the 1630 pounds in the winter or spring of 1676, and this suit was probably a record of his settling the account.65

Unlike Harmer and Notley, John Morecroft died still actively engaged in trade and his inventory recorded all of the debts due to his estate in their entirety. Using these records as an example of debt management techniques of merchants is complicated by the fact that many of the debts owed him were for legal representation, not the sale of merchandise. Morecroft’s legal fees were extremely high, and would skew the analysis, if there was not some way to exclude them. Cross referencing his inventory with court records, it is possible to identify many of the names as legal clients, and to eliminate those debts from the analysis. The remaining outstanding debts range from three at 400 to a single one at 4000 pounds of tobacco, averaging about 1190. Fifty-five percent were for 1000 pounds or less, and eighty-five percent were for 1500 pounds or less.

Excluding the single 4000 pound debt, the average debt dropped to 1048 pounds, or roughly two-thirds of a man-crop. The “Desperate Debts’ average 1660 pounds.

Morecroft died in the very late autumn of 1673, and it is possible that the non-desperate debts reflect accounts on which some payment had been made with the newest crop just harvested, and the desperate may have been so designated because of no payment at all.

If John Wahobb’s payments reflect the ability of an established and moderately prosperous planter then Morecroft was willing to only extend credit in amounts that could be paid off in a year’s time.66 Morecroft was, however less dependent on his trade

65 For the John Waughop case, see “Notley v Wahobb” Archives 67:19-20. 66 Wahobb entered Maryland as a servant, but by the time of his death owned three slaves and one female servant. He owned at least 800 acres which he left to his daughter Rebecca in his will, and he may have owned the entirety of Piney Point plantation, which he purchased along with two others. See entry for Waughop, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-4484. 64 than he was on his legal skill, the list of debts owed by persons he had legally represented were worth just over fifty-four percent of the total outstanding debts owed him and he may have not needed to be as generous in his extension of credit to his merchanting customers in order to secure sufficient outcargos.

“a Charter party of fraightment... for hire of the Shipp Liverpoole Merchant”67

Next to securing credit for the purchase of goods for sale and exchanging them for Maryland-produced commodities via generous extensions of credit, the most crucial resource were vessels to both assemble that cargo and then get it over the sea. In seventeenth century Maryland, few roads existed and those that did were poorly maintained despite repeated calls by the assembly to build and repair them.68 In the great estuary, however, there was an alternative. Travel in the Bay was best achieved by water, and small vessels provided the primary mode of transport, well into the eighteenth century. Acquiring access to a smaller vessel was necessary for merchants to collect tobacco from their debtors in order to prepare it for transshipment. Raymond

Staplefort not only partnered in a plantation / store with Capt. Bailey, but the two men also purchased a small vessel to navigate the bay and ply their trade. And in the northern Chesapeake, novice merchants Edward Gunnell and his partner Joseph Sayres relied upon their landlord to not only provide them with a room for their store, food, lodging and washing but also a replacement for Gunnel’s “Small old Suncke Sloope

67 From Richard Windall’s indemnifying of Cordea and Addison for the seizure and condemnation of his ship, the Liverpoole Merchant in Maryland for smuggling under the Navigation Acts. Richard Windall. “Indemnity of Mark Cordea and John Addison” Archives 717:59 68 Laws that called upon local magistrates to build and or maintain highways were passed in 1666, 1669, and 1671: see Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) pp. 50, 53, 57 reprinted as Archives 75: 50, 53, 57 65 Boate.”69 This was only the first step in the process, however. These smaller vessels were not used in the trans-Atlantic leg of the journey. Another, larger, sturdier vessel would need be acquired or, better yet, multiple ships; it was generally preferred to lade cargoes across several vessels so as to spread the risk of loss at sea to accident, piracy, or foreign privateer.70

The connections and networks these merchants made proved vital in the efforts to acquire space for their cargos, both in and out. In the failed Bailey-Staplefort partnership, the two men relied upon one another to acquire a small trading vessel and a plantation on which to base their operations. Bailey, as a ship’s captain provided access to overseas shipping, and Staplefort remained in the province, managed the plantation and minded the store in Bailey’s absence. Garrett VanSweringen used his contacts with

Capt. John Quigley to import his needed malt, hops and other brewstuffs for his brewery. Benjamin Rozer relied upon Robert Slye to ship tobacco to Barbados, and

Mark Cordea would rely upon Capt. Bailey to supply him with tobacco when Cordea was trading in New York City. Perhaps the best way of ensuring adequate access to shipping was to acquire a ship outright, even if this potentially placed a merchant in greater risk of loss due to shipwreck, piracy or even condemnation under the Navigation

Acts. John Addison, Mark Cordea, and Walter Hall were ambitious and not averse to

69 Charles G. Steffen. “The Rise of the Independent Merchant in the Chesapeake: Baltimore County, 1660-1769. The Journal of American History,. Vol. 76, No. 1 (June, 1989) p. 16. 70 See James H. Weeks. “A Comforting Taste of Home: Beer and Brewing in Seventeenth Century Proprietary Maryland.” MA Thesis, Bowling Green State University, 2001 pp. 96-99, esp. notes 146-148. For examples of this pattern of distributing cargoes across several vessels, see Port Books, Port of London, Controller of the Subsidy of Tunnage and Poundage, Denizen (English) Merchants—Exports: 29 December, 1671—28 December 1672. (Public Records Class E 190/54/1) and Port Books, Port of London, Controller of the Subsidy of Tunnage and Poundage, Denizen (English) Merchants—Exports: 29 December, 1671—28 December 1672. (Public Records Class E 190/55/1) 66 such inherent risks, within certain limitations, in 1676 the three men spread their risks by partnering in both trade and a ship to carry it in.71

The record of Addison, Cordea, and Hall’s merchant activities preserved in the records of their charter of the 1677-78 voyage of the Liverpoole Merchant offers insight into nearly an entire voyage, and shows the practical value of the networks discussed in the previous chapter. The three men pooled their capital, thereby acquiring a ship larger than they could have otherwise and minimized their individual risk. Intra-provincial contacts proved critical, and the already established and well-connected Cordea, who had been in the colony for nearly a decade, partnered with young merchant-planter John

Addison who had only recently emigrated, around 1674. The two merchants joined with one of Cordea’s neighbors on St. Clement’s Manor, Walter Hall. Hall had arrived in

Maryland in 1652 as an indentured servant and since then had become a relatively wealthy planter, worth at his death in 1678 over 74,000 pounds of tobacco, holding

1,250 acres of land, two slaves and two servants. Addison and Cordea, both experienced overseas traders, may have turned to the upwardly-mobile Hall for additional financing, who in turn relied upon the merchants’ experience to guide his first foray into trade.72 71 Arthur Pierce Middleton noted that many merchants in the Chesapeake “owned more that one vessel of their own and, in addition, had an interest in several others. Arthur Pierce Middleton. Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of the Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era (Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press, (1984 reprint)), p. 283. By shipping on several vessels, one prevented the total loss of a cargo if a ship was lost at sea. 72 Addison was a member of an ambitious and well connected family from Westmoreland, England. His father was an Anglican clergyman, and it is probable that Launcelot Addison, Chaplin to King Charles II and Anthony Addison, Chaplin to the Duke of Marlborough were his brothers. He and two of his other brothers were not called to ministry; instead Henry, Thomas and John all became merchants. John and Thomas were successful enough in England that they both earned there the title of Gentlemen. See entry for Addison, John in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 100. See also entry for Hall, Walter. in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 389. John Addison begins appearing in the Maryland records in and after 1674. As a merchant, he traveled extensively, and due to the nature of travel, would have spent considerable time in overseas locales, probably frequently in 67 Cordea and Hall relied upon Addison to secure the ship and the European-sourced goods to fill it in Liverpool. And, in that northern English city on the eighteenth of September,

1677, John Addison and Mark Cordea—for some reason Hall’s name was not part of the

English agreement—chartered the eighty ton ship Liverpoole Merchant, Richard

Windall, Master, at the charge of £60 sterling per month for between six and ten months to voyage from England to Ireland, then to Maryland, back to England.73

Addison was chosen to acquire the ship and goods as he was already in

Liverpool on other business. On the same day that he signed the contract with Windall,

Addison also acknowledged in a bill that he had over 100,000 pounds of tobacco in his possession in Maryland that properly belonged to his brother, Thomas Addison. John promised that the Liverpoole Merchant would be loaded with over 30,000 pounds of

Thomas’ tobacco and depart the St. Mary’s River within twenty days of its planned

Maryland arrival in March 1677/8. As an experienced merchant, Addison planned on

England. His wife and family were in Maryland after 1677 (he married the widow of Thomas Dent, St. Mary’s merchant and office-holder). Catholic Walter Hall was familiar to Cordea as having served as Clerk, Coroner, and Justice for St. Mary’s County; he also was elected to the lower house of the Assembly in 1676. Anglican John Addison’s political ambitions were largely thwarted prior to 1689; he was only able to secure a Justiceship in Charles County in 1687. Strong support for the Protestant Association opened his public career, and he actively served from 1689 until his death in 1705/6. His earlier relationship with the proprietary-connected Cordea and Hall may have been an early attempt at building contacts with the Calverts. Cordea’s death by 1683, and a somewhat rancorous relationship with the Proprietary probably stalled such efforts, and he moved from St. Mary’s County to Charles County by 1687. Hall was a member of the partnership, see “Notley v Cordea, Hall, and Addison” Archives 68:206 where Addison paid the debt owed by the three men’s partnership to Thomas Notley’s estate in 1679. Similarly, Addison paid a 21,000 pounds of tobacco debt due to the proprietor on a bill listing all three as debtors. Addison would sue Cordea claiming that the debt was principally his, and that he and Hall (now deceased) had only been responsible for half of the debt. See “Lord Proprietary v Cordea & Addison” Archives 68:131-132. See also “Addison v Cordea” Archives 69:162-3 73 £60 sterling, at a penny-per-pound valuation, was the equivalent of 14,400 pounds of tobacco, or over seven man-crops. See Addison, Thomas and John Addison. “Contract between Thomas Addison and John Addison” Archives 717:61-62 Cordea appears to have been at the provincial court several times from October 1677 through February 1677/8. As the Liverpoole Merchant would not arrive in the Bay until March, this would preclude his presence in Liverpool. See the jury trial in his defense against John Bailey’s estate, “Bailey v Cordea” Archives 67:220-221. Hall was a farmer, not an overseas merchant and there are no records of his ever leaving the province. 68 exporting his brother’s tobacco on multiple ships, loading only fifteen tons of his brother’s tobacco on the ship would have left some sixty-five tons of space on the vessel, over eighty percent of its capacity, to be loaded with the partner’s and others’ exports back to England.74 Of course, this also lowered the cost of the charter the partners would bear for the ship, as Thomas’s cargo would bear at least part of the cost.

Assuming a nine month journey, the Liverpoole Merchant would have cost the partners

130,000 pounds of tobacco, or the entire value of the tobacco that could have been loaded in the remaining cargo space. The charter was for six months minimum, and an early October departure from England and planned departure in the early Spring could have been done, lowering the cost of the charter to 86,400 pounds of tobacco. While

Thomas Addison’s cargo would have paid some of the cost, the partners may have been planning on exporting a commodity that was of higher value for its bulk than tobacco.

After securing the ship, Addison wasted little time, and within three weeks he loaded the ship with the assembled cargo of “seaverall goods and Marchandizes of the proper goods of them the said John and Marke,” valued at over 64,000 pounds of tobacco.75 Five months later on March 8, 1677/8, The Liverpoole Merchant arrived in the great bay. As a trans-Atlantic crossing normally took only two to three months,

Addison, Cordea, and Hall’s partnership had already been engaged in trade before the ship arrived in Maryland. When Christopher Rousby, Attorney General of Maryland and the port officer in charge of entering and clearing all ships in the province boarded her for her inspection and discovered on board “divers and sundry Comodities of the

74 The remaining 70,000 pounds promised to Thomas was to be sent by October 1678. It was not unusual to send partial cargos on multiple vessels in stead of completely loading a single ship. See Addison, Thomas and John Addison. “Contract between Thomas Addison and John Addison” Archives 717:61-62 75 See “Addison & Cordea v Rousby” Archives 69:172-179 69 growth produccon and Mani-facture of Europe” that had not been “bona-fide” loaded in

Liverpool or anywhere else allowed under the Navigation Act. Specifically, eighteen hogsheads of French claret and “seaverall bayles packs and Caskes of goods and other

European Comodities… imported against the forme of the statute aforesaid.”76 The ship had made at least one stop to trade in Europe. The partners were smuggling French wines, a relatively high-value cargo, in addition to other unspecified European goods.77

Rousby immediately ordered the ship and its cargo seized, and Governor Thomas Notley named a commission out of the court of High Chancery naming Robert Carvile, Garret

VanSweringen, John Darnall, and Walter Hall to decide if Windall’s ship and Addison,

Cordea’s (and Hall’s) cargo was to be condemned and sold. Considering

VanSweringen’s long-term, close relationship with Cordea, and Hall’s actual partnership in trade with Addison and Cordea, this was a rather friendly commission. But the evidence against the Liverpoole Merchant was too great, or the skilled, well-trained lawyer Rousby too eloquent: the ship was condemned by the court for violation of the

Navigation Act. In order to prepare for its sale, the Court appointed appraisers valued the Liverpoole Merchant at £200 sterling.78 76 ibid pp.174-5. Robert Carvile and Garret VanSweringen placed the volume of claret at eighteen hogsheads: see Carvile, Robert and Garrett VanSweringen. “Affadavits of Mr. Robert Carvile, and Mr. VanSweringen.” Archives 5:334-342. The packets of unspecified goods of European manufacture were delivered to John Addison and John Reddish. It is possible that Reddish and Addison were also in partnership, but ships routinely carried cargos belonging to several merchants at once. This may reflect the relatively greater capitalization of Addison as compared to Cordea and Hall. 77 For the types and variety of alcoholic beverages exported to Maryland, see James H. Weeks. “A Comforting Taste of Home: Beer and Brewing in Seventeenth Century Proprietary Maryland.” MA Thesis, Bowling Green State University, 2001, pp. 92-107 78 The appeals dragged on for at least three years, at issue was what had been laden legally and when and where. Cordea traveled to Liverpool in 1678 promising to send copies of the original coquettes showing the cargo in question was legally laded. The documents, not surprisingly, never arrived. Cordea and Addison defended their claim by explaining that the wines and goods had all been laden in England as the act required, but not aboard the Liverpoole Merchant. The partners claimed to have originally split their cargo between the Merchant and a second vessel, the George—not unbelievable, as loading a single cargo as partial cargo on multiple vessels was good insurance against loss. Exiting from Liverpool, they 70 This does not seem to have posed a major problem for either the partners or the ship’s master, Windall. Cordea and Addison moved quickly, and secured the vessel following its condemnation, and on the sixth of June, 1678 Windall indemnified them both of liability, discharging the

said Marke Cordea & John Addisson their heyres & Assignes goods & Chattells from my damage trouble or Charge by them to be sustained or accrued by breach of the said Charter party on their part by being the cause of the Condemnacon of the said Ship by Shipping on board her prohibited goods only they paying me freight

The ship had been chartered for six to ten months, and June was only the ninth month since the beginning of the adventure. The three partners had ensured that the condemnation of the Liverpoole Merchant did not delay the ship, by either purchasing it themselves after condemnation or helping Windall to do so himself, promising to pay the freighting charges as in the original contract. Windall, his ship, and crew were no worse for the drama that had unfolded in Maryland. Reflecting this, Windall ordered that the pay of the crew and their labor contracts should continue as if no seizure had taken place.79

explained, the George sprang a leak in the Irish Sea and the two vessels had to put in to Dublin for repairs or the hire of another ship. There, the cargo aboard the leaking George was transferred to the Liverpoole Merchant , and the venture resumed from there. Whether or not the cargo was thus legal was the heart of the question, whether transferred from one legally laded ship to another, or just illegally laded in the first place. It should be noted that this sequence of events is somewhat suspect, as Thomas Addison’s suit against John for the 104,900 pounds of tobacco owed mentioned that the origin of the voyage of the Liverpoole Merchant was Dublin, not in Liverpool. The loading of the George’s cargo onto the Liverpoole Merchant was possible, as few vessels sailed to the Chesapeake fully laden; the tobacco exported would be bulkier than the goods it would pay for. It was routine for vessels to leave England heavily in ballast. See Carvile, Robert and Garrett VanSweringen. “Affadavits of Mr. Robert Carvile and Mr. VanSweringen.” Archives 5:334-342. 79 “Charter of the Liverpool Merchant, 6 June, 1678” Archives 717:59 Of course, the delay of the ship was a problem for Thomas Addison who was expecting a return cargo to depart Maryland aboard her by the end of March. 71 And it is here, in the condemnation and redemption of the Liverpoole Merchant that the mercantile practices of networking paid off. Connections with the power-elite enabled the partnership to overcome their troubles, although they were not sufficient to avoid them completely. Less than two weeks after Windall indemnified them, Addison,

Cordea, and Hall signed a bill of debt to the Lord Baltimore for 10,861 pounds of tobacco, or roughly £45. Considering the timing this is probably the one-third of the value of the sale of the condemned ship due to the Proprietor under the Navigation Act.

The debt went unpaid in December as the bill required and the court ordered Cordea,

Addison and Hall (who had since died) to pay the proprietor double. Addison came to the court in March 1678/9 and admitted and paid the 21,722 pounds of tobacco debt.

Similarly, Addison paid an unspecified debt owed by the three men to Thomas Notley’s estate. As governor, Notley would have been owed one-third of the proceeds of the sale of the condemned vessel, and this payment may have been his share. The last third of the proceeds of the sale was to go to the officer or person who identified the illegality of the cargo, in this case, Cristopher Rousby. Considering the protracted reluctance of

Rousby to return the 64,000 pounds of tobacco worth of goods that were not in dispute as legally imported shows a certain unhappiness with the terms of the sale. The ship had been assessed as worth £200, but appears to have sold at only £135. Although no small amount, the Lord Proprietor and Governor Notley were both willing to extend credit to the partners and may have forced Rousby to both accept the smaller amount and to extend similar credit. It was this credit that enabled Addison, Cordea, and Hall to quickly secure the return of the ship to Windall. Rousby’s selling of over half of the goods seized makes sense if he saw them as surety for the debt. Under pressure from 72 Addison and the court, three years after the condemnation and sale Rousby angrily ordered his attorney, Robert Ridgley, to return to Addison (by now the only surviving partner) 30,000 pounds of tobacco’s worth of the goods, being all that he had left of them in his possession after selling or using the other 34,000 pounds of tobacco worth of merchandise.80 Rousby’s bitter political break with the Proprietor came in 1678, and it is likely that this case was crucial in the development of the acrimony that erupted between Rousby and the Proprietary party.81

Breaking the Grip of the Noxious Weed

One reality of trade in the Restoration period was the stagnant or falling price of tobacco, and these elite merchants were well aware of the difficulties this fact posed for their economic success. As we will see later, they took the lead in attempts to stint tobacco production in league with Virginia. They also served in the legislatures that

80 Carvile himself described Rousby as inexplicably angry over the forced return of the goods seized by him from the Liverpoole Merchant: see the Carvile, Robert and Garrett VanSweringen. “Affadavits of Mr. Robert Carvile, and Mr. VanSweringen.” Archives 5:334-342. 81 It is likely that Notley was who forced the extension of credit to the Partners as the new Proprietor was in London at the time. The breakdown of the relationship between Rousby, the King’s Collector, and the Calverts centered on Rousby’s vigorous enforcement of the Navigation Act. In early 1682/3 King Charles received multiple “credible’ reports that Baltimore had refused to condemn three ships discovered by Rousby to be in violation the Navigation Act, costing the Crown to lose £2500 sterling in customs. The proceeds of the sale of three ships could have amounted to near £200 sterling in income for Rousby. The King admonished Charles, Lord Baltimore for interfering with Rousby’s execution of his job by refusing to allow court proceedings to seize vessels for violating the Navigation Act and generally “molesting” Rousby in his efforts to enforce the statute. The King commanded Baltimore “to permit the said Rousby peaceably and quietly to execute his Office, and to afford him all the encouragement therein which the Law requires.” See King Charles II. “Letter to Charles, Lord Baltimore, February 8, 1682” Archives 5:344-346. The relationship between Rousby and the Calvert Family broke rapidly; in February, 1678/9 Thomas Burdett, in describing an argument he had overheard between Rousby and the proprietor to John Llwellyn, reported that “Rousby called his Lspp Traytor to his face.” See “Burdett, John. “Testimony before the Council of Maryland” Archives 15: p.227-230. Burdett’s testimony is discussed in Larry D. Eldridge. “Before Zenger: Truth and Seditious Speech in Colonial America, 1607-1700” The American Journal of Legal History Vol. 39, No. 3, (July, 1995) pp. 353-354. The acrimony between Rousby and the Calverts would culminate in his murder by Calvert’s cousin, George Talbot: see Michael Graham. “Popish Plots: Protestant Fears in Early Colonial Maryland, 1676-1689” The Catholic Historical Review Vol. 79, No. 2, (April, 1993) pp. 211-213 73 attempted to encourage the growth of ‘English’ grains, and that ordered the settlement of debts in the produce of the country, ordering considerable discounts for debts paid in grains or pork. All of these were attempts to encourage Maryland to diversify production and to expand the nascent victualling trade with the Caribbean. As all

Chesapeake planters knew, their dependence upon a single cash-crop was dangerous: one bumper crop and prices would plummet, their ability to pay back their creditors would be hurt, if not made impossible. Agriculture is odd economically in that years of good production often prove to be as much a financial disaster as the loss of a crop would be. In most years, profits from tobacco were razor thin, and Marylanders’ material standard of living was much lower than elsewhere in England’s holdings.

Diversity was key to rectifying this situation, and the best leadership is by example.

While tobacco grew well in the Chesapeake, there was another commodity that also prospered and reproduced itself in great quantities. Furthermore, this potential export required little labor to raise, indeed, it essentially raised itself. Even better, it was already in demand in markets easily and frequently accessed from Maryland. This good was salt-pork. The fabulous rates of livestock reproduction in the forests of the province, especially for pigs, suggested and encouraged the exporting of salt pork, but also fed a market to supply newcomers and recently freed servants with the familiar domestic farm animals needed to survive in the wilderness.82 82 For tobacco price trends in the colonial period, see Charles Wetherell "’Boom and Bust’ in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 15, No. 2, (Autumn, 1984) figs. 1 & 2, p. 189. See also Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland's Eastern Shore : From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) pp. 225-227. For the price of tobacco before 1660, see Russell R. Menard “A Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 1618-1660” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 84, No. 4 (October, 1976), pp. 401-410. In 1666 John Alsop declared that “Barbadoes, together with the several adjacent Islands, has much Provision yearly from this Province...” George Alsop. “A Character of the Province, of Maryland, 1666” in Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684. Clayton Colman Hall, Ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910) p.364 74 The professional relationship between Mark Cordea and Capt. John Bailey illustrates the importance of pork as a trade good. In the spring of 1673 Cordea was trading in New York. On the second of April, Cordea requested that Bailey supply as him with as much tobacco as possible to be sent to New York in return for which Cordea promised to provide pork in November, pound for pound of tobacco. Two months later,

Cordea asked for Bailey to ship thirty more hogsheads of tobacco, this time within

Maryland to Pawtuxet at the same terms as in April. Combining both shipments, Bailey supplied Cordea with 31,538 pounds of tobacco, or the equivalent of about twenty-one man-crops of tobacco.83 As would be expected in any successful relationship, that between Cordea and Bailey was reciprocal; Cordea turned to Bailey when he needed tobacco, and Bailey took advantage of Cordea's extra-provincial connections to supply a valuable good he needed for his own trade. Cordea, involved in trade with New York, did not limit himself to trade in tobacco. Starting the same day as their pork venture, from April 2, 1673 through the ninth of May, Bailey

83 Bailey shipped the tobacco on two different small ships, the sloop of Samuel Davis (to New York) and the Canary-Bird, providing Cordea with the shipping necessary to conduct trade. See “Cordea v Bailey” Archives 65:477. This was a fair price for pork. According to William Bullock, in 1649 pork was sold in the Chesapeake for sixteen pence per stone (fourteen pounds), or just over a penny per pound, roughly the sell price of tobacco at the time. See William Bullock Virginia Impartially Examined and Left to Publick View (London: John Hammond, 1649 (Microfilm: University Microfilms, Ann Arbor; 1964)) pp. 7-8 It is difficult to assess the relative value of a given quantity of tobacco. Assuming the value of a penny per pound, these seventy-one hogsheads would have produced over £130 at sale in the metropole. This is a sizable income for the time. It is difficult to conceptualize how much value is represented by these amounts, however, and nearly impossible to convert the currency value into contemporary terms. Using the labor invested in the product does allow a modern observer to get some idea as to how valuable a given quantity was. Although productivity varied from year to year, and improved over the course of the colonial period, on average 1500 pounds per worker was produced per worker, per annum, see Table 2.2 in Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard, and Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) p. 40. Of course, no such valuation is without its difficulty; man-crop does not take into account the non-market production of shelter, foodstuffs such as corn, cider, vegetables, hunting etc. that fulfilled the basic needs of shelter and foods, and may have dominated much of the labor expended in a given year. As seventeenth-century Marylanders used tobacco-valuations for everything, it seems fit to use the noxious weed as the basis for this conversion. 75 bought had and received of the said Marke Cordea thirty barrells of Monados [i.e., New York] beere at two hundred pounds of tobacco p barrell all sold & delivered as divers dayes and times.84

The beer was then supplied, upon agreement made on April 2, by Bailey to Mr. Philip

Lynes "of Charles County gentl,” innkeeper.85 The building of successful trading relationships were not just predicated upon the exchange of trade goods and service, but also in the prompt and timely payment of the debts such exchanges created. By the end of 1673, in this regard the Cordea-Bailey relationship had some unfortunate difficulty.

When Bailey brought twenty-two bushels of salt to preserve the over 31,000 pounds of pork in Cordea had promised him in April, Cordea successfully begged him for additional time to fulfill his obligation. Bailey's willingness to delay payment may have been because he was unlikely to leave the Province on another adventure until early in the spring when the fleet would depart, and the Captain left the four casks of salt with Cordea until after the Christmas holiday. Even in the spring of 1674, however,

Cordea was unable or unwilling to settle the debt. Bailey was forced to sue in mid-1674, winning judgment on February 10, 1674/5 for 31,538 pounds of tobacco, twenty-two bushels of salt and 1056 pounds of tobacco in costs.86 Captain Bailey was willing to

84 See “Cordea v Bailey” Archives 65:478 85 ibid pp. 362, 478. For Lynes as an innkeeper, see “Presentment of Edward Solley & Philip Lynes” Archives 60:519 wherein he was accused of selling liquors at unreasonable rates. "Monadas, now call'd New-York" as quoted from Robert Beverly The History and Present State of Virginia, in Four Parts (London, Printed for R. Parker, at the Unicorn, under the Plazzas of the Royal Exchange; 1705) p. 68. Cordea had many contacts with the former Dutch Colony, as shall be seen. 86 “Bailey v Cordea” Archives 65:442-4. Cordea used his connections with Bailey to supply himself with goods that possibly went to satisfying old debts in New York - the source of the beer that he passed on to Bailey and Pawtuxent. Whatever tobacco he had accumulated from the 1672's crop he had either just shipped or had failed to be enough to cover his obligations in the former Dutch colony. Bailey had not shipped his cargo yet, and being in trade with Barbados, saw an opportunity to acquire a crop in ready demand in the sugar-island, i.e., salt pork to feed slaves, and would have gone a long way in building a debt of obligation with the politically well-connected local merchant-innkeeper, helping to maintain an ongoing and presumably profitable association. 76 trade tens of thousands of pounds of tobacco in exchange for tens of thousands of pounds of pork of Mark Cordea. As a merchant himself, Cordea would have been planning on exporting such an amount of pork in his own right, if he had not sold it to the Captain. These merchant-planters were principal members in the assemblies that pushed for the encouraging of the production of English grain crops for export, and thus anticipated the trade that would transform Baltimore into a great victualling center in the second half of the eighteenth century.

Notley had on his estate a salting house. As an expatriate Barbadian he understood the value of entering into the victualling trade with the sugar island. Other merchants in trade with Barbados saw the same advantages. In August of 1674

Alexander Roche, “late of Barbadoes, Mercht.,” died in Dorchester County shortly before the harvest and soon after his arrival in Maryland.87 His meager estate, only totaling 9085 pounds of tobacco, was dutifully inventoried and recorded. Unsold rum and cloth were valued at 4250 pounds of tobacco, and his personal effects were worth

1200 pounds. Roche had already sold 3635 pounds of tobacco worth of his cargo and was owed 2035 pounds of the crop by various bills. But this minor Barbadian merchant

87 In 1666 John Alsop declared that “Barbadoes, together with the several adjacent Islands, has much Provision yearly from this Province...” George Alsop. “A Character of the Province, of Maryland, 1666” in Narratives of Early Maryland 1633-1684, Clayton Colman Hall, Ed.. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910) p.364. It is unlikely that Roche was a resident in the Colony; his inventory had no furniture, lacking even a bed. “Inventory of the Estate of Alexander Roche.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 3, Fs 85-89. Ships usually arrived in mid summer, and the fleet would depart in the Spring when favorable winds for eastward sailing returned. See Middleton, Arthur Pierce. Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1953 (paperback edition, 1984)). According to William Bullock in 1649, pork was readily available in the Chesapeake at a price of “under” sixteen pence per stone (fourteen pounds), or just over a penny per pound. By weight, both Cordea and Bailey had valued pork as worth the same as tobacco which sold for about a penny per pound, lending credence to Bullock’s report. See William Bullock. Virginia Impartially Examined )London: Printed by John Hammond (Microfilm: University Microfilms, Ann Arbor; 1964)) 1649, p.7. 77 was also owed by bill 1600 pounds of tobacco worth of pork, no small amount. Roche’s estate was owed over three quarters of a ton of salted meat, worth £6 8s. This amount was for sale back at his home in Barbados. Notley and Roche were joined by other merchants who saw a pork-trade with the sugar-island as desirable. In a letter of instruction to his agent John Bateman, William Backhouse explained the multiple bills of lading sent with his shipment of December 3, 1658. In a “little book” was recorded the shipping of salt which “was intended for salting of meate for Barbadoes....”88 They were all joined in the exporting of pork by Garret VanSweringen, who, in 1674 sued

Curtis Fletcher for not supplying three-thousand pounds of pork promised for December of 1673. VanSweringen figured his loss at 5000 pounds of tobacco, placing the value of a pound of pork at one and two-thirds pounds of tobacco. This may reflect not only the local market price but his hoped for profit from the meat after export.89

How much salt-pork and other non-tobacco produce of the province was ultimately exported was not recorded. Neither the Proprietor nor the Crown taxed them, duties were levied on tobacco alone. Nevertheless, some of the most important and successful Maryland based merchants of the Restoration era were actively engaged in attempting to build a victualling trade with the sugar islands of the Caribbean. It was no accident that these merchant-planters were important parts of the attempt to develop the

88 William Backhouse. “Letter to John Bateman” Archives 41:269 89 “VanSweringen v Fletcher” Archives 65:365 “Inventory of the Estate of Alexander Roche.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 3, Fs 85-89. For pork-prices, see William Bullock Virginia Impartially Examined and Left to Publick View (John Hammond, London; 1649 (Microfilm: University Microfilms, Ann Arbor; 1964)) pp. 7-8. 78 Maryland economy in ways that would only be met after the restoration of the Calverts to the full proprietorship in 1715.90

Imports

Merchants as a hard and fast rule shipped a variety of goods in every cargo to the colonies. There were, for example, no exclusively cloth or metalware importers. In part this was the result of the limits of seventeenth century shipping technology. Ships need to carry a mixed cargo to ensure the rational maximal utilization of space and the efficient use of labor in order to maximize profits or at least limit losses. A ship loaded with its weight capacity in lead would be mostly empty and possibly unstable.

Similarly, a ship filled exclusively with cloth would be far under its burden in terms of weight, riding high in the water and be unstable and dangerous to sail. From a shipper’s viewpoint, therefore, the perfect cargo mixed heavy, durable goods (like metals and metalwares) that could be placed low in the hold with lighter and more damage prone goods (like cloth, clothing and foodstuffs) freighted higher, filling the open space leaving the ship stably and fully loaded.91 If such an ideal cargo could not be loaded, the shipper would have to take on ballast that did not pay freight. Because of the high-bulk and relatively low value of tobacco, the ships sailing to the Chesapeake always left

90 Maryland and Virginian Assemblies in the 1660s and 1670s, in response to ruinously low tobacco prices, moved several times to “stint” i.e., to cease tobacco production for at least a year, and Maryland assemblies passed laws designed to encourage the payment of debts in non-maize grains at quite advantageous valuations. In every attempted stint, however, Lord Baltimore vetoed the attempt, explaining that to allow the stint would harm the masses of poor in the province who relied upon tobacco. That a stint would also reduce his yearly income from customs duties to zero was not mentioned by him as a reason for the disallowal. Maryland was fundamentally for the Calverts a revenue producer, and they zealously protected their rights to that revenue, even if that meant opposing legislation like the stint that threatened immediate revenues. See Krugler, John D.. English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008). 91 For further information about the art and science of loading ships in the seventeenth century see Ralph Davis. The Rise of the English Shipping Industry in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century (Newton Abbot, Devon: David Clark Ltd, 1962) p. 177 79 Europe in ballast. The weight of the goods shipped to the bay required far less room then did the tobacco that paid for them. Shippers relied on stone ballast that could simply be dropped overboard when no longer needed.92

Had it been technologically possible to ship a single good, smart merchants would never have done so; there would have been great difficulty in selling such cargos.

Purchasers might be willing to take a few pounds of lead, or several yards of cloth, but few if any could purchase four hundred tons of the metal or an entire ship’s load of fabric and then use or dispose of it in a timely and profitable manner among the poor and widely scattered plantations. Because merchants relied upon extending credit to

Chesapeake planters to acquire their own exports after the harvest, they wanted their customers to have as few suppliers as possible, ideally only one. In order to capture as much of their customers’ trade as possible, resident merchants needed to import as wide a variety of goods that appealed to as many customers and fulfilled as many of their needs as possible. Importing a single good would never meet this need.

Even the poorest traders like Barbadian Alexander Roche made some attempt to diversify their cargo. Although his stock in trade was rather small, he still carried multiple goods. Rum was about a half of the value of his cargo, and he also carried two different kinds of cloth.93 Small traders like Roche were not importing the bulk of the cargos into and out of the Chesapeake. As few ships manifests survive for the

92 So much ballast was shipped into and then dropped in Maryland that the practice threatened to fill in the anchorages of the bay. The “Act for the Preservation of the several Harbours in this Province” that required any ballast to be unloaded on dry land, not dumped in the estuaries was passed in 1664 and renewed until it was replaced in 1692. Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) p. 49 reprinted as Archives 75: 49. For the original, complete text see: “Act for the preservation of the Seuerall Harbours within this Province” Archives 1:533-4 93 See “Inventory of the Estate of Alexander Roche.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 3, Fs 85-89. 80 seventeenth century, it is difficult to uncover precisely what larger merchants brought to

England’s Chesapeake colonies. The Crown did, however, keep careful records of imports and exports subject to a variety of customs’ duties and imperial control in what are known as the Port Books. These offer some idea as to what individual merchants laded in England for shipping across the Atlantic. Although telling, the Port Book records only partially survive.94 Even those that do survive were not complete records.

Goods not subject to imperial controls were not recorded. Maddeningly for the researcher, what was listed in them as laded rarely came close to the listed burden of the vessel. Part of this can be explained by the fact that it reflects the realties of trading in relatively low-value high-bulk cargos like tobacco and sugar. Most metropolitan ships did not carry outcargos that were at the ships’ maximum burden, which raised shipping costs.95 Furthermore, the Port Books could not record cargos loaded elsewhere, whether legal or not. The main route to the Chesapeake was to sail first to the Portuguese

Azores, and from there pick up the trade winds that carried vessels across the Atlantic.

The Azores provided a convenient last watering site as well as offering locally made wines which were legal for English to ship directly—convenient cover for smuggling

94 Jacob M. Price and Paul G. E. Clemens. “A Revolution in Scale in Overseas Trade: British Firms in the Chesapeake Trade, 1675-1775” Journal of Economic History, Vol. 47, No. 1 (March, 1987) p. 2 95 Bulk refers to the ratio of volume and weight of a given good as compared to its value at the delivery point. Bulky cargos have low value compared to the amount of shipping required to transport them to market- grain is one example. Low bulk cargos have a higher value compared to the shipping needed to transport them; the quintessential low-bulk cargos are precious metals and gemstones. In the late seventeenth century it took about 150 vessels annually to transship the Chesapeake tobacco crop; but only a handful of galleones to transport the gold, silver and precious gems back to Spain, a much more valuable cargo. Imported goods into the Chesapeake were lower bulk- they required less space or tonnage to carry them into the bay; the shipping capacity for the export of the yearly tobacco crop was always greater than that required to carry the goods imported into the Bay. See: James H. Weeks. “A Comforting Taste of Home: Beer and Brewing in Seventeenth Century Proprietary Maryland.” MA Thesis, Bowling Green State University, 2001 pp. 96-99. 81 French wine—and other less legal goods loaded far away from the prying eyes of the

English Port Searchers.96

The seizure and condemnation of cargo shipped on the Liverpool Merchant by faction-members Addison, Cordea and Hall, does offer a complete record of an entire cargo imported into the Chesapeake. As a result of her condemnation, the entire cargo was inventoried and valued, offering a glimpse into the varieties and makeup of goods imported by a merchanting adventure. Of the legal cargo, cloth and clothing dominated the value being worth at over fifty-four thousand pounds of tobacco, nearly eighty-four percent of the entire value of legal goods shipped from Liverpool and about eighty- percent of the value of the entire cargo including the illegal wines. A wide variety of fabrics offered their customers some choice, and although some types were relatively expensive, most were not. The most valuable was broadcloth worth 150 pounds of tobacco (approximately twelve shillings sterling) per yard, and represented over a quarter of all the cloth value. The second-most expensive fabric was twenty yards of

Kersey worth sixty pounds of tobacco per yard, but was in such a small quantity, that its value totaled less than one and a half percent of the entire cloth value. In terms of 96 The Ark and the Dove, carrying the first settlers to Baltimore’s newest colony in 1632, stopped at the Azores before sailing on to Barbados and from there to the Great Bay. get cite ( Trade in the Azores was not uncommon, and the wines of the Iberia and the Atlantic outposts made it into the Chesapeake. In his 1675/6 inventory, Charles de la Rocke, Innholder, possessed twenty gallons of the “Ffyal” (Azorian) wine valued at twenty pounds of tobacco per gallon. In 1705 Robert Beverly described the drinks of Virginia, noting that “Their strong drink is Madera wine... Rum from the Carribee Islands or brandy distilled from their apples and peaches...” Robert Beverly. The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974 (Reprint of 1705 Edition)) p.293 In Virginia in the mid 1680s, the French Huguenot Durand of Dauphine mentioned being offered both Port and Spanish wine, possibly from the Azores and Canaries. See Durand of Dauphine. A Huguenot Exile in Virginia, or Voyages of a Frenchman Exiled for his Religion With a Description of Virginia and Maryland From the Hague Edition of 1687, with an introduction and notes by Gilbert Chinard. (New York: The Press of the Pioneers, 1934) p. 147 In 1699 Reverend Hugh Jones of Maryland described the potables available the Colony: “Our common drink is syder, which is very good.... We have wine brought us from Madera and phiol [Fayal] and rum from Barbados...” See Michael G. Kammen. “Maryland in 1699: A Letter from the Rev. Hugh Jones” The Journal of Southern History Vol. 29 No. 3 (August, 1963) p. 370 82 volume these two fabrics were less than a twentieth of the total quantity of fabric. The bulk of the partnership’s cloth was in inexpensive (assessed at less than thirty-three pounds of tobacco per yard) fabrics like colorful calicos, English-woven diaper, fustian

(a coarse cotton / flax blend), canvas, kendall (a green woolen), and blue linen which collectively comprised nearly three quarters of the total value in cloth, and the vast majority of the volume of all fabric. The remnant of the partners’ cargo was ninety-six hoes and thirty-six axes, a set of carpenter’s tools, two reams (960 sheets) of writing paper, fifty-six pounds of lead shot, and 3600 pounds of tobacco worth of brandy in a single hogshead (about sixty-three gallons). The total value of the cargo, including the illegal claret was 67,629 pounds of tobacco, or between thirty-three and forty-five man- crops, which would have left nearly 63,000 pounds of space left for additional exports on the Liverpoole Merchant, assuming the partners would be required to offer an immediate remittance.97

A similar presence of large quantities of cloth was also reflected in wealthier estate inventories examined by Gloria Main in Tobacco Colony. Dr. Main speculated that the presence of large quantities of cloth, far beyond what could be explained by 97 “Addison & Cordea v Rousby” Archives 69:172-179. It is difficult to ascertain what precisely the total quantity of cloth was: the inexpensive fustian and kendall were only assessed by pieces of indeterminate length. It was assumed here for these fabrics that their approximate value was somewhat higher than that of the blue linen, at twenty pounds of tobacco per yard, yielding a total yardage of about 620 yards for the two fabrics. In any case, the exact numbers are not of great importance, as they serve here to illustrate the relative emphasis the partnership placed on the various fabrics. As was said before, it was rare for a vessel to carry only a single merchant’s or partnership’s goods. Even though the partners had chartered the Liverpool Merchant, and were responsible to the ship’s master and owner when it was condemned, only two of the eighteen hogsheads of Claret were to be delivered to Addison, Cordea, and Hall. As this case makes clear, the Liverpool Merchant was loaded with other merchants’ goods, and the partnership itself had split their original shipment between the ill-fated George and the condemned ship, both were standard practices in merchanting. A hogshead held the equivalent of two barrels of liquid, or about seventy gallons. At these appraised prices, the value of 140 gallons of illegal wine was at least 2800 pounds of tobacco. “for Funeral Charges 70 gals wine at 20Tob per, and Brandy at 40Tob per. Charles De la Rocke, Innholder had twenty gals of Ffyal wine at twenty pounds of tobacco per gallon.” “Inventory of the Estate of John Holley.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 1, Fs 459-460 83 household needs, possibly represented a convenient way of accumulating and storing wealth in a durable good. But it would have only been through trade that this store of wealth could have been converted into useful items, and cloth was a prime trade good for exchange with the Native Americans.98 In 1648, Beauchamp Plantagenet’s A

Description of the Province of New Albion and a Direction for Adventurers advised his readers that for

trade with the Indians, buy Dutch or Welch rugged cloth, seven quarters [one and three-quarters ells, or about seventy-eight and three-quarters inches] broad, a violet blew or red at four or five shillings a yard, small hooks, and fishing lines, Morris bels, Jewes-harps, Combes, trading knives, Hatchets, Axes, Hoes, they will bring you Venison, Turkeys, and Fowles, Flesh, 4t for a pennyworth of corn at twelve pence a bushell.99

In 1672, John Lederer, in his The Discoveries of John Lederer in Three Several Marches from Virginia to the West Coast of Carolina advised those who went to America and

designe[d] a Home-trade with neighbour-Indians, for skins of Deer, Beaver, Otter, Wild-Cat, Fox, Racoon &c. Your best Truck is a sort of course Trading Cloth... as also Axes, Hoes, Knives, Sizars and all sorts of edg’d tools. 98 It is difficult to get a firm idea as to who the ultimate consumer of goods were. Many seventeenth- century descriptions of the New World mention Indian trade for furs, skins and the like: In 1651 George Gardner related that the Dutch’s “best profit is the trade with th natives for Bever, and other skins Those that trade here pay 16 i the hundred Custome to the West India Company of Holland. Thes Dutch are mischievous neighbours for with their Indian trade they supply the natives with Guns and Ammunition...” Gardyner, George. A Description of the New World (London: Printed for Robert Leybourn, 1651) p.94 and in 1670, Daniel Denton explained that in New York, “The Inhabitants consist most of English and Dutch, and have a considerable Trade with the Indians, for Bevers, Otter, Raccoon skins, with other Furrs; As also for Bear, Deer, and Elke skins; and are supplied with Venison and Fowl in the Winter, and Fish in the Summer by the Indians, which they buy at an easie rate...” Daniel Denton. A brief description of New- York, formerly called New-Netherland (London: Printed for John Hancock, 1670) p. 3. What the natives were traded for the furs is not mentioned. Cloth and clothing figured prominently in the New England Indian trade, and Roger Williams complained about the ruinous trade in powder and liquors to New England Indians in Roger Williams. George Fox Digg’d out of His Burrows (Boston: John Foster, 1676) p. 10. While archaeological analysis of trade exists, by its nature cloth does not long survive in the archaeological record. See, for example, Donald P. Heldman “Fort Toulouse of the Alabamas and the Eighteenth-Century Indian Trade.” World Archaeology Vol. 5, No. 2 (October, 1973) pp. 163-169 For an analysis of the importance of the cloth trade in transforming Native Culture, see Marshall Joseph Becker. “Matchcoates: Cultural Consevatism and Change in One Aspect of Native American Clothing.” Ethnohistory. Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005) pp. 727-787 99 Beauchamp Plantagenet’s A Description of the Province of New Albion and a Direction for Adventurers (London? 1648) 84 Lederer continued, advising that “Guns, Powder and Shot are Commodities they will greedily barter for...” While this was true, he warned the new trader to be careful in arms trade, warning that “...to supply the Indians with Arms and Ammunition is prohibited in all English Governments.” He also advised that the plying of the natives with brandy before trading could result in a tenfold increase in potential profits. But he cautioned that sometimes this backfired, and that the Amerindians would become “so hide-bound, that they will not offer half the Market-price, especially if they be aware that you have a designe to circumvent them with drink.”100

By these authors’ advice, the Liverpoole Merchant partners’ cargo had a great many potential Indian trade goods. Hoes and axes would have found ready customers among the natives, and the inexpensive, colorful blue linen and fustians were prime truck for the Indian trade. Although assessed in the inventory at the relatively high price of sixty pounds of tobacco per yard, kersey was normally a name reserved for cheap ribbed woolens that were particularly attractive to natives, and the high locally assessed value may reflect that higher demand. This is suggestive in and of itself but John

Addison was himself an Indian trader.101 The paper, carpenter’s tools, and the broadcloth, fustian, kendall, and canvas were clearly meant for trade with those of

European descent. Based on this cargo, their estate inventories and lawsuits, Cordea and

Addison traded with both European settlers and Indians and were thereby less reliant on either group for their profit. Furs were far more valuable by weight than tobacco, and

100 John Lederer. The Discoveries of John Lederer in Three Several Marches from Virginia to the West Coast of Carolina (Inne-Gate in Holborn: Printed by JC for Samuel Hyrick, 1672) pp. 26-27 101 See Addison, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0021-01; see also Addison, John in A Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p.100. 85 loading the Liverpoole Merchant with at least 30,000 pounds of Thomas Addison’s tobacco and a mix of the partnership’s tobacco and furs would have paid for the charter and left a tidy profit as well.

The partnership of Addison, Cordea and Hall were not alone in attempting to diversify into an Indian trade. Godfrey Harmer’s trading post at the Mouth of the

Susquehanna was intended to facilitate his entry into the fur trade with the river’s namesakes. Indian trade offered a way to acquire skins and furs that were an attractive means of trade diversification, and a potential for increasing profits. William

Backhouse’s 1658 letter of instruction to John Bateman not only ordered him to salt pork for sale in Barbados, but also advised that “the other goods & salt you may dispose of for bright Tob. furrs or what you find most advantageous.” Thomas Notley, who had left trading during his tenure as governor, still had in his estate some residue from an

Indian trade, possessing forty-three “ soft deere skinns” worth £2.13.9 and six “wildcatt skins” worth six shillings.102

Contrast the partnership’s cargo with that of merchant Mr. William Dillon, who died before he could make even a single sale, and whose estate inventory records another complete shipment sent by a merchant, this time an itinerant one who would focus on sales to local English, not natives. The significant difference between the two cargos serves to highlight the probability of Addison, Cordea, and Hall’s Indian trade.

Dillon’s cargo was valued in sterling and was listed by the barrel, pack, or parcel that the

102 William Backhouse. “Letter to John Bateman” Archives 41:269. “Inventory of the Estate of Thomas Notley.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 6, Fs 575-596 Notley’s leaving trade is evident in the relatively few trade goods left in his estate’s inventory, and even then those only frequently being recorded as remnants. Notley died by April, 1679 and it is also possible that his goods were all sold already on credit, and that explains the lack of trade goods in his inventory. 86 goods were shipped in. His personal estate was accounted according to the custom of the country, i.e., in tobacco. Many Maryland inventories employed sub-headings in the record, listing the contents of entire rooms together, under the name of the room, such as

“in ye Garrett.” Dillon’s personal inventory did not, instead being sectioned by trunks, which would be expected for an itinerant trader. Of furniture, he possessed only a bed.

He was not a permanent resident of the province: neither land, labor, nor livestock were listed in the inventory. It was unlikely that he was a factor. The personal effects listed were for a wealthy and well-heeled man, and the cargo’s inventory was never mentioned as the property of anyone else. His inventory contains no reference to any debts owed to him and neither Dillon nor his estate appears in any of the court records as either a debtor or creditor; he had died before he could make a single sale.103

Where the partners had only one fifth of their total investment in finished manufactured goods and wine and brandy, Dillon had significantly more invested in them, about forty-four percent in value, nearly half of which was in finished clothing alone. Alcohol was also present, but was under four percent of the total value. Unlike

Addison, Cordea, and Hall’s nearly seventy gallons of brandy and two barrels of wine, shipped in large casks, Dillon only imported forty-seven and three quarter gallons of brandy, packaged in twenty-eight small casks of between one and a half gallons and four gallons in volume called runletts, making sale and distribution easier in the province, especially if he was expecting most of his sales to come ‘before the mast’ i.e., on board

103 “Inventory of the Estate of William Dillon” Inventories and Accounts. Maryland State Archives MSA film Roll 62A pp. 297-314. Recall that Merchant John Long of London had ordered the cargo of Emerson and Story to be delivered to Thomas Notley if the two men should happen to die. Widow Story attempted to force delivery to her as the heir to her husband, but the goods were not the property of her husband. Dillon had not yet entered trade. Addison, VanSweringen, Cordea, Quigley, Notley, etc. all merchants, were constantly suing and being sued; suits at law were a routine part of trade. 87 his ship and not from some store where he could dispense smaller quantities from large casks as his customers need them.104 He carried at least fifty-three different kinds of cloth, ranging from white hartford at just over seven and a half pence per yard, to twenty-three yards of broadcloth and five yards of allemandie worth seventy-two pence per yard each. Cloth was under forty percent of his cargo’s value. He carried relatively little volume of each cloth as well. Of the cloth measured in lengths, not one was longer than fifty-one yards. All but two were under forty yards in length. Addison, Cordea, and Hall in contrast carried only eight different cloths, five of which were in lengths of over 225 yards, and two of these were over 440 yards. The smaller quantities of more types of cloth, along with the strong presence of manufactured clothing not usually traded to Indians were fundamentally different than the goods seized from the

Liverpoole Merchant.105 While both enterprises were engaged in selling to their English neighbors, and probably throughout the Atlantic world, the locally based partnership had entered or was intending to enter into Indian trade as well, just like John Bateman and

Thomas Notley had.

If there were one word to describe the trading practices of the successful merchants of the southern Chesapeake it would be diversity. Diversity in what they

104 Such casks were somewhat smaller that the firkin, usually of between two and nine gallons. There was considerable imprecision in the naming of casks, and considerable overlap in the volumes. A large runlett could also be called firkin and a middle-sized or larger firkin could also be called a kilderkin, or half- barrel. See James H. Weeks. “A Comforting Taste of Home: Beer and Brewing in Seventeenth Century Proprietary Maryland.” MA Thesis, Bowling Green State University, 2001: Appendix A: Table of Measurements, pp. 130-131. The brandy ranged in value from thirty-six pence to forty pence per gallon, conforming to the forty pounds of tobacco per gallon price used by the court to value the partner’s brandy. 105 Dillon’s inventory carried hats and hose for men, women and children, bodices, gloves etc. Only a handful of the clothing was in men’s jackets and there were no men’s shirts- the more common Indian trade-goods. “Inventory of the Estate of William Dillon” Inventories and Accounts. Maryland State Archives film MSA Roll 62A pp. 297-314

88 imported, what they exported, where they traded to and with whom they traded. They were engaged in a dangerous and risky adventure, and they knew it. They all dared, and some like Rozer, Notley, and VanSweringen won. Less fortunate, others like John

Bateman and Godfrey Harmar lost. Diversifying their trade offered them the possibility of lessening their exposure to risk by being beholden to the vagaries of a single market, a single crop or a single source of capital. These traders were hard-wired for diversity, and not surprisingly, they brought that attitude to not only their trade, but to all of their economic lives.

89 Chapter 4: Diversity

The previous two chapters discussed how Maryland’s Restoration-era resident merchants acted as traders. Trading, however, was only part of their economic plans.

Almost without exception, these men were not just merchants, but merchant-planters.

Diversity was part and parcel of how they planned and lived their economic lives, both within their trade and without. Land was important because of the social status it conveyed, and political rights and its being a basis for access to leadership roles and office, which were successfully sought out by these new elites, as will be discussed in

Chapter Five, below.

These merchant-planters all began to build a landed estate virtually immediately upon arrival. John Bateman immediately purchased land upon his arrival as did Thomas

Notley, Benjamin Rozer, Mark Cordea, the Darnall family, John Addison, et al.106

106 In New England, some merchants were so active in the buying and selling of land that they could just as easily be called real estate agents. But they were a product of their time and place, “...and they conceived of the rewards of a life of trade in terms characteristic of their class. For centuries the goal of the London businessman had been to prosper in trade, marry into a family of higher social standing, providing themselves with landed estates [beginning the process of moving their family into the gentry].” Land also had the advantage in that it was easily bequeathed to the next generation. A merchant- enterprise was transient (once the voyages arranged by the now deceased father were over, and goods sold, the son had to do it all on his own) and difficult to pass on successfully to a son, but land was a way to store profits and pass them on to the next generation, as well as to produce more for trade. Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)) pp. 101-102. In the Chesapeake, they moved to invest in new, western lands, as speculation. Peter V. Bergstrom traced the developmental strategies of three Virginia families (Nelsons, Adams’s, and the Nortons) in the eighteenth century who arrived and transformed themselves consciously into merchant-planters. Capital was acquired from familial connections and they came to VA “expecting to found new enterprises which, while they would be allied with the family fortunes at home, were expected to become the basis of new wealth in a new land. They acquired land both to become self-sufficient and to began growing tobacco for export on their own, adding it to that they 90 Ambitious freedman Walter Hall understood that diversification was the key to greater wealth and power. After he had acquired a landed estate he then attempted to branch out into trade. A plantation offered a merchant not only a base from which to store and trade his wares over the entire year, but on it he could produce his own crops to supplement the tobacco he acquired through trade. Owning a plantation required the bought from their neighbors and then sold the tobacco, sometimes in Virginia, sometimes it was consigned. Whatever the mode of export, the profits were reinvested in purchasing English goods for sell in the Chesapeake, but also in West Indies or intercolonial trades. These families all passed ongoing, profitable—i.e., not encumbered by unmanageable debts—concerns to sons. See Peter V. Bergstrom. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700-1775 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983) pp. 187-197. They followed the same path started by Bateman: they arrived as merchants, acquired land, labor, grew and traded for export crops, trading in imports. Thomas Notley, Benjamin Rozer, the Darnalls, Godfrey Harmer, all followed the same path, and they did all this about forty to fifty years before. Bateman failed, dying too early, Notley left no heir, although he and Rozer’s estates were passed on to and launched the Rozer family as an elite. Lois Green Carr argued that in Somerset County on the Eastern Shore it was the richest who diversified their production earliest, and who achieved the greatest growth. Lois Green Carr. “Diversification in the Colonial Chesapeake: Somerset County, Maryland, in Comparative Perspective.” in Colonial Chesapeake Society. Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1988) p. 374 In Virginia, Martin H. Quitt found that the progenitors of the gentry class came into Virginia as merchant- planters and practiced a wide variety of economic activities: “as engrossers of and speculators in land, traffickers in servants and (increasingly) slaves, planters and marketers of tobacco, gristmill operators, creditors to smaller planters, lessors of land, producers of foodstuffs, supervisors of household manufacturing and practitioners of law, we cannot fail to be impressed by their preoccupation with and respect for work.” Martin H. Quitt. “Immigrant origins of the Virginia Gentry: A Study of Cultural Transmission and Innovation” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series Vol.45, No. 4 (October, 1988) p.643 Diversifying into plantation ownership at the least was critical in financing growth, as domestic markets came to be ever more important, 1680-1730. “While the region’s population grew nearly fourfold from 1680-1730, the volume of tobacco exports only doubled. By necessity, Chesapeake resources were diverted into the production of cereals and other goods, but these products were not exported to any extent by 1730 and hence cannot have acted as a channel by which capital entered the region from overseas. One must conclude that regional growth was mainly financed internally, as in the West Indies, through reinvested agricultural profits and increased lending on the part of indigenous creditors. This accounts for the presence of the merchant-planter elite in the tobacco colonies, to whom nearly all lesser planters were indebted and whose central importance in the Chesapeake economy in the early eighteenth century has been highlighted by recent research.” R. C. Nash. “The Organization of Trade and Finance in the British Atlantic Economy.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed., (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) p. 123. Initially, the ‘merchants’ were merely tobacco receivers for larger merchants. They worked under contract for a commission- 5- 10% on average. The agent gathered and prepared the shipment for speedy loading as every month in colonial waters cost £40 in wages. Few receivers, however remained such for long- if profitable, the temptation to purchase land and take up planting themselves was too great; if failed, they soon lost their contacts. “What established the power of the merchant-planters and most clearly set them apart from elites in other colonies was the diversity of their activities... most made their money in as many ways as they could.” Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) p. 94, 135 91 purchase of labor. Many of these merchant-planters had deep connections in Barbados, and these men were on the cutting edge of the shift to slavery, and acquired slave- dominated workforces to work their plantations. They had access to the suppliers, knowledge of how a slave system was constructed, and perhaps had overcome a traditional anti-slavery/ xenophobic bias in English culture due to their earlier Barbadian exposure. Shifting to a slave labor force was a process, and not an immediate shift.

Even as they began to purchase more and more slaves, they continued to acquire indentured servants to work the land. Servants were also turned to in order to provide specialized skills—especially Physicians—which, through hiring out were also a way to profitably expand economic prospects. The purchase of a clerk freed up the merchant- planter from the keeping of the books and accounts, enabling him to pursue even more opportunities. Such skilled laborers frequently negotiated shorter terms of service, but the profitability of their services, even in a much shorter term made them very attractive to the investor who could afford them. As merchants they had to have a certain familiarity with common law procedures. Being known for legal skill built and maintained the intra-provincial and extra-provincial connections with other merchants that helped build reputation that was critical in building a successful trading enterprise.

In the Restoration-era, passing the bar and practicing law became more restricted, and those merchant-planters who brought legal training soon came to dominate legal representation in the colony. In the process, they earned considerable wealth from serving as attorneys for others. The Restoration-era merchant-planter elite thus added multiple occupations to their already hyphenated names, like manor lord, physician,

92 attorney, innkeeper, and even brewer. They lived their lives with an enthusiastic and innovative entrepreneurial spirit.

Landing the Gentry

For the early-modern English (and most Europeans) the desideratum of social success and economic stability was the possession of land.107 Owning land was the main requirement for voting, and it was no accident that the largest landowners were at the pinnacle of the economic, social, and political ladder. Land offered its owners important cushion in the case of economic downturns as well as the potential for profit through its sale when times were good. In Restoration-era Maryland, successful enterprise demanded diversification and landownership was a critical component of that diversity.

It provided a merchant with a base to trade from, was a source of tobacco in its own

107 The possibility of land ownership as a powerful incentive to emigrate to the deadly Chesapeake has a long and numerous historiography. See Bernard Bailyn. Voyagers to the West: A Passage in the Peopling of America on the Eve of the Revolution (New York: Vintage, 1988). See also Edmund S. Morgan American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Virginia (New York, W. W. Norton, 1975). See also Carvile Earle. The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System : All Hallow's Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783 (Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1975). Earle discusses the disgust of contemporary English with the poor husbandry of the land in the Chesapeake; land was, to them, something profoundly precious and needed to be carefully tended, and as he showed, the ‘poor husbandry’ of the Chesapeake planter was actually a rational response to a system in which land was cheap and readily available, but labor was dear.. James Horn described the entrepreneurial spirit that began to rise in England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the efforts to diversify production into new crops, which Horn industrial like rapeseed, flax, hemp, woad, and tobacco. These introductions in the home country were an attempt to “maximize the profitability of marginal land and utilize a vast pool of cheap, underemployed labor.” “One of the most obvious differences between English and New World society immediately apparent to early settlers and indeed its main attraction was an ‘abundance of land and an absence of people.” James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) pp. 50, 139. Thus, in England there was precisely the inverse of conditions in the Bay described by Carville Earle. For land ownership and distribution, see also Russell M. Menard, P. M. G. Harris, and Lois Green Carr “Opportunity and Inequality: the Distribution of Wealth on the Lower Western Shore, 1638-1705 ” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 69, No. 2, (1974) pp. 169-184. For more on migration patterns to the Chesapeake, see James Horn. “Servant Emigration to the Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979) pp. 51-95; see also Russell R. Menard. “British Migration to thge Chesapeake Colonies in the 17th C” in Colonial Chesapeake Society. Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1988) pp. 99-132 93 right, a source of collateral for acquiring needed credit, not to mention its potential sale for profit.

In Maryland ambitious merchant newcomers moved quickly to secure real estate.

John Bateman’s employer, Henry Scarborough not only supplied Bateman with his stock-in-trade, but also with £1000 sterling earmarked to purchase land for him in either

Scarborough’s name, both of their names, or in Bateman’s name, but in trust for

Scarborough.108 Not a resident Marylander like Bateman was, Scarborough hoped to engage in land speculation, holding the patented lands briefly, then selling them later to newcomers at a profit. Bateman’s first priority, however, was to use his capital to acquire productive lands for his own use. He purchased Resurrection Manor on the

Pawtuxet River virtually immediately upon his arrival in 1658 or 1659. Despite his employer’s instructions to put the land in Scarborough’s name or in “joyntment” with

Scarborough, he put the land in his own and his wife’s name, not even mentioning

Scarborough in the record. Not expecting to die within four years, and being very well capitalized, Bateman probably hoped to be able to repay Scarborough after becoming firmly established in Maryland, and to keep the manor for himself. After Bateman’s untimely death, Scarborough sued to recover his investments, and as a result the manor would be appraised in 1666 at 65,000 pounds of tobacco- or about £400. This was not the only land Bateman would buy; he was committed to acquiring land, but always with

108 For Scarborough’s instructions to Bateman, see Henry Scarborough. “Petition of Henry Scarborough” The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., (Baltimore: 1883- present). Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p. 336 (hereafter cited as Archives 57:336). R. C. Nash noted that “In the Chesapeake, the most prominent merchants until the end of the colonial period started out as owners of slave plantations or invested heavily in land and slaves during their careers.” R. C. Nash. “The Organization of Trade and Finance in the British Atlantic Economy.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed., (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) p. 103 94 an eye to profit. By 1661 Bateman had acquired and then sold Cleybournes Hand of seven hundred acres on the Eastern Shore in Talbott County. At his death in late 1663,

John and Mary also held eight-hundred acres on the Susquehanna River on Baltimore

Manor in Baltimore County. In 1672, their daughter, also named Mary, still held the

Baltimore County land. Overall in 1663, the Batemans held in their own names at least

3700 acres: the eight-hundred acres that would still be held by their daughter in 1672,

Thorpes Freehold of four hundred acres and the 2500 acre “residue of the Resurrection

Mannor,” suggesting they had sold some of manor earlier.109

Land was also a way to secure credit and settle debt, even if the debtor fled the province like James Jolly. On March 22, 1668/9 “Monsieur” Mark Cordea advanced sixty-thousand pounds of tobacco in credit, on a bond in which John Nuthall, Jr., promised to turn over his newly inherited St. Elizabeth’s Manor to Cordea if he did not repay. When Nuthall failed to do so, Cordea sued for the execution of the bond, but

Nutthall had sold both St. Elizabeth’s as well as Crosse Manor in July 1669 to Walter

Hall—Cordea’s future partner. Nutthall may have paid earlier on the debt by giving some land on St. Elizabeth’s and Crosse Manors to Cordea, who owned land on both at

109 “Bateman v Patrickson, et al” Archives 41:329; “Introduction to the Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670” Archives 57:xxxviii; Cecil Calvert, Lord Baltimore. “Granting of lands to Build Watermills, per an act of the Assembly, 1669” Archives 51:93; see also: “Re: Bateman” Archives 41:597- 598; Bateman, John in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p.117; “The Inventory of the Estate of John Bateman” Archives 57:45-51. John Bateman’s will gave Thorpes Freehold and Resurrection Manor to his wife, and all other lands to his daughter. In 1672, Mary Bateman owned the land, and Richard Perry was the “possessor” for her use. When Perry bought all that remained of John Bateman’s lands in 1674- the residue of Resurrection Manor- no holdings on Baltimore Manor were mentioned in the deed; he may have already secured the Baltimore Manor lands, or they may have been sold separately. see: John Bateman. “Last Will and Testament” Wills. Maryland State Archives MSA Film SR 4396, Liber 1, F 192. It should be remembered that Mrs. Bateman’s maiden name was Perry; Richard was the young Mary’s uncle. 95 his death.110 As was discussed briefly in the second chapter, using his land as security,

James Jolly was able to secure credit from Thomas Notley, Daniel Jenifer and Richard

Allen et al. When Jolly fled the colony in 1664, his creditors were able to secure his lands to cover their losses. In 1672, as part of his efforts to end the misadventure between John Long of London and his deceased factors, Emerson and Storey, Notley acquired and then managed Walter Storey’s land for a fourteen year lease in trust for the

London Merchant to settle the debts that Storey’s estate was otherwise too poor to pay.

111

Like Bateman before him, Mark Cordea worked constantly throughout his life to acquire more and more land, even overseas. In February, 1676/7 Cordea and his partner, merchant John Worthington of Manchester, England, were sold fifteen acres by George

Fidler in Lancashire near Ashton "now in the occupation of Robert Fidebotham" for

£380 sterling and “divers other good Causes & Consideracons.” This may have been in settling of an account between the three men, or was an example of land speculation in

England. How long Cordea retained his ownership of this tract was not recorded in

Maryland’s records, but it was not listed by him in his Will of March 1684/5.112

Cordea’s will shows he had acquired a rich legacy in land. Like Bateman,

Cordea’s holdings were scattered throughout Maryland. In his will he directed that both

Markes Place and Rumley Marsh in Monokin in Somerset County on the Eastern Shore

110 See Mark Cordea and John Nutthall. “Deed between John Nuttall and Mark Cordea” Archives 51:1-3, “Cordea v Nuthall” Archives 57:529-31 Mark Cordea “Last Will and Testament.” Maryland State Archives, MSA film SR 4400 Liber 4, F 162 111 “Jenifer v Jolly” Archives 49:296-297, 317. See also Jolly, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-2322. 112 See George Fidler. “Sale of Lansley to Mark Cordea and John Worthington, 1 February, 1676/7” Archives 717: 8 96 were to be sold to settle his debts. His lands on St. Elizabeth’s and Crosse Manors in St.

Mary’s County were left to his wife, Hester for use during her lifetime. After her death, the manor-lands were to go to two young men of London, “Anthony” and “Brother

William” who were directed to sell them and use the proceeds to build a hospital or other charitable institution as they saw fit. In Dorchester County, his land Hoggs Ridge was given to “the Eldest daughter of my Sonn in law, Henry Fox.” The neighboring tract of Hoggs Neck went to his step-son and son-in-law, Anthony LeCompte, who also was given Cordea’s one-hundred acre holding of Sereton on the Blewstone Branch in St.

Mary’s. Samuell Brockhurst was given back the lands adjoining St. Elizabeth’s Manor that Cordea had purchased from him. To James Cullen, a third son-in-law as well as one of his executors, Cordea left a one-hundred acre plantation occupied by Jacob

Lookerman, chirurgeon, and one acre of land and the house on it at the time possessed by Garret VanSweringen, another of his executors. His goddaughter Elizabeth

VanSweringen received Cordea’s new house and town lots in St. Mary’s City.113

As will be recalled, in 1638 a Walter Notley was granted 20,000 acres in

Maryland, on the condition that he transport one-hundred Irish or Englishmen to the province by 1640. Walter never arrived in America to register and patent his lands, and the grant went unfulfilled. It is possible that Thomas Notley arrived from Barbados in an attempt to see if he could take up the huge grant himself. It is likely that the young,

113 See George Fidler. “Sale of Lansley to Mark Cordea and John Worthington, 1 February, 1676/7” Archives 717: 8. Mark Cordea. “Transfer of St. Markes Place to Henry Darnall, 7 March, 1686” Archives 717:405. Mark Cordea “Last Will and Testament.” Maryland State Archives, MSA film SR 4400 Liber 4, F 162. See “Inventory and Account of the Estate of Mark Cordea” Maryland State Archives MSA film 67-5 Liber 25, Folios 53 and 406. For St. Clement’s and Cerne Abbey Manors, see Daniel MacClure Owings. “Private Manors: An Edited List.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 33: no. 4 (December, 1938) pp. 310, 331-332. 97 well-educated Irishman had grown up in a family for whom Maryland had long been seen as a place of opportunity and possibly even refuge, as the Notley’s were Catholic.114

Like Bateman, Notley wasted little time after his 1662 arrival to begin assembling a large landed estate. In 1663, he purchased a 500 acre tenancy on St. Clement’s manor from Thomas Gerrard and was identified in the contract “Late of Barbadoes, Merchant.”

In 1670 he purchased outright the 1000 acre Duddington Manor from George Thompson and the adjoining tracts of New-Troy of 500 acres and Duddington Pasture of 300 acres.

Notley would petition the Provincial Court on March 1, 1671 to combine these 1800 acres into Cerne Abbas Manor to which he added “Notley’s Addition” of 450 acres in

1672. This manor, and the great house he built thereon, Notley Hall, would be his seat until his death. Also in 1672 he registered a one acre plot in St. Mary’s City. Although the records of his purchase have not survived, in 1676 he sold four adjoining tracts, the

150 acre Moores Lodge, Moore’s Gore of fifty acres and two other adjoining parcels to

Thomas Hussey. In 1678, he purchased Basford Manor of 4000 acres from Justinian

Gerrard. At some point Notley had acquired an improved lot in St. Mary’s City: in 1678

Notley leased John Baker, Innholder an additional St. Mary’s City plot of 1.25 acres along with his “Countrey House” which was located between the city tracts owned by

Mark Cordea (Cordea’s Hope) and Garrett VanSweringen. Notley died possessed of a landed estate of on multiple tracts throughout Maryland of over 7700 acres.115 114 Eustace Pearson Notleys in Early Maryland. Maryland State Archives Genealogical Materials No. 26687. (Annapolis: Hall of Records) It is unclear if Walter was related to Thomas or not, but both men came from the same county in Ireland. Notley, Thomas in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 616. 115 A concise, complete record of Notley’s lands may be found in the entry for Notley, Thomas in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3076-002, 004. The survey of “Notley’s Addition” is found in Maryland State Archives Land Patents Pat. 17, f305; that of his St. Mary’s City land is in Maryland State Archives Land Patents Pat. 17, f 362; Cerne Abbey Manor’s 98 For Diverse Accommodations...

For men who either wanted to build or maintain the good graces of the proprietary, owning land in Lord Baltimore’s capital of St. Mary’s City was a smart move; for trade, a small holding in the village made eminent sense as the meeting of the assembly and provincial courts brought Marylanders from throughout the province.

Customers came to them, especially if they offered lodging. On December 17, 1672,

Garrett VanSweringen & mariner John Quigley together purchased town lots in St.

Mary's City totaling three acres of land from Daniel Jenifer. The land was known as

Smith's Town [lots] and encompassed Smith's Ordinary that VanSweringen had leased in 1670 and operated thereafter. Smith had died, Jenifer had married his widow, Mary from whom Jenifer had inherited it. On February 8, 1672/3 Jenifer sold his interest in the land to John Quigley for 18,000 pounds of tobacco. VanSweringen and Quigley briefly ran the ordinary as a partnership. In December of 1674, the two men together sued Evan Carew for 467 pounds of tobacco "for accomodations received" & an resurvey is found in Maryland State Archives Land Patents Pat. 16, fs 440-444. Notley’s purchase of Duddington Manor (1000 Acres), New Troy (500 acres), and Duddington Pasture (300 Acres) from George Thompson may be found in Archives 57: 594-96. For the City plot with the house leased to John Baker see Charles Carroll. “Petition to the Council of Maryland” Archives 20:251-253. Charles Carroll’s third wife was Mary Darnall, and his son Daniel married Anne Rozer, step-granddaughter of Charles, third Lord Baltimore and granddaughter of Benjamin Rozer. See Carroll, Charles in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0715-01 Notley’s purchase of “Mannahowicke Neck” on St. Clement’s Manor from Thomas Gerard is recorded in Archives 49: 131- 135. For the 1676 sale of land to Thomas Hussey see Archives 66: 184-185. The manor was left to his godson, Notley Rozer, a step-grandchild of Charles, third Lord Baltimore. Today Notley’s manor is known as the Capital Hill District in Washington, D.C. While it appears true that in George Steffen’s sample of seventeenth century Baltimore merchants none were able to pass on any patrimony to their sons, and were thus unable to begin the building of a local elite, Thomas Notley’s Cerne Abbey passed through the Rozer family to the Carroll Family, and Charles Carroll of Duddington: see Allen C. Clark “Origin of the Federal City” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., Vol. 35/36, (1935), pp. 1-97 See also Daniel MacClure Owings. “Private Manors: An Edited List.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 33: no. 4 (December, 1938) pp. 331-332. For a wonderful map of Cerne Abbey Manor as part of Washington D.C., see Priscilla W. McNeil. “Rock Creek Hundred: Land Conveyed for the Federal City.” Washington History 3:1 Special Bicentennial Issue, Washington, D.C., 1791-1991 (Summer, 1991) pp. 35-51. 99 additional bill dated December 3 1672 for 424 pounds of tobacco.116 Quigley and

VanSweringen also sued Kenelm Lochmachling of Charles County in April 1676 for a debt of 585 pounds of tobacco due to both of them on a bill dated January 8, 1672/3.117

While Quigley and VanSweringen managed the property amicably, it does not appear that Quigley wanted to be both a mariner and ordinary keeper. The world of the merchant-planter elite was a small one; on July 29, 1673 Quigley leased the land and the ordinary to Mark Cordea for 16,000 pounds for a thirty-one year term.118

Ordinary-keeping also enabled the keeper to cultivate a close relationship with the government, and running a house for public accommodations near the seats of the various county courts, and / or in the capital of St. Mary’s was quite profitable. But the high charges levied by ordinary keepers in the places where the courts sat challenged the ability of smaller planters to avail themselves of the court system, or to petition the assembly, and the assembly attempted to remedy the situation through regulation. In

1666 and 1669 the Assembly passed acts “Limiting Ordinary Keepers” and in 1671 they passed the “Act for Setting the Rates and Prizes in Mony of all wynes Liquors and other

Commodities Sould by Retail within this Province” specifically limited the charges the ordinary keepers of the capital of Maryland, St. Mary’s City, could levy on the “...

Jurors... Country Witnesses, Persons Courts & in Corporations creditt that have

116 Baltimore had great plans for his little city in the wilderness, building it on a grandiose baroque plan see Henry M. Miller “Baroque Cities in the Wilderness: Archaeology and Urban Development in the Colonial Chesapeake” Historical Archaeology. Vol. 22, No. 2, (1988) pp. 57-73. VanSweringen & Quigley v Carew Archives 65:376-377 117 “Quigley & VanSweringen v Lochmachling” Archives 66:224-225 Lochmachling admitted 215 pounds not yet paid- and was ordered to pay that, plus unspecified costs. 118 The land in question was known as Smith's Town [lots] and encompassed Smith's Ordinary that VanSweringen had leased in 1670. For the record of the sale, see Francis Pennington. “Transfer of Smiths Town Lots to William Digges, 5 March, 1692” Archives 717:605-9. Cordea would himself sell the lease in 1685, see Julia Ann King. “An Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Van Sweringen Site, St. Mary's City.” Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania, 1990 pp. 71-72 100 Business... at the Office or Court....” The regulation was designed to limit the expenses of poorer petitioners and witnesses who might be otherwise prevented from accessing the courts or petitioning the assembly. Similar regulations were passed in the 1674 and

1676 assemblies in their “Acts Concerning Ordinary Keepers” and the 1678 “Act

Regulating Ordinaries which was renewed until expanded in 1688. Even with these limits, an ordinary-keeper’s close relationship with the government allowed other avenues to profit. The assemblymen themselves required rooms, board, and drink, all at the public expense, and this was a very lucrative trade. In 1675 the Assembly settled its accounts and John Quigley and Thomas Notley were given allowances for their expenses accrued at VanSweringen’s ordinary. Mariner Quigley was allowed 29,354 pounds of tobacco presumably for room and ‘dyett,’ and Notley, who owned his own home in the tiny village, 3000. At a single sitting of the assembly, and for only hosting two men, VanSweringen had earned over 32,000 pounds of tobacco (about sixteen man crops). For hosting at the same session, Charles Delaroche, also an innkeeper in St.

Mary’s, was paid nearly 25,000 pounds. The assembly delegations from each County also paid expenses to keep their representatives housed and fed.119

County courts and legislative sessions like the provincial assembly also relied upon local ordinaries for meeting places and lodging for people with business to conduct. In 1671 Charles County Innkeeper / planter Edmund Lindsay was paid 1000

119 “The Publique Charge of this Province, 23 September, 1675” Archives 15:50-54 As will be discussed in Chapters Five and Six, below, these expenses prompted newer counties like Somerset and Dorchester to not send all four burgesses elected, explaining that as frontier counties they were too lightly settled and poor to bear the burden. See David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 109. See “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, March — April 1671.” Archives 2: 240-241 101 pounds of tobacco “for the trouble of his house for keeping the court.”120

VanSweringen’s St. Mary’s Ordinary was the meeting place for the provincial assembly; it had two large rooms on the main floor for each house to sit in, libations to loosen and undoubtedly enliven debate, as well as rooms and food for non-resident members to find lodging. Hosting the assembly was so profitable that VanSweringen attempted to only keep an ordinary at court times, and launched his abortive attempts at brewing. While his brewery failed, the patronage of the members of the assembly continued to prove vital to his economic success. In the 1682 settlement of the public debts, Garret

VanSweringen was paid 34,053 pounds of tobacco out of the provincial levy.121

Retailing / manufacturing liquors

One constant of trade in the Chesapeake was the presence of alcohol. Mark

Cordea, it will be recalled, had supplied Capt. John Bailey with thirty barrels totaling over fifteen hundred gallons of beer from New York. He and his partners Walter Hall and John Addison had brought in hundreds of gallons of wine and rum aboard the

Liverpoole Merchant, and Captain Bailey had brought several casks of Faial fortified wine from the Azores. William Dillon had several small casks of rum, and the Port

Books of London record the constant export of liquors, wine, beer, and brewstuffs for the local manufacture of beer and ale like malt, other grains, and hops. Manufactured

120 For Lendsey payment see “Charles County Expenditures, 1671” Archives 60:348. For Rozer’s see “Charles County Expenditures, 1672” Archives 60:431 121 See “Amendments to the Act for Settleing the Rates & Prices of Wines &ca in Mony” Archives 2:267- 8. The final text of the law can be found in the “Act for the Setling the Rates & Prizes in Mony of all Wynes Liquors and Other Comodities Sould by Retayle within this Province, 1671” Archives 2:295-298. Like VanSweringen, Cordea’s ordinary profited from patronage at court times, and in 1682 Cordea’s wife, Hester, interestingly was herself paid 6692 pounds by the assembly, suggesting that like Mrs. VanSweringen she was engaging in trade in her own name. VanSweringen’s wife, following Dutch custom, also continued her independent economic life throughout their residence in Maryland. See the “Consideration of the General Assembly of the Excessive rates of the Several Liquors had of the Ordinary Keepers.” Archives 7:44 102 beverages like these were consumed both for nutritive and social reasons. What one consumed, and how, sent powerful signals about social status or social aspirations in a region that had very little social differentiation. Durand of Dauphine in his travelogue of his journeys in the Chesapeake in the 1680s recorded the massive consumption of various liquors; the pattern of consumption and type of liquor preferred was linked to the socio-economic status of the imbiber. He noted how poorer farmers celebrated with cider and beer-punch sweetened heavily with sugar whereas at the Governor’s mansion he was feted with heavy wines—probably French brandies and port.122 The 1678 assembly regulated the prices they would allow ordinary keepers for charges incurred by the Delegates during the assembly, and this list records what was consumed by the elites at St. Mary’s ordinaries. The high-status coded imported wines of Claret, Madeira, and brandy were all consumed, but not English Spirits or Dutch Drams (i.e., distilled liquors). No fruit-drinks were consumed at all, the sole domestically produced beverage enjoyed was beer. As elites, the assembly members may have been reluctant to imbibe potables culturally coded as poor-men’s drinks. The import, distribution, or local manufacture of alcoholic beverages was a critical component of trade and economic success of many Maryland merchants, even outside of ordinaries.

122 Charles Lord Baltimore was so distressed at how little stratification existed in his colony that he ordered that burgesses wear medals to differentiate themselves from their constituents, and to make a more visible power elite See Calvert, Charles in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p.187. For a discussion of the liquors available in the Chesapeake, see Robert Beverly. The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974 (Reprint of 1705 Edition)) p.293. See also Durand of Dauphine. A Huguenot Exile in Virginia, or Voyages of a Frenchman Exiled for his Religion With a Description of Virginia and Maryland From the Hague Edition of 1687, with an introduction and notes by Gilbert Chinard. (New York: The Press of the Pioneers, 1934) p. 147. See also Michael G. Kammen. “Maryland in 1699: A Letter from the Rev. Hugh Jones” The Journal of Southern History Vol. 29, No. 3, (August, 1963) p. 370. 103 Thomas Notley’s home, Notley Hall, on Cerne Abbas Manor stood up the

Potomac River from his house in St. Mary’s, his plantation Bachelor’s Hope, and his holdings on St. Clement’s Manor. Reflecting his status, the home was large with at least eight rooms and perhaps as many as five separate garrets. The main house was joined by at least two and possibly three outbuildings: a store, a counting house (possibly in the same building), and a kitchen / buttery.123 In England the country home of a man of

Notley’s status would have had a variety of beverages, from imported foreign wines to beer and occasionally even fruit drinks like cider, perry, or mobbly for a more staple drink.124 As would have been expected of a rich, powerful English elite, Governor

Notley’s estate possessed seven and a half pipes of Faial wine from the Portuguese

Azores totaling 945 gallons, (enough to have filled over 4700 bottles), two pipes of brandy (252 gallons or over 1200 bottles), and a additional pipe (126 gallons) of wine.

Notley not only possessed expensive, high-status imported beverages, but also the raw materials and equipment to manufacture alcohol locally. At his death he had in his possession four and a half hogsheads of malt and ninety six pounds of hops, enough to brew about 750 gallons of beer, or between 1500 and 3000 daily rations with some seventy pounds of hops left over—enough to flavor an additional 3000 gallons of beer, assuming the necessary seventeen hogsheads of malt could be found or purchased in the

123 There were five different entries headed in the garret over the hall, over the rooms, etc. It is unclear if this denotes individual rooms in the attic space or merely a way of breaking up the contents of one giant room. The multi-roomed counting house with a cellar and the store with lofts may have been the same building. The kitchen and buttery almost certainly shared the same roof. The buttery also offered a potential for profit from the manufacture and sale of dairy products like cheese and butter. “Inventory of the Estate of Thomas Notley.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62A Liber 6, Fs 575-595 124 See Pamela Sambrook. Country House Brewing in England, 1500-1900 (Rio Grande, Ohio: Hambledon Press, 1996). Perry was the pear equivalent of cider, mobbly was the peach equivalent of cider. 104 colony—not too difficult a task considering the ease with which Quigley sold the malt he was importing for VanSweringen’s brewery. The fifty-eight and one quarter gallons of rum, over 1000 pounds of sugar, spices, and twenty-six gallons of lime juice also found in Notley’s possession, were all potential ingredients of the then recently invented drink “punch.”125 The two hogsheads of molasses was also an occasional adjunct to malt in brewing, which might also explain the extra hops. Molasses also formed the basis of rum manufacturing.

Such large quantities of expensive alcohol were unlikely for exclusively household consumption. In total, these beverages and brewstuffs were valued by the administrators at 30,525 pounds of tobacco, over £125 sterling. If sold at the retail rate permitted to ordinaries by the 1671 act, the Faial wine alone could have produced over

56,000 pounds of tobacco (£236) in revenue. At 120 pounds per gallon, the brandy would have sold for over 30,000 pounds (£125). Notley’s inventory strongly suggests that his was a retail trade in which he stored large casks and portioned off small quantities of liquors for sale, although not on his property. He owned case after case of

125 Punch was a drink made of five ingredients- usually beer or wine or fruit juice mixed with sugar, nutmeg, rum and toast or eggs as a thickener. For examples of recipes of Chesapeake punches see Robert Beverly. The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1974 (Reprint of 1705 Edition)) and Durand of Dauphine. A Huguenot Exile in Virginia, or Voyages of a Frenchman Exiled for his Religion With a Description of Virginia and Maryland From the Hague Edition of 1687, with an introduction and notes by Gilbert Chinard (New York: The Press of the Pioneers, 1934) One quarter of malt was defined in England as weighing 336 pounds see Dennis Edward Briggs. Malts and Malting (London: Blackie Academic and Professional Publishing, 1998) p. 80. It is difficult to say precisely what volumes were in each cask. For these calculations, the legally defined or commonly accepted measures of the seventeenth century were used. The actual amounts could vary widely from these figures. See Weeks, James H.. “A Comforting Taste of Home: Beer and Brewing in Seventeenth Century Proprietary Maryland.” MA Thesis, Bowling Green State University, 2001, Appendix A, pp. 130-131 for a more thorough explanation of the volume of the various casks. Assuming a hogshead of fifty-four gallons, four and a half hogsheads of malt was equivalent to approximately 3.8 quarters or 1275 pounds of malt. Pipes of wine contained 126 gallons. For beer yields from malt see pp.54-58. The absence of fruit drinks in Notley’s inventory can be attributed to it being taken in summer; it was too soon for any to have been harvested in 1679, and too late for any of 1678’s production to still be drinkable. 105 empty bottles, totaling over 600. By the late seventeenth century, technological advances in glassblowing produced stronger bottles which had enabled them to be used in England for the distribution of small quantities of alcoholic beverages, especially beer and wine. Bottles not only allowed the sale of small, affordable quantities of drink they also had the advantage that they could be then be brought back and refilled, facilitating a retail-like distribution.126 Economic diversification was a critical component of Notley’s success, and he, like VanSweringen, was aware of the demand for alcoholic drinks in the province, and saw the opportunity for profit by importing and distributing familiar tipples to his fellow Marylanders and possibly to natives as part of an Indian trade.

Garrett VanSweringen’s order to Quigley was 500 bushels of the best quality barley malt, fifty bushels of wheat, one-hundred pounds of good hops, and one-hundred bushels of oats. VanSweringen had ordered enough malt and grain to produce over

13,000 gallons of beer (at least 26,000 daily rations), if additional hops could have been found in Maryland, the one hundred pounds of hops ordered would have only flavored about a third of the malt to make beer. If no other supply of the bitter flowers was available, then VanSweringen could have produced only about 3700 gallons of beer, and possibly brewed the remainder into about 5000 gallons of unhopped ale. This hypothetical beer and ale together would have produced at least 17,400 daily rations.127

126 Bottles had existed for some time, but before new manufacturing techniques were introduced in the seventeenth century bottling alcoholic beverages was not possible. The other byproduct of fermentation, carbon dioxide, created too much pressure and the bottles would shortly burst. Bottled beverages were still something of a novelty in 1670s England. Maryland merchants were up to date with larger trends. See Pamela Sambrook. Country House Brewing in England, 1500-1900 (Rio Grande, Ohio: Hambledon Press, 1996). 127 There are several recipes from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries that enable the calculation of yields from ingredients. See James H. Weeks. “A Comforting Taste of Home: Beer and Brewing in Seventeenth Century Proprietary Maryland.” MA Thesis, Bowling Green State University, 2001, pp. 57- 58 tables A-5 through A-8 for a discussion of those ingredients and potential yields. 106 It is also possible that VanSweringen intended to sell the extra malt himself for others to brew.128

Thirteen thousand gallons of beer sold at the legal maximum price of twenty-four pounds of tobacco per gallon, would have sold for the princely total of 312,000 pounds of tobacco, or £1300 sterling, and 9000 gallons of beer and ale would have produced

£900.129 Considering that VanSweringen valued the materials in his suit at £250 and only won £184.10.0, brewing at the legally prescribed prices would have produced incredible profits- somewhere between £1115 and £715 sterling. These potential profits represent the value of over 170 man-crops (£1115 at a penny per pound value).130

Familiar brewed beverages were major profit makers, and reflect the high demand and central importance of beer and ale in maintaining a sense of English identity.

VanSweringen’s economic and social success had been built upon the retailing of beverages in his St. Mary’s ordinary, coffee house and inn, as well as some land speculation and the purchase of a servant-doctor whom he hired to treat his ill neighbors.

While the failure of Quigley to deliver the brewstuffs as agreed left VanSweringen

128 Commercialized centralized (as opposed to home) brewing emerged over the course of the seventeenth century in England, and was most prevalent in larger cities. VanSweringen’s brewery was a rather cosmopolitan enterprise for a wilderness province. Home brewing was performed historically by women, who were in relatively short supply in the Chesapeake of the seventeenth century. See Judith Bennett Ale, Beer, And Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World 1300-1600 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). See also Peter Clark. The English Alehouse: A Social History, 1200-1830 (New York: Longman, 1983). 129 The law regulating the allowable charges for liquors in the province in 1666 allowed beer and ale to be sold at twenty pounds of tobacco per gallon, and in 1671 set the price at two shillings i.e., twenty-four pence / pounds of tobacco. See the “Act Limiting Ordinary Keepers” Archives 2:148-149, 214; “An Act for the Setling the Rates & Prizes in mony of all wynes Liquors and other Comodities Sould by Retayle within this Province” Archives 2:295-297. 130 A man-crop is the amount of the crop of tobacco produced in a year by a single worker from 1660- 1679, roughly 1500-2000 pounds of tobacco. See Table 2.3 Productivity per hand in Tobacco, 1640-1699 in Lois Greene Carr, Russell R. Menard, and Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) p. 42. See also Table I-2: Crop Size per Hand in Early Maryland (pounds) in Gloria Main. Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). 107 seriously hurt financially, it did not destroy his economic and social standing: diversity of economic enterprises kept him afloat.

The Labor Supply

While land was a critical component of a merchant-planters economic success, it was only one part of the formula that produced a crop for export. Land in the

Chesapeake was relatively inexpensive, as Carville Earl pointed out. Increasing a plantation’s production in the great bay was limited by the access to the relatively low supply of labor, reversing the situation as it existed in England, where land was dear and labor cheap.131 In a given year, there was only so much tobacco that could be produced

131 See Carvile Earle. The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System: All Hallow's Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783 (Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1975). Bailyn’s Voyagers to the West discusses just this phenomenon as well. England had as a result of the enclosure movement and other economic developments over the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries a population that chronically oversupplied the labor market, driving down wages. High population made land relatively expensive, as the fifteen acres acquired by Cordea for £380 outside of Manchester attests, and labor was gradually forced off of the land into the cities, and from there to the New World as indentured servants. See Bernard Bailyn. Voyagers to the West: A Passage in the Peopling of America on the Eve of the Revolution (New York: Vintage, 1988). In the New World, as Morgan’s American Slavery, American Freedom also discusses, land was readily available, but not the labor to turn it into profitable production. After Bacon’s Rebellion purchased labor quickly switched from predominantly indentured whites to predominantly enslaved Africans. See: Edmund S. Morgan American Slavery, American Freedom: the Ordeal of Virginia (New York, W. W. Norton, 1975). In 1977, Russell Menard argued that the transition to slaves took place in the 1680s because of a decline in Indented supply, the planters preferred servants, but were forced to shift to slaves: see Russell M. Menard. “From Servants to Slaves: The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System.” Southern Studies, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter, 1977), pp. 355-390. Paul G. E. Clemens and Allan Kulikoff concured with Menard’s conclusions. See Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) pp. 54-82; Allan Kulikoff. Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986) pp. 30-44. In 1989, Alden T. Vaughn summarized the seemingly settled nature of the origins of slavery: “No one doubts, for example, the basic demographic configurations of Virginia’s black population: its sparse numbers in the early decades, its sharp rise in the 1680s and after, and its shift late in the century from Caribbean sources to, increasingly African sources. Nor does anyone doubt that the legal status of blacks was ambiguous until the 1660s and 1670s and to some extent beyond, or that many blacks—perhaps more than 25 percent in some counties—were free on the eve of Virginia’s slave legislation.” Alden T. Vaughn. “The Origins Debate: Slavery and Racism in Seventeenth Century Virginia” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 97, No. 3 “A Sense of Power: Black Virginians 1619-1989.” (July, 1989) p. 338 [311-354]. In 1994, James Horn speculated that that the stricter slave laws passed in the Chesapeake in the 1660s were possibly the result of the restored crown’s desire to tighten up regulations of bound laborers. James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) pp.149-50 In 1999 R. C. Nash argued that “a 108 by a sole proprietor: the key capital investment to increase production was not more land, but more labor. In Restoration era Maryland, indentured servitude provided the bulk of those workers, even though slavery had been permitted from at least 1638, and was ensconced firmly in the law in 1663.132 The successful merchant-planters not only sought land in large quantities, but also relied upon their networks to supply themselves with the labor necessary to work it. Edmund Morgan has laid out how indentured white labor in the seventeenth century shifted to the African chattel slavery that dominated the

Golden Age of the tobacco coast. Although slave codes, modeled on those of Barbados, had been written in both Virginia and Maryland in the mid-1660s, relatively high prices for Africans, a continuing ready supply of impoverished English servants, and a substantial cadre of slave-owning planters wealthy enough to initiate trading did not appear in the Chesapeake until slaves began to be imported in larger numbers around 1680, when the depression in the sugar industry diverted slave cargos from the Caribbean to the mainland.” R. C. Nash. “The Organization of Trade and Finance in the British Atlantic Economy.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed., (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) p. 108. In the northern reaches of the great bay, the elites of frontier Baltimore County owned about the same number of servants as they did slaves, averaging 2.6 servants to 2.1 slaves up to 1690 and only increased to 2.8 servants to 3.1 slaves by 1699. The shift to slavery in the county happened rapidly after the turn of the century, by 1739 the Baltimore County elite owned, on average, 0.9 servants and 17.2 slaves. See Table 5: “Number of Servants and slaves Owned by Baltimore Elite: 1660-1770” in Charles G. Steffen. From Gentlemen to Townsmen: The Gentry of Baltimore County, Maryland, 1660-1676 (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1993) pp. 49-50. Recent work, however, has complicated this understanding of the shift to slavery in the Chesapeake. John C. Coombs, in his “Building the Machine” uncovered that Virginia’s elite had more or less completed the shift of their labor forces to slaves by 1670, and that it was the smaller planters who were reluctant to shift until the 1680s. See John C. Coombs. “Building the Machine: The Development of Slavery and Slave Society in Early Colonial Virginia.” Ph.D. Dissertation, College of William and Mary, 2004. Lorena Walsh expanded on this finding, and in 2010, argued that the shift to slavery among the Chesapeake elites took place “well before the diminished supplies of [servants] forced their hand...” (p.11) By 1660, she noted how all the Councilors in Virginia had at least one slave, and some already had a majority enslaved labor force. With the extremely low, and falling price of tobacco, only through maximal use of labor were the largest planters able to maximize profit; only enslaved labor could be driven as harshly, hence the early shift. But by 1650, most of the essential features of slavery were already in place, matrilineal heritability, servitude for life, heavy field labor, even for women. In the 1660s, the elite fashioned another slave code, modeled on that of Barbados. see Lorena S. Walsh. Motives of Honor, Pleasure, & Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607-1763 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010) pp. 11, 22, 138-144 132 In 1638, the “Act Limiting the Times of Servants” Archives 1:80 applied its rules to “all persons being Christians (Slaves excepted) of the age of eighteen years or above and brought into this province at the charge & adventure of some other person...” 109 relatively deadly disease climate leading to high death rates from seasoning made the investment in short-term white labor more economically sensible. Considering that a white who was purchased to serve for five to seven years and a permanent slave were both likely to die within the first months or couple of years, it made little sense in the

Chesapeake to turn to the far more expensive African labor. As the deaths from seasoning declined, the supply of servants fell and their cost rose due to the improving

English domestic economy and after the shock of Bacon’s Rebellion, the dangers of continuing to encourage the immigration of young men who were likely to survive their indentures only to become disaffected became too obvious to ignore. The Chesapeake planters shifted to African slaves.

Recent work, however, has complicated this understanding of the shift to slavery in the Chesapeake. John C. Coombs, in his “Building the Machine” uncovered that

Virginia’s elite had more or less completed the shift of their labor forces to slaves by

1670, and that it was the smaller planters who were reluctant to shift until the 1680s.

Lorena Walsh expanded on this finding, and in 2010, argued that the shift to slavery among the Chesapeake elites took place “well before the diminished supplies of

[servants] forced their hand...” By 1660, she noted how all the Councilors in Virginia had at least one slave, and some already had a majority enslaved labor force. With the extremely low, and falling price of tobacco, only through maximal use of labor were the largest planters able to maximize profit. Only enslaved labor could be driven so harshly, hence their early shift. By 1650, most of the essential features of slavery were already in place, matrilineal heritability, servitude for life, and heavy field labor, even for women.

110 In the 1660s, the Virginia elite fashioned another slave code, modeled on that of

Barbados.133

In Maryland, the provincial elites, led by the Calvert family, were similarly instrumental in expanding the use of slavery well before the Baconite uprising made indenteds less appealing, reflecting their connections to the Caribbean and Dutch West

India Company’s New Amsterdam where slavery had already taken hold. Thomas

Notley and Jesse Wharton had come to Maryland from Barbados. Garret VanSweringen had first settled in New Amsterdam, only coming to the Chesapeake after the English conquest, and New York was an important part of Mark Cordea’s trade. By 1670 half of provincial and county officeholders owned slaves, and they owned between two thirds and three-fourths of all enslaved persons. Well before the Glorious Revolution, the

Maryland political elites had either made or had started to make the shift from indentured to enslaved labor.134 133 See John C. Coombs. “Building the Machine: The Development of Slavery and Slave Society in Early Colonial Virginia.” Ph.D. Dissertation, College of William and Mary, 2004. see Lorena S. Walsh. Motives of Honor, Pleasure, & Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607-1763 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010) pp. 11, 22, 138-144. “Wealthy Marylanders from the late seventeenth century were slave owners.” After 1760 the largest slave owners were all merchant- planters. Trevor Burnard. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776 (New York: Routledge, 2002) pp. 36, 40. The same could be said of slave owners ninety years earlier. 134 Lorena S. Walsh. Motives of Honor, Pleasure, & Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607-1763 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010) pp. 142-143. In 1708, Edmund Jennings, investigating the issue was told by Virginians that before 1680, most of their slaves were had from Barbados. Edmund S. Morgan. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975 (1995 paperback edition)) pp. 305-306. New Amsterdam had long been a source of slave exports to Maryland. In 1654, the Dutch West India Company allowed city merchants to trade in slaves to Virginia and Maryland, imposing a duty of ten percent on blacks exported to the Chesapeake. The trade continued after the English conquest. Cathy Matson. Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998) p.76. The Dutch role in bringing sugar and slaves to Barbados is widely debated. A thesis that the Dutch introduced sugar and slavery to Barbados following their expulsion from Recife in the 1640s has been a standard. See Jan de Vries. “The Dutch Atlantic Economies” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed., (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) pp. 1-29; see especially footnote 15, p.7 where de Vries admitted that the subject is still up for debate. See also James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994). In 2006 111 From his arrival in late 1658 or very early 1659, importing slave labor was a critical component of John Bateman’s plans for the success of his enterprise. His 1658 letter of instruction from one of his employers, William Backhouse, mentioned another letter sent in the packet “for the Sale of the Negroes. Pray doe what you can in itt. Mr.

Lees Agents if you & they can agree for what Negroes are lyuing [living] as they were appraised.” While he certainly sold enslaved Africans, he also needed labor on his thousands of acres to make them productive and profitable. In his 1666 inventory the

Bateman estate had twelve laborers: seven white servants, (two men and five boys) and five enslaved Africans (three adults and two children). Bateman had owned more labor during his life. The records of his estate administration show the sale of at least one slave girl after his death. His 1664 inventory included a record of the 1663 harvest that noted it had having been the produce of fourteen laborers and an overseer. He and his wife only had a single child, Mary. According to the 1666 inventory of his estate’s laborers, including his wife and child and the servant/slave children as half-workers, the

Bateman household only had at most eleven and a half workers, and no overseer was

Russell R. Menard uncovered documents that challenged the Dutch thesis, finding that it was London merchants, chiefly Martin Noell who supplied the slaves to Barbados, and that plantation slavery predated the shift to sugar which only accelerated and deepened the development of enslaved labor, but did not create it. Russell R. Menard. Sweet Negotiations: Sugar, Slavery, and Plantation Agriculture in Early Barbados (Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2006). Claudia Schnurmann argues that the deep connections between the Chesapeake and Barbados were the result of Dutch trade between the three colonies, as well as with New Amsterdam. Claudia Schnurmann. “Atlantic Trade and American Identities: The Correlations of Supranatural Commerce, Political Opposition, and Colonial Regionalism.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed., (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) pp.186-204. The connections between the Dutch and the Chesapeake were deep and complex; several Dutch merchant families moved into the region, and easily integrated into local society, becoming naturalized, marrying English settlers, and even acquiring local office. April Lee Hatfield. “Dutch and New Netherland Merchants in the Seventeenth Century English Chesapeake.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. (Peter A. Coclanis, ed., Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) pp.205-228. 112 mentioned. The missing laborers either earned their freedom or had been sold between

1663 and 1666 when the remnant was counted.135

Trade in labor may have launched Cordea’s relationship with Addison. The earliest record of contact between the two men was dated in mid-1675 when Cordea purchased one of several servants consigned to Addison by Thomas Chapman of

Liverpool. In the absence of the survival of any account books it is impossible to say how often Addison and Cordea interacted economically, but it is likely that Cordea purchased other servants from Addison who was a dealer in human cargo. In 1674

Addison was partnered with George Macall when he purchased Christopher Williamson and Eliza Royall from Robert Crosman then commander of the "good shippe Antilope of

Liverpoole" upon Crosman's arrival in the St. Mary's River.136 Perhaps Cordea learned from Addison that the importation of labor was a lucrative endeavor, for even as they imported all sorts of cloth and manufactured goods from Liverpool in the late 1670s,

Cordea used his New York connections to tie himself into the Atlantic Slave Trade, dealing with a New York merchant.

On the twelfth of May, 1677, Mark Cordea signed a bond for 58,882 pounds of tobacco due to Jacob Leisler of New York on a debt of 29,441 pounds of tobacco "being

135 William Backhouse. “Letter to John Bateman.” Archives 41:269; “Inventory of the Estate of John Bateman” Archives 57:45-51. 136 The record of this purchase is also the result of the suit of servants for their freedom- on March 25, 1678 Crosman deposed that the indentures were to expire after four years from the date of sale- June 30, 1674. Williamson and Royall, then in the service of Robert Graham were declared free on that day, 1678. Deposition of Robert Crossman in the Proceedings of the Provincial Court 1677-1678. On February 11, 1679/80 Thomas Smith, Robert Jones, Ellis Thomas, and Lewis Mereddy had also been consigned to John Addison by John Chapman of Liverpool to serve four years from 17 Dec, 1675. They sued their masters, Thomas Doxey, Thomas Keeting and Mark Cordea for their freedom and their dues. Addison and his wife testified to the truth of their assertions and the court ordered the three masters to free their servants and pay them as per the custom of the country. Thomas Smith, Robert Jones, Ellis Thomas, and Lewis Mereddy. “The Petition of of Thomas Smith, Robert Jones, Ellis Thomas, and Lewis Mereddy” Archives 69:116-117 113 for Negroes received from the said Leisler." This debt represented the value of between four and seven slaves.137 Cordea failed to pay and Leisler sued in 1679 for both this bond and an additional debt of £98 sterling for a bill of exchange Cordea had written on

Henry Coutary of London, a former Marylander, who “would not accept of the said bill for want of effects...." This additional debt translates to approximately 23,520 pounds of tobacco, or the value of an additional three to six slaves.138 Perhaps the 30,000 pounds of tobacco that he had Bailey send to New York in 1673 were also for slaves, if so, that debt represents another four to eight slaves. In all, these debts represented the value of between eleven and twenty-one slaves. These slaves were not for his own personal use.

At his death, he owned only a single slave woman and four male and two female servants. Cordea was imported and sold enslaved labor. There is a single record of his selling of a slave in the records, when James Nuthall sued Cordea to deliver “One Negro man betweene the age of fifteen & twenty yeares of Sound and perfect limbs and body which to him he oweth and unjustly deteineth.” Cordea was meeting an emerging demand for slaves.139

137 Assuming the value of the slaves to be similar to that of Rozer's slave sent to be sold by Quigley for 8000 pounds of tobacco, the value represents only three and a half slaves. Thomas Notley's estate inventory from 1679 records an average value of adult slaves to be about £25 (ranging in individual value from a low of £20 to a high of £30) or about 6000 pounds of tobacco per slave, assuming a penny-per- pound value. Edmund Morgan used an example of the sale of a cargo of slaves in 1687 yielding an average value of £16.6.0, or about 4000 pounds of tobacco per slave. For the prices, see Morgan, Edmund S.. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton) pp. 301- 302; 304-305 138 See “Leisler v Cordea” Archives 69:19-23 139 For Cordea’s labor supply see Cordea, Mark in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0943-001. See “Nutthall v Cordea” Archives 65:244-245 Cordea bought servants from Addison. Cordea had difficulty giving his servants their freedom. For examples see Thomas Smith, Robert Jones, Ellis Thomas, and Lewis Mereddy. “The Petition of Thomas Smith, Robert Jones, Ellis Thomas, and Lewis Mereddy” Archives 69:116-117. See also James Anderson. “Petition of James Anderson” Archives 69:122-123. 114 Cordea’s slave importation was trading at the very cutting edge of the shift.

Censes of laborers were not taken in Maryland, but it is still possible to draw some conclusions about the shift in elite labor practices around the time of Bacon’s Rebellion by examining the estate inventories of the fifty members of the assembly who died between 1671 and 1681. Of the fifty, twenty owned at least one slave, and all slave holders, except one owned at least one servant as well. Governor Jesse Wharton had already completed the shift owning eleven slaves and no servants at his death in 1676.

Of the five largest slave-owners, Benjamin Rozer (41 slaves, 28 servants), Thomas

Notley (29 Slaves 7 servants), Robert Slye (14 slaves, 11 servants), Jesse Wharton (11 slaves), and Thomas Brooke (10 slaves, 10 servants), four were merchants in trade with

Barbados. The two largest slave-holders, Notley and Rozer, had emigrated from

Barbados, both had acquired real estate in excess of 7700 acres by their deaths, and were building large slave-labor plantations on the Barbados model. All of these men were powerfully connected: Rozer and Wharton had both married into the Calvert family, as had Thomas Brooke’s brother, Baker (two slaves, five servants). Notley, Rozer, and

Wharton all sat on the council, and Wharton and Notley both died as governor. Notley and Slye had both sat as Speaker of the House of Delegates. A Barbadian connection, a close relationship with the Calvert family, large landed estates and an early switch to slave labor all went together. Interestingly, Councilor and husband to the second Lord

Baltimore’s niece, Baker Brooke’s nephew, Thomas Brooke’s son, married the daughter of merchant Thomas Dent who entered rights for transporting at least seventy-five

115 persons into the colony as an importer of labor. Dent died in 1676 and his widow married John Addison, himself a merchant in the labor trade.140 , ) r ) s s s ? ? e t t s r 1 e e o L

n e m e n 8 v v b , t r a a a a a a 6 c n l l l U v h

1 N a ( a s r l c S -

l ( e r

a e 1 P t e S d s % 7 o n u 6 M T a o 1 ( L H

) D h t O o Y B Brooke, Baker U 1679 y n 2 5 7 28.6 3500 Brooke. Thomas L 1676 y n 10 10 20 50.0 7742 Dent, Thomas L 1676 y y 6 8 14 42.9 1100 Dunn, Robert L 1676 y n 1 1 2 50.0 750 Gardiner, Luke L 1674 y n 3 10 13 23.1 5000 Hall, Walter L 1678 y y 2 2 4 50.0 1200 Jarbo, John L 1675 y n 6 1 7 85.7 950 Keene, Edward L 1676 y y 2 7 9 22.2 550 Marsh, Thomas L 1679 y y 2 4 6 33.3 1040 Mathews, Thomas L 1676 y n 3 4 7 42.9 1955 Morecroft, John L 1673 y y 2 1 3 66.7 250 Notley, Thomas B 1679 y y 29 7 36 80.6 7700 Parker, William L 1674 y y 3 1 4 75.0 1300 Rozer, Benjamin U 1681 y y 41 28 69 59.4 7950 Slye, Robert L 1671 y y 14 11 25 56.0 2500 Stockett, Thomas L 1671 y n 1 3 4 25.0 1263 Todd, Thomas L 1676 y y 4 4 8 50.0 1700 Utie, Nathaniel U 1675 y y 3 7 10 30.0 4000 Wade, Zachary L 1678 y y 1 4 5 20.0 4120 Wharton, Jesse B 1676 y y 11 0 11 100.0 3300 Table 4.1 Labor Supply of Members of the Assembly Who Died 1671-1681 Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

While recent historiography has shown this pattern of pre-Bacon’s Rebellion shift to slave labor for the Chesapeake elite, the aftermath of 1676 was decisive in

Benjamin Rozer’s shift away from servants to slave labor. In 1661 the assembly passed

140 See the entries for Brooke, Baker; Brooke, Thomas; Dent, Thomas; Notley, Thomas; Rozer, Benjamin; Slye, Robert; Wharton, Jesse in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) 116 the “Acte lymiting Servants tymes” and defined terms of service based upon the age of the indented upon arrival, for those who arrived without an agreed different term of indenture. The assembly ordered “that every Master Mistres or Dame Assigne or

Trustee of what kind soever owneing or keepeing any such Servant” bring the servant before the county court to have their ages officially determined and entered into the record. Not surprisingly, such determinations are common in the county court records.

From 1668 until 1674 Merchant Benjamin Rozer presented at least thirteen servants for assessment to the county courts, but there is no record of his presenting servants to the courts after 1674. The rising tensions and concerns about impoverished whites in the mid-1670s that finally exploded into Bacon’s Rebellion did not go unnoticed by

Rozer.141

141 “Acte for Lymiting Servants Tymes, 1664” Archives 1:409-410. For examples of Rozer’s presentments of Servants to the County Court, see the “Presentment of Charles Hey” Archives 60:131. In June of 1668 Hey was judged to be sixteen years old and ordered to serve six years. in September, 1668: John Green was judged to be fourteen and ordered to serve seven until he reached the age of twenty-one. “Presentment of John Green” Archives 60:142. The next spring, in April, 1669 the Court judged Francis Francison to be ten years old, and she was to serve to her twenty-first year; see the “Presentment of Francis Francison” Archives 60:188. In November, 1670 Rozer brought Samuel Hoyle Matheu Hinch, Ann Trench and Margrett W[...]d all of whom were found to be between twenty and twenty-two years of age. See the “Presentments of Samll Hoyle, Matheu Hinch, Ann Trench, and Margarett W[...]” Archives 60:262 In January, 1671/2, John Massey acknowledged before the court that he had five years left to serve Benjamin Rozer, with the term commencing October 2, 1671 see “Presentment of John Massey” Archives 60:359 In November 1671, Constable Henry Hawkins presented one of Benjamin Rozer’s servants for having a bastard child, but she was not named. “Presentment of a Maid Servant of Benjamin Rozer.” Archives 60:356. In January 1671/2: George Chapman was found to be twenty-two years, and was to serve four more years, and Richard Hunter being twenty-one was ordered to serve five. See the “Presentments of George Chapman and Richard Hunter” Archives 60:358. In June of 1673 Rozer presented John Pattison who was judged to be thirteen and thus to serve eight years. See the “Presentment of John Pattison” Archives 60:498. August 1673: Dorothy Lybscome was judged to be twenty-two, and to serve four years. See the “Presentment of Dorothy Lybscome” Archives 60:504. In June, 1674 Benjamin Rozier presented James Greene who was found to be fifteen, and ordered to serve six years. See the “Presentment of James Greene” Archives 60:552. It is possible that these servants were imported by Rozer for sale, but the act’s wording makes this unlikely, placing the duty of presenting on the buyer, not the seller. See also Rozer, Benjamin in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635- 1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 707 and “Inventory of the Estate of Benjamin Rozer” in the Charles County Records, Inventories. Maryland State Archives MSA film CR 39590-1, Liber 1677-1717, pp 16-24 117 Professional Labor

Sometimes labor itself was a mode of diversification. A well-educated servant with a profession in local demand could be quite profitably hired out to the neighbors.

Both Garrett VanSweringen and Dr. John Morecroft, for example, benefited from the purchase of servants who were trained physicians. In the insalubrious environment of the seventeenth century Chesapeake, physicians were in high demand, as John and Mary

Bateman, Thomas Notley, Benjamin Rozer, and ironically John Morecroft, who all fell ill suddenly and died in their forties, could attest. Morecroft owned the services of

William Champ, who also practiced medicine. Morecroft had been a physician in

Virginia before moving to Maryland, and it is possible that Champ was not just a servant, but an apprentice in the ‘art & mistery of Physick.’142

Garrett VanSweringen’s ownership of the indenture of Robert Harper who was

“Skillfull in administring phisick” illustrate how lucrative owning the services of a physician could be. In March of 1674, Robert Harper “Servant unto the said Garrett

Vansweringen [sic]” attended Roger Shehee on his deathbed. Payment was not made, and VanSweringen sued for 520 pounds of tobacco for Harper’s ministrations, winning that amount plus 956 pounds in costs. For just a few days of his servant’s time,

VanSweringen charged over a third of a man-crop, and successfully sued for the amount of a single man’s yearly tobacco production.143 In July of that same year Harper was sent to Capt. John Quigley who was suffering from “a grevious distemper called the

142 The only record of Champ’s employment by Morecroft is in a suit of October of 1666, where Morecroft accused his former servant of defamation for calling him a “a Cheating old Knave.” Champ admitted in court that he had been “imployed by the plt: in the Art & mistery of Physick as his seruant by Indenture...” See “Morecroft v Champ” Archives 57:126-127. 143 “VanSweringen v Dayley” Archives 65:528 118 gripping of the Gutts.” The infection had also spread to some of Quigley’s servants.

The Quigley household would be treated by Harper for over five months until November

27, 1674. In this instance, VanSweringen sued Quigley charging that

...for the time care paines and Skill of his Said Servant Robert Harper in attending the said John and his Servts and the medicines and remedyes he did upon them expend the said Garret doth reasonably deserve the summe of five thousand three hundred thirty five pounds of tobacco.

The jury decided in VanSweringen’s favor awarding him 3335 pounds of tobacco. In a single year, and for only two cases ministered to by his servant Harper, Garett

VanSweringen had been paid the equivalent of over four man-crops.144 A physician would have had more than two patients in a given year; owning a professional like

Harper was profitable diversity, indeed.

Other times, the ownership of a professional was not for profit by hiring their services out, but by freeing the master from some onerous but important task and allowing them to pursue other more lucrative endeavors. For busy men like overseas merchant-planter Mark Cordea, having someone to keep their books freed them to pursue their other vocations, governmental duties or even absent themselves from the province as part of their trade. In February 1670/71 Cordea acquired Evan Carew as his servant, with the understanding that Carew was to be “imployed & retained by him the

Said Mark as his Servant to Keepe his bookes receive his tobacco and doe Such other worke for him the said Marke as the said Mark Should imploy him in.” Possessing a

144 “VanSweringen v Quigley” Archives 65:545-547. Dr. Morecroft owned William Champ’s services over a decade earlier; no suits indicate how often Champ was hired out- it is possible that he was Morecroft’s assistant. Their relationship after Champ’s freedom was acrimonious at best. “In what seems to have been a spite suit and one which he lost, Morecroft, after losing the earlier suit for defamation against his former indentured servant, sued Champ for an accounting at the October, 1666, court. See “Preface to the Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670” Archives 57:lxvii 119 profession gave Carew greater leverage on the terms of his indenture then most servants.

From 1670 into 1673 Carew not only leveraged the payment of additional tobacco over and above his normal accommodations as a servant, and that he would serve a shorter term of only twenty-eight months and was to be freed 27 June, 1673. During his time of service, Carew bought, sold, and contracted debts. In short he ran Cordea’s business when Cordea was out of the province.145

Thomas Notley, who had even more pressures on his time than Cordea did, similarly turned to a professional to fill a need and free him up for his many other endeavors. In his will, Notley directed his executors to employ John Lowelling

[Llwellyn], his “Loving Ffriend” who had been an inmate in Notley’s household “from time to time for ye space of seven or eight yeares” and who had been, during that time

“continually conversant” with Notley’s “books and other affairs.” Llwellyn, who had migrated in 1671 as a free man, had used his expertise and training in bookkeeping in

Notley’s household, and was Notley’s choice to continue to administer the estate’s accounts and manage his sizeable estate’s business until it was finally settled.146

A Career at Law 145 “Carew v Cordea” Archives 65:648-649. James Horn’s discussion of servants’ terms shows how unusual Carew’s short term was, and discusses the relative bargaining power servants had. Considering the consistency of terms recorded in the court records, it is clear that this was very low. Skilled servants might sometimes be able to finagle a shorter term, but the majority of servants were held for four to five years. Merchants’ contracts usually specified the servant would be held “according to the custom of the country,” reducing flexibility in the negotiation of contracts. Power lay decisively in the hands of the sellers and buyers, not the commodity. James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) pp.65-66 Horn noted that the purchase of skilled servants was usually related to lowering expenses of a planter by acquiring someone with skills useful in the tobacco trade, such as coopers, shipwrights and the like. He also noted that skilled servants could also be used as a source of income by hiring them out when not needed at the home plantation, see p. 288 146 Thomas Notley. “Last Will and Testament.” Maryland State Archives MSA film SR 4404-3 Wills Liber 10, F 7. John Llewellyn was very well educated, and closely tied to Notley, and this paid off: in 1678 Llewellyn was named Clerk of the Council and the Upper House: see Llewellyn, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-2640-1 120 Having some legal expertise was vitally important to merchanting success both for securing debts owed on accounts and for building and maintaining contacts throughout the Atlantic world. Legal expertise and training however could be lucrative in and of itself, and it was no accident that the busiest, most successful attorneys of the restoration era were politically and socially powerful men like John Morecroft, Daniel

Jenifer, William Calvert, Thomas Notley, Benjamin Rozer and Robert Carville.

John Morecroft, gentleman doctor, permanently entered Maryland from York

County, Virginia sometime in 1665. Like the other gentry in the southernmost counties of the Province, diversity marked his economic life. He not only practiced ‘physick,’ but was also merchant and a planter. But, with only a lone servant who was more likely his assistant / apprentice as a physician and not a field hand, and two slaves to work his comparably rather meager landholdings for an elite—he only owned at most 250 acres— agricultural production was unusually only a minor focus of his economic efforts.147

Morecroft’s primary source of income was as a lawyer. As an attorney he was neither novice nor amateur, he had practiced law in Virginia before moving to St.

Mary’s County and he had an extensive knowledge of English statutes and common law precedents and almost certainly had formal legal training. This expertise was recognized in Maryland, and he was admitted to practice in the Provincial Court immediately upon arrival in Maryland. Within a year he would also be admitted to practice before both the

Court of Chancery and the Prerogative Court. Unlike most attorneys who practiced in county courts as well, Morecroft limited his busy practice to these, the highest courts in

147 Such arrangements were common for medical (and legal) training Morecroft had mentored William Champ. See “Morecroft v Champ” Archives 57:119, 120, 122, 126 121 Maryland. Representation in these courts brought the highest fees. In the late 1660s and early 1670s, he, along with Daniel Jenifer, William Calvert, Thomas Notley, Benjamin

Rozer and Robert Carville, “largely monopolized practice before the Provincial

Court....” Morecroft appeared before Maryland’s highest court “in almost every important suit and... won nearly all of those in which he figured.” Charles Calvert, in a

1672 letter to his father, Cecil, Second Lord Baltimore, admiringly called Morecroft “the best lawyer in the community and always has been.”148 His was a lucrative and extensive practice, he appeared constantly before the courts and represented dozens and dozens of clients before his sudden 1673 death.

During the Restoration era, as the great merchant-planter lawyers of Maryland like Morecroft, Notley, and Rozer, brought greater formal training and skill to the practice of law, they charged higher fees for that expertise and experience. Those fees provided another important source of revenue to their already diverse set of economic activities. But the increasing cost of hiring lawyers combined with potentially high court fees led to increasing frustration in Maryland with the price of legal redress. Court costs were routinely charged between 300 and 1500 pounds of tobacco. Considering that a planter could expect only about 1500 pounds of tobacco per adult male laborer in

148 Newton Dennison Mereness. Maryland as a Proprietary Province (New York: Macmillan, 1901) p. 215. For the full text of the letter declaring Morecroft to be Maryland’s greatest attorney, see Charles Calvert. “Letter from Governor Charles Calvert to Cecil, Lord Baltimore, 26 April, 1672” in The Calvert Papers No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1889) p. 264 See also “Introduction to the Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670” Archives 57:xvii . See Morecroft, John in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 603 which records that he held 200 acres of land at his first election. A 1684 sale of land by Morecroft’s heir Jonathan Squire recorded Morecroft’s patent of the tract called Musemowaske in 1665 containing 250 acres. With only two, or at most three field laborers in the household, even if he held both tracts totaling 450 acres, planting tobacco was not a main focus of Morecroft. See Thomas Alliston. “Sale of Musemowaske to Jonathon Squire” Archives 717:306. For Squire’s being Morecroft’s heir, see Morecroft, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-2933. 122 a given year, for the smaller planters with few if any purchased hands, these costs coupled with attorney’s fees of that could easily exceed 1000 pounds of tobacco, worked to effectively bar many of the lesser planters from formally seeking legal redress. But, for those wealthy elites who could afford him, the price Morecroft charged for his widely recognized legal skill was not excessive: there is no record that survives wherein he had to sue for payment of attorneys fees.149

While Notley and Rozer and the others avoided a direct confrontation with the tension over fees, it threatened to destroy Morecroft’s legal practice. Early in 1669 at the proprietor’s English residence, Robert Morris, a mariner in trade with Maryland and occasional resident of Talbot County, “... in the presence of the Lord Proprietary & other worshipful persons...” accused that Dr. Morecroft had profited excessively from the practice of law, in part by committing fraud by taking “fees on both sides in one & the same cause....” It is possible that this charge was, strictly speaking, true, Morecroft himself only weakly denied it. But a vigorous denial was unnecessary. Morecroft probably collected fees from both sides in some disputes, but not unethically as a partisan advocate but rather because he also acted as an arbitrator, a cheaper alternative to a formal suit. While arbitration was not unknown or even uncommon in Maryland,

149 For the production of a laborer per year, see See Table 2.3 Productivity per hand in Tobacco, 1640- 1699 in Lois Greene Carr, Russell R. Menard, and Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991) p. 42 See also Table I-2: Crop Size per Hand in Early Maryland (pounds) in Gloria Main. Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). Much of Morecroft’s estate was in debts owed to him. By correlating the names of the debtors with the names of his known legal clients, it is possible to see that many of those debts were for legal representation and many from his trading / practice of medicine, although it is impossible to say precisely which are which. Even so, he did not execute the privileges of the court allowing him special access to sue for unpaid attorney’s fees, strongly suggesting that the normally litigious Morecroft had no problems collecting from his legal clients. See the “Inventory of the Estate of John Morecroft.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62A Liber 1, Fs 29-33, 557-562 123 faced with Morris’ damning accusations, Morecroft filed a suit in Maryland against

Morris for defamation, claiming that the attack on his integrity had caused his clients to abandon him, costing £500 in lost legal fees.150

In response to Morecroft’s Maryland suit, Morris launched his own attack in the province. He knew that Morecroft’s lucrative legal practice made him politically vulnerable in Maryland; charges of unethical profiteering and excessive attorneys’ fees found fertile ground in the Lower House of the Provincial Assembly, where Morecroft sat as a member for St. Mary’s County. In April of 1669, Morris, “in the name of the

Commons of this province,” accused “the said John Morecroft of certain Offences &

Crimes concerning the publick which he is ready to make good....” including the already publicized accusations of Morecroft’s charging of excessive fees and double-charging.

Getting to the heart of the matter, the impeachment more vigorously attacked

Morecroft’s fees, asserting that his charges were “above and beyond the Laws &

Customs of this Province & that he is retayned as Attorny for some with unreasonable fees, for a whole Year’s space so that by that means it Causes several suits to the Utter

Ruin of the People.” As evidence of Morecroft’s excessive charges, the Delegates attached two records of fees paid to Morecroft, one for 1200 pounds of tobacco, and another for 2000 pounds, which had been split equally between Morecroft and a co-

150 See the “Impeachment of John Morecroft” Archives 2:165-173. It is unclear which court Morecroft filed his claim in. The record is in the proceedings of the Assembly, not of the Provincial Court or Court of Chancery, and it is not explicitly stated which was meant by the use of ‘this court.’ Reading the records of the Council / Provincial Court / Court of Chancery, it is difficult to ascertain at times what function the members were performing. The judicial record of the Provincial Court was constantly broken up by Assembly business, such as meeting with a contingent of Piscataway Indians, or with the Speaker of the Lower House. The members of the Upper House of the assembly sat as both the Provincial Court and the Court of Chancery until 1669 when Chancery was split off. As the record of this case shows, their roles frequently shifted between being a legislative and judicial body at the same seating, reflecting the origins of English legislatures as royal courts. 124 counselor, Daniel Jenifer. Testimony from the clients made it clear that neither thought the fees to be excessive, noting that they had willingly agreed to the charges.

Nevertheless, the House voted to impeach their fellow member.

Morecroft’s deep connections with the Calvert family saved him from any serious danger. He defended himself before a friendly Upper House arguing that he could not be attacked for overcharging his clients, pointing out that it was and had always been a liberty in England and in Maryland for attorneys and clients to agree upon fees and retainers without interference. He argued simply that if a client did not want to pay his fee, they did not have to hire him. The Upper House agreed, adding that it was impossible to charge in excess of what the law allowed, as there was no limitation on legal fees or attorney’s retainers in either English common or Maryland provincial law.151

Morecroft was acquitted of the charges, but in a conciliatory gesture to the sentiments of the Lower House, the Councilors ordered Morris to pay only 1422 pounds of tobacco in damages, far less then the £500 sterling originally sought by Morecroft.152

While Morecroft’s claim against Morris of £500 sterling, over fifty man-crops, was a sizeable figure, it was not unreasonable to suppose that over the course of a few years

151 “Impeachment of John Morecroft” Archives 2:165-173. It was not a good idea to tangle with a well- connected proprietary stalwart at all. Robert Morris not only lost this fight, but he also lost his Plantation’s listing as an official entry point five days after his attack on Morecroft in the Lower house. Evidence suggests that Morecroft influenced this decision of Governor Charles Calvert. This loss seems to have caused Morris to abandon his plans in Maryland. He would deed Ratcliffe Manor to James Wasse of London in August of 1674. He disappears from the records after Bacon’s Rebellion, only reappearing in 1700 in a land case described as deceased, and no rent had been paid on his Poole’s Island patent for twenty years. For a brief biographical sketch of Morris, see Louis Dow Scisco. “Captain Robert Morris of Ratcliffe Manor” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 38, No. 4 (December, 1943) pp. 331-336. 152 Impeachment of John Morecroft” Archives 2:165-173. For 1422 pounds of tobacco was a little less than one man-crop, a far cry from the over eighty man-crops represented by £500 sterling originally sought. 125 that Morecroft’s income from legal fees would have approached it. Each of the deponents in the case testified that they had agreed to pay well over a man-crop for

Morecroft’s expert representation. Both before and after the impeachment, the accomplished and well-connected lawyer practiced on dozens of cases that survive, and many legal services like arbitrations, the drawing of wills, the preparation of deeds, etc. that did not require recording who drew them up. Trade, the practice of law and physic were quite good to Dr. Morecroft, he died possessing an estate worth nearly £430. Two years after his death the remnants of his estate were still valued at over 80,000 pounds of tobacco (over £333 sterling) by his administrator.153

Morecroft was far from the only arbiter in Maryland, and occasionally a glimpse of this parallel dispute-solving system can be seen in the records of the formal courts in

Maryland, as in the complicated, multi-colony dispute over the ownership of the merchant-frigate Expedition. Early in the evolution of the case, on March 3, 1664/5

Thomas Notley came before the court and “acquainted the board that the whole business is left to him.” As a result, Josias Fendall, the plaintiff’s attorney, withdrew.154 The next year, in October of 1666, in Abington v. Paggett, both parties came and declared

153 See “Inventory of the Estate of John Morecroft.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62A Liber 1, Fs 29-33, 557-562 154 The case involved at least four different claimants, and straddled New England, New York, Delaware, and Virginia as well as Maryland, and it ultimately proved too complicated a case for arbitration. The hoped for settlement failed and within six months the plaintiffs, defendants and their attorneys (at times Notley would be joined by John Morecroft and William Calvert as co-attorneys) would be back in court. Morecroft and Notley were shrewd lawyers, and the case demonstrates their considerable formal knowledge of the intricacies of the law. They were, for example, able to get a jury trial even though, as the complainant Hudson pointed out to the court, as an admiralty case juries did not apply. While they lost the trial, Notley and Morecroft quickly destroyed any hope of the judgment’s being executed, arguing with great skill and depth the multiple technical and procedural errors with both the initial suit and decision in great detail, and occasionally in Latin. For the Expedition (Hudson v. Anderson) case see “Hudson v Anderson” Archives 2:12-13, 33; “Hudson v Anderson” Archives 49/246, 321-323, 402, 456- 457, 486, 489. For Notley and Morecroft’s expert handling of their cases, see also Thomas Gerard. “Petition for a Writ of Error” Archives 2:11-12. 126 before the court that they had chosen Thomas Notley to decide their cause. John

Morecroft was Abington’s attorney and he may have steered his client to his friend and colleague. In December of 1668, the court was informed that Edmond Lindsey and

Thomas Sprigg had chosen Dr. John Perce and Thomas Notley to arbitrate the dispute between them. In many other cases, the courts were frequently requested to grant the continuance of ‘imparlement,’ a common law continuance that asked for additional time to negotiate an amicable out-of-court settlement. While these technical continuances may have been useful at least in part as a delaying tactic, they were still a recognized procedure for attempting arbitration. With so many court records lost, it is difficult to assess how widespread or how successful the practice of arbitration was.155

Concerns over high legal fees charged by the more professional attorneys were an ongoing concern in Restoration Maryland since the mid 1660s. As the April, 1669 session of the Assembly produced its impeachment of Morecroft, and as that drama unfolded, a conference committee of both houses recommended a committee of members from both houses to “Consider of the real grievances of the Province & to

Present them to both houses... that both Houses may Petition His Lordship for redress.”

Here, the assembly members complained that the high legal fees worked to

155 “Abington v. Paggett” Archives 57:117-118. Notley and Morecroft were frequent partners in legal disputes. In March of 1666 John Abington had named Notley his attorney in a letter filed with the court. Perhaps Morecroft had taken over briefly for Notley for some reason. “Lindsey v. Spriggs” Archives 57:374 There are many additional cases where the court referred disputes over debt or trade to resident merchants who were ordered to audit the accounts in the custom of merchants. Not surprisingly, Notley and Morecroft were often chosen by the courts to act as auditors. See, for example, “Snow v Foxhall” Archives 49:557. In January, 1665/6 Notley and Robert Slye were appointed as auditors of all the accounts between the two men. It will be recalled that Morecroft was one of the auditors of the Bateman estate. Similarly, in February 1669/70, Garret VanSweringen, Christopher Rousby “for the plt” and Thomas Dent and Kenelm Cheseldyne “for the Deft.” were commissioned by the court of Chancery to “hear and Examine Witnesses and determine the Cause if they Can” in the rancorous Bailey v Staplefort case; see “Bailey v Staplefort” Archives 51:339 127 simultaneously prevent the poor from pursuing a legal solution to their disputes and encouraged the filing of frivolous and drawn-out lawsuits on behalf of wealthier clients who could then be charged for each court appearance and continuance.156 These charges were not without merit. The fees and court costs did tend to exclude the poorer sort from the courts, and high-value cases did take a long time to wind their way through the courts. The complex suit swirling about the Bateman estate would be argued before the courts throughout the 1660s into the 1670s, and was only settled when the Batemans’ daughter married Henry Scarborough, her deceased father’s creditor / former employer.

While there is no record of what the attorneys—which included both Notley and

Morecroft—charged their clients, each required attendance in court was paid for.

Thomas Notley profited from his role in the lengthy Expedition case. Including the ultimately failed attempt at arbitration, Notley made at least nine appearances before the court from March, 1664/5 through October of 1666. For a single one of these, the court ordered he be paid 450 pounds of tobacco. At that rate, Notley would have earned nearly 4000 pounds of tobacco for nine day’s work.157

The practice of law in Restoration Maryland was lucrative, but only as part of a wider set of economic activities. No barrister would depend solely on the practice of law. In 1973, historian Alan Day identified four types of attorneys in pre-1700

Maryland, none of whom were legal specialists. Day found that numerically the planter bearing a letter of attorney was most prevalent legal representative in the courts,

156 The fourth complaint in the list was in clear reference to Morecroft and his impeachment: “That these Priveleged attorneys are one of the Grand Grievances of the Country.” See “The Publick Grievances &c, 20 April, 1669” Archives 2:168-169 157 For the entire case, see “Hudson v Anderson” Archives 2:12-13, 33; “Hudson v Anderson” Archives 49/246, 321-323, 402, 456-457, 486, 489. 128 followed by former clerks of the various courts. After these came the merchant-planter who

... was invariably an immigrant who had had business connections with the colony before emigrating. He often had partners in England and entered the law to guard his business interests. He quickly became established and usually attained a position of social, political, and economic prominence in the county in which he settled.

This describes the leading merchant-planter elite in restoration Maryland to the letter.158

They knew that the economic conditions in the young and frequently tumultuous province did not reward specialization in any single activity, at least not in the long term. Concentrating exclusively on exports of tobacco ran the risks of the disaster of a lost crop, not to mention the at best stagnant tobacco prices over the century. The economies of scale of huge landholdings worked by slavery that enabled the rise of a stable planter elite in the ‘Golden Age’ of the early eighteenth century had not yet emerged, although Maryland’s elite like Rozer and Notley were building its foundations and anticipating its features. Dependence on merchanting was similarly fraught with potential trouble- with lost shipments, either by storm or seizure, slow or absent remittances from overseas partners and losses from credit extended to small planters.

‘Desperate’ or ‘hopeless’ debts were common entries in estate inventories of wealthy elites. Men like Morecroft, Notley, Quigley, and Rozer turned to the practice of law as only one part of a diverse set of economic activities designed to secure their position at the heights of Maryland’s society. By and large, it worked. And socio-economic success bred political ambitions, which led to political power.

158 Alan F. Day “Lawyers in Colonial Maryland, 1660-1715” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 17, No. 2 (April, 1973), pp. 147-149 129 Chapter 5: Merchant-Planter Elites in Power

Over the course of the 1660s and 1670s, elite Maryland merchant-planters built critical social and economic networks both between themselves and among the populace at large. They arrived as merchants and rapidly diversified in an interconnected web of economic endeavors. Their import trade was fundamentally only a way to acquire cargos for export, and generous credit terms as well as novel retail services—like selling liquors by the bottle—were required. They purchased plantations both as retailing bases and to grow their own crops to add to those acquired by their trade. As large landowners tied to an export-crop oriented economy, they knew the need for labor acutely. Being tied into the Atlantic market they were familiar with enslaved Africans, both as merchandise and as labor on their own plantations. The need to protect both their estates from encroachment and secure payment for debts required knowledge of the law, and some had extensive and comprehensive legal training and experience. Having some greater expertise in the law in turn attracted others who were not and needed representation. A career at law proved useful to building intra- and extra-provincial contacts so critical to merchanting and political success. In the process, attorney’s fees themselves sometimes became an important source of income.

Most of these new merchant-planters were post-1660 arrivals to Maryland and had no connection to the earlier era of social, religious and political unrest. As they

130 became more and more deeply invested financially and socially in their newly chosen homes they became more aware of Maryland’s problems and understandably more interested in its future. Peter V. Bergstrom noted how from 1700-1775 the native merchant class in Virginia underwent a similar shift in self-perception:

Before commercial wealth could be accumulated, investment in Virginian lands and facilities was necessary. Once these investments were made, merchants found they had developed a greater awareness for Virginia society as a whole, and a greater concern for its future. Their concerns often became translated into action within the political as well as the commercial arena.

It was no different in Maryland, and the newly resident merchant-planters pursued public offices. For such ambitious merchants, success in politics not only confirmed their economic success and elite social status, but was also an important part of securing their fortunes, as their contemporaries in New England and Pennsylvania, and New York could attest.159

159 Warren M. Billings. “The Growth of Political Institutions in Virginia, 1634 to 1676.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April, 1974), pp. 225-242 Focused largely on the role played by the powerful county courts as the venue for local elites to exercise local power, especially as they had been denied seats in the assembly by Berkeley’s refusal to hold elections from 1660 to 1676. Lois Green Carr explored similar themes in County Government in Maryland, 1689-1709, arguing that the remarkable stability of Maryland following the overthrow of the Proprietor in 1689 was due to the expertise of local elites in the county courts that kept governmental functions operating. See Lois Green Carr. “County Government in Maryland, 1689-1709” Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1968. Carr revisited her Dissertation in Lois Green Carr. “Sources of Stability and Upheaval in Seventeenth-Century Maryland.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 79, No. 4 (March, 1984) pp. 44-70. Bernard Bailyn in The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century traced the efforts of merchants to not only use connections in London to get greater control and concessions in New England, but to come to local power. See Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1955 (second Paperback Printing, 1979)) pp. 96, 103-105, 142, 143, 159-160, 169-170, 174-178 In New York, “While a combination of industry, talent, and good fortunes made many prosperous, patronage and personal connection were the surest keys to success in colonial America. Politics, trade, and landownership were the route to wealth and prominence, but more often than not success in all three of these enterprises depended on personal contacts with highly placed individuals.” Accordingly Robert Livingston in New York wrote that he entered into “politics for profit.” See “Chapter 1: Politics for Profit” in Cynthia A. Kierner. Traders and Gentlefolk: The Livingstons of New York, 1675- 1790 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998) pp. 10-47 Peter V. Bergstrom. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700-1775 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983) p. 207. Laura Croghan Kamoie argued that the wealthiest planters “used their political clout, available capital, ability to get credit, and external contacts to dominate local business activities and even the broader regional domestic economy.” Laura Croghan Kamoie. “Planters’ Exchange Patters in the Colonial 131 Number # of Merchants % Merchant All Councilors, 1661-1688 34 15 44.1 Calvert Relative160 18 5 27.8 :Blood Relation to Calverts 8 2 25.0 :Married into Calvert Family 5 2 40.0 :Related to someone Married into Calvert Family. 5 1 20.0 Non Calvert Relation 16 10 62.5 Table 5.1: Merchants on the Council of Maryland, 1661-1688 Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

The most desirable political position to occupy was that on the Governor’s

Council, the single most powerful body in Maryland, as its powers combined the province’s highest legislative, judicial and executive functions.161 Unfortunately for

Chesapeake: Toward Defining a Regional Domestic Economy.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed., (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) p. 326. In Talbot County, in the Eighteenth Century the ranks of the elite were filled by men through who’s careers “there runs a common theme: all made their fortunes in a business world where connections and reputation were required. A lawyer’s clients, a merchant’s trading partners, or a provincial official’s appointments came to him because of who he was and whom he knew...” The elite rose “from the ranks of ambitious entrepreneurs.” Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) p.134 160 This includes all members who married Charles Calvert’s Sewall stepchildren, blood relations, and those who were related by another family member marrying a Calvert or a Calvert Stepchild. 161The Councilors were also the Judges on the powerful Provincial court. It was routine for petitions in the Provincial Court to be addressed to the Governor and Council, as the two bodies were the same in membership. Thomas Hinson addressed his petition to the Provincial Court “To the honble Charles Caluert Gouernor & Leiutennt Generall of the Prouince of maryland and to the Rest of his Honble Councell” Thomas Sprigg also did so, see Thomas Hinson. “The Petition of Thomas Hinson” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., (Baltimore: 1883- present.) Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p. 44 (hereafter cited as Archives 57:44) See also Thomas Sprigg. “The Petition of Thomas Sprigg” Archives 57:65. Demetrius Cartwright addressed his petition “To The Honble Gouernor and Councell In Prouinall Court Assembled” covering all the possible bases. See Demetrius Cartwright. “The Petition of Demetrius Cartwright” Archives 57:72. Every member of the June 1666 session of the Provincial Court was a councilor, and only two councilors did not attend. See the “Opening of the June, 1666 Provincial Court” Archives 57:108. See the “Proprietary Assembly of 1666 in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 25 The Provincial Court was comprised of the Governor and Council and it “was the major court of common law. It exercised jurisdiction similar to that of the king’s bench, court of common pleas, and exchequer and had sole jurisdiction over offenses punishable by loss of life or limb.” Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974) pp. 6-9 132 ambitious merchant-planters looking for a public position, the Council was also the most exclusive. To be named to a seat on the Council required considerable wealth and proven loyalty to the proprietor. The council was a lofty and rarely-achieved goal.

From 1661 through 1688 only thirty-four men served on it. Thomas Notley himself was only appointed upon his assumption of the Deputy Governorship, even though he was one of the richest men in the province and a well-known proprietary stalwart. His close friend Benjamin Rozer, who was even wealthier then Notley, was only elevated after he married Charles Calvert’s stepdaughter. Not even great wealth and a reputation of dogged proprietary support ever secured John Morecroft a position. Cecil and Charles relied upon their family for most appointments. Eighteen of the thirty-four councilors were related in some way to the Calverts, eight by blood,162 five had married into the family,163 and five others were related to people who had married into some branch of the Proprietor’s family.164

Family aside, the Lords Baltimore preferred to name merchant-planters to the council. Fifteen members of the council were merchants, two of whom were second- cousins to Charles, third Lord Baltimore, two others who were married to Charles’ stepchildren, and councilor William Burgess’ daughter had married Nicholas Sewall,

162 Charles, Philip, and William Calvert, Henry and John Darnall, George and William Talbot. 163 Baker Brooke, William Burgess, Edward Pye, Benjamin Rozer, and Jesse Wharton. Strictly speaking they were not married into the Calvert family, but rather Charles’ stepdaughters, the Sewalls. The Sewall step-family was the basis of the party Charles depended on in the Council to secure his hold in Maryland. see entry for Sewall, Henry in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 724. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 70 164 Richard Boughton, William Digges, Clement Hill, Vincent Lowe, and James Neale 133 Charles’ stepson.165 Of the sixteen councilors who were not related to the proprietary, ten were merchants. (see Table 5.1)

# Related # in some # Unrelated Total of way to Total # Related Unrelated # Protestant Council Session Members Calverts Merchants Merchants Merchants Protestants Merchants Apr. 1662 9 4 5 1 4 4 3 Feb. 1674/5 9 5 4 0 4 4 4 May 1676 6 4 2 0 2 2 2 Oct. 1678 9 4 6 1 5 5 4 Oct. 1686 10 7 6 2 4 5 3 Oct. 1688 8 6 3 2 1 2 1 Table 5.2: Council of Maryland Members in Selected Sessions Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

From 1661-1688 the makeup of the Council’s membership became more heavily dominated by Calvert relatives, especially after 1679. But in every council, merchants dominated the ranks of those who were not related to the Calverts. In 1662 only one of the eight Councilors, Philip Calvert, was related to the proprietor.166 After the

Restoration, and with a secure hold on his charter, Cecil may have felt less pressure to

165 Former Councilor James Neale’s son married the daughter of William Calvert, but at least six years after Neale’s service on the council had ended, and so was not counted here. Merchant-planter William Digges’ daughter as did merchant-planters Benjamin Rozer and William Digges. For Rozer and Digges it was their entrance into Baltimore’s family that precipitated their appointment to the council. See the entries for Digges, Neale and Rozer in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635- 1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp. 271-272; 609; 707. 166 See the “Proprietary Assembly of 1662” in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p.24 and the individual entries for the members. Two of the Councilors of 1662 would eventually join the Calvert family. In 1664 Baker Brooke would marry Anne Calvert, daughter of Leonard, and in 1668 James Neale’s son, John, would marry William Calvert’s daughter Elizabeth, but by that time Capt. Neale was no longer a Councilor, and John would serve neither in the assembly nor on the Council. Both women, therefore, were cousins to Governor Charles Calvert. 134 be inclusive and increased the familial nature of the Council. In February, 1674/5, Cecil named relatives to be half of what was his last Council. The next year Charles, Lord

Baltimore, in his first council as proprietor named only six men and sharply increased the reliance on a small cadre of family members. Two were Calverts, and two others,

Jesse Wharton and Baker Brooke, were related by marriage to Charles’ stepchildren.

Only Samuel Chew and Thomas Taillor were not part of the Calvert family, but both were merchant-planters. Charles, however, quickly backed off from this policy. For the

October 1676 session Charles, who had left for England in July, added Benjamin Rozer who had just married his stepdaughter, as well as the unrelated-to-the-Calverts merchant-planters Thomas Notley and Henry Coursey. In this Council, only four of the nine councilors were related to the Calverts, and one of them was a merchant-planter married that year into the proprietor’s family. The other members were all merchant- planters, making a total of six. After Charles returned to resume his leadership in person, he reversed policy in naming councilors once again, and the pattern of Calvert familial dominance increased dramatically 1679-88. There were six relatives out of eight members in Charles’ last council as governing proprietor in October, 1688; the two non-family members were both merchants.167 (See Table 5.2)

167 David W. Jordan pointed out that “...after 1676 the upper chamber was steadily becoming more Catholic, as the proprietor’s patronage favored co-religionists. Once again, a religious discrepancy between the appointed and elected members affected institutional developments and spurred the lower house to assert a stronger voice in governments.” While the council did become more Catholic over time, it did so at the same time as it became more family, The Calvert family was overwhelmingly Catholic. Certainly the Calvert’s opposition complained about the Catholic preference of Charles Calvert, but charges that the proprietor favored family in his appointments would have found less traction in London then charges of being Catholic. Starting in 1681, Charles Calvert ceased his former more balanced policy and restricted future appointments to the Council to Catholics, see David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p.80, 129 Charles Calvert’s Sewall stepchildren’s marriages were the lynchpin of his strategy to create a reliable and stable Council in the 1680s: see note #5 above. In his absence, Charles had named his infant son, Caecilus as governor, but the child took no part in any actual governance and has been excluded from 135 As tables 5.1 and 5.2 show, as a rule the proprietors choose merchants to fill the

Council’s seats the Calvert family could not. Moreover, whenever the proprietors named Protestants to sit on the Council, they were almost always resident merchant- planters. From 1661-1688 thirteen members of the council were Protestants, only two of whom were not merchants, and only one Protestant merchant-councilor, Benjamin

Rozer, was related in some way to the Calvert Family—by marriage to Charles’ stepdaughter. This was hardly accidental, merchants worked hard to place themselves into powerful positions, religion notwithstanding, and the Calverts were cultivating contacts within this rising elite.168 Merchants, who had to be more practical in their political leanings, gained seats on the powerful Council, and the Calverts were able to point to the appointment of Protestants to positions of power, helping to diffuse charges of Catholic favoritism.169 this analysis. 168 It may have been that commercial success of Digges and Rozer was what enabled them to marry into the Proprietor’s family in the first place. Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan’s Maryland's Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 traces the distinctly different make up of the membership in the assembly post Glorious Revolution. Catholics were eliminated, and the socio-economic status of councilors was lower then it had been in Restoration Maryland. Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland's Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974). For a more detailed analysis of the post-1690 Council, see David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) esp. pp. 141-182 Alison Games has showed how important trans-Atlantic mercantile enterprise was to English merchants in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Entering into trade in the Mediterranean in the 1570s, English discovered an “alien and inhospitable environment, in the Ottoman east and, especially, in the Catholic west. Accommodation, self-abnegation, and deception were crucial survival strategies. The English traveled in local garb. They masked their religion and their nationality, speaking deliberately in languages other than English to avoid drawing attention to themselves. They tried to pass as Catholic.” In order to be successful, the merchant class learned to be more pragmatic than prejudiced or zealous. Alison Games. “Beyond the Atlantic: English Globetrotters and Transoceanic Connections.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 63, No. 4 (October, 2006), pp. 680-683. 169 See, for example, the career of George Robotham, an ambitious, upwardly mobile Quaker. He emigrated by 1669 as a free adult, probably as a mason; he was partnered in 1673 with a Mr. Jackson, Bricklayer. Although he initially had no honorific attached to him, by 1673 he was referred to as Mister. He was a planter who had at his 1698 death over 1700 acres of land patented in Maryland. By 1683 he had formed a merchanting endeavor: George Robotham and Co. Not surprisingly as an ambitious merchant-planter, he served in the Lower House of the assembly from 1681 through 1697/8. He also sought out other public appointments such as a County Justiceship. Although Quaker, he took the 136 Even so, ambitious, wealthy merchant-planters who hungered for legislative influence and public affirmation of their socio-economic status were almost always denied nomination to the exclusive Council. There were other less exclusive avenues to pursue for influence over the policies that regulated trade and public acknowledgement of their status: they sought and won election to the Lower House. From 1661 to 1688, at least 166 different men were elected to the assembly as members of the Lower House.

Fifty-five (33.13%) were merchants, an overrepresentation relative to the population at large.170 Public service in the assembly, as important it was for merchants to influence proscribed oaths in order to serve; a pragmatic outlook to such service. During the turmoil of the Glorious Revolution he again attempted a pragmatic solution and tried to navigate a middle position between the Protestant Association and the Proprietary party, but by 1690, when Baltimore’s defeat seemed imminent, he had become a supporter of the revolution. Bending with the winds of change was important to maintain the political standing that resident merchant-planters sought. See Robothom, George in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp. 702-3 The best exposition of the religious hopes and policies and the use of patronage appointments of Catholics and Protestants of the Lords Baltimore can be found in John D. Krugler. English and Catholic: the Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). See also note 9 above. In 1979, Deputy Lieutenant Governor Thomas Notley was identified in the Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature as having left Catholicism and joining the Society of Friends. This was in error. In 1990, Kenneth L. Carroll examined the Journals of George Fox, who claimed to have converted the Speaker of the House and his wife in his mission in the bay in 1673. Carroll concluded, however, that the “Speaker” referenced was not Thomas Notley but rather Thomas Taillor, and did so convincingly. Kenneth L. Carroll. “The Honorable Thomas Taillor: A Tale of Two Wives.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol.85, No. 4 (December, 1990). pp. 379-394. When the burials at St. Mary’s Chapel were excavated, the archaeologists placed Thomas Notley on a short list of high-status Catholics who might have been interred there. See Henry M. Miller, Silas D. Hurry, and Timothy B. Riordan. “The Lead Coffins of St. Mary’s City: An Exploration of Life and Death in Early Maryland.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 99, No. 3 (Fall, 2005), footnote 16, p.365. 170 This information was compiled from the Session Lists of the Assemblies, 1661-1688 in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp. 24-30 and from the 166 individual entries for the members. The precise makeup of the occupations of Marylanders is difficult to say, there not being any contemporary censes. Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard and Lorena S. Walsh, in Robert Cole’s World, identified that the “great majority” of Marylanders were planters, tenants or inmates, not merchants. They found that “Gentry,” i.e., persons who had held some public office were merchants or more usually, large landowning planters. Even assuming that all “gentry” were merchants in their “Table 1.3 Proportions of Free Social Groups from Various Sources” the maximum percentage of merchants in the population was at most seventeen percent, and based on the two largest samples, probably only five to six percent. See Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard and Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991). pp. 21, 27 In an earlier article Carr and Menard declared that in the Restoration Era, “the small, owner-operated plantation had emerged as the dominant feature of the landscape; its proprietor a yeoman farmer of modest means...” see Russell 137 the critical policies they did, was not terribly remunerative in and of itself. Being elected a Delegate (elected member of the Lower House of the Assembly) in Maryland had only a small recompense: while they were seated in St. Mary’s, their room and board was paid by their constituents.171

Total Members No. Merchants % Held by Merchants Assembly, 1671-75 45 17 37.78 Patronage Positions 83 36 43.37 Patronage (-Militia) 42 21 50.00 Assembly, 1676-78 45 22 45.89 Patronage Positions 73 37 50.68 Patronage (-Militia) 40 22 55.00 Table 5.3 Number of Patronage Appointments held by Delegates Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

Total % % Merchant of All 1671-75 Members Merchants Merchant Delegates Catholic 10 4 40.00 8.89 Protestant 26 9 34.62 20.00

R. Menard, P.M.G. Harris and Lois Green Carr. “Opportunity and Inequality: the Distribution of Wealth on the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland, 1638-1705.” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 69, No. 2, (Summer, 1974) p. 182. While he did not define what he meant by “Gentry” James Horn identified that the vast majority of migrants to the Chesapeake were agricultural workers, but that among the gentry, the “...majority were from mercantile backgrounds...” James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1994). pp. 261-266. In eighteenth century Virginia, Peter V. Bergstrom found that merchants never amounted to more that .2% of the population. See Peter V. Bergstrom. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700-1775 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983) p.221. 171 It should be recalled that the assembly lodged, was fed, and met in the taverns of St. Mary’s like that of Garret VanSweringen. So much money was spent there by the assembly that VanSweringen was able to plan on retiring from most activities, launching a brewery, and only keeping inn at assembly and court times. But, although profitable for the innkeepers of St. Mary’s City, the assemblymen themselves did not earn much for their troubles. 138 Quaker 5 1 20.00 2.22 Total non-Catholic 31 10 32.26 22.22 Unknown 4 3 75.00 6.67 Table 5.4 Delegates, Merchants, and Religious Affiliation, 1671-75 Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

Total % % Merchant of All 1676-78 Members Merchants Merchant Delegates Catholic 5 3 60.00 6.52 Protestant 23 10 43.48 21.74 Quaker 12 4 33.33 8.70 Total non-Catholic 25 14 56.00 30.43 Unknown 6 3 50.00 6.52 Table 5.5 Delegates, Merchants, and Religious Affiliation, 1676-78 Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

While the ability to influence or even to determine policy legislatively did have great potential for improving merchants’ profits, these were not themselves the profitable positions that ambitious merchant-planters sought. The executive, judicial, and fiduciary functions of provincial and local government offered many powerful and / or potentially lucrative offices to the socially, politically, and economically ambitious.

The Calverts knew this and used their patronage powers to build and reward loyalty among the Delegates, but especially with the merchant-planters. The patronage positions held by the Assembly’s members of the 1671-75 and 1676 and 1678 sessions illustrated in Tables 5.3 and 5.4 show the merchant-planters’ greater success in gaining the

Proprietors’ patronage.172 In the 1671-75 assembly, forty-five men were elected to the 172 For an encyclopedic listing and description of the patronage in Maryland, see: Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953). Owings offered little or no analysis of the Calvert’s use of their patronage powers. David W. Jordan asserted that Charles Calvert increased his patronage to favor Catholics, and after the mid 1670s, he was more and more apt to maintain an officeholder in a position rather then continue his father’s pattern of frequent turnover. See David W. 139 Lower House in at least one session, seventeen (37.7%) of whom were merchant- planters.173 The Delegates of the 1671-75 assembly filled eighty-three different appointative positions at some point before or during their assembly service. They filled such local offices like Alderman of St. Mary’s City, county positions like justiceships and shrievalties and provincial positions like the Receiver Generalship (Public and

Proprietary Treasurer of Maryland).174 Merchant-planter members however were better at procuring these patronage appointments, earning more appointments then would be expected from their proportion of the entire house. Although every serving member had held at least one position up through 1675, thirty-six (forty-three percent) of these positions had been or were held by merchant-planter members.175 Excluding militia

Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 80, 108 173 Forty-five men had been elected to fill forty-eight positions in the assembly (Kent County only bothered to elect two men instead of four, and John VanHack served the first three session as a representative of Baltimore County, then in the fourth session he sat for the newly erected Cecil County). Somerset could not afford to send all four elected, and although elected, Ambrose Dixon and Ambrose London did not serve; merchant James Brown, of Baltimore County also did not serve as he was not in the colony at the time of the assembly. Merchant-planter Humphrey Warren would be elected, but died before he could take his seat. See “Proprietary Assembly of 1671-75” in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp. 26 and the individual entries. 174 This numeration does not account for promotions in militia rank. For example, William Burgess served as a Lieutenant from 1660, as a Captain from 1664, and as a Major from 1675; here these are counted as a single appointment. Fourteen men were given twenty-one militia ranks. Similarly, a member may have served multiple times in a position, but are only counted as a single office. For example, Joseph Wickes sat as Justice of Kent County from 1651-60 and again from 1671-83. Here, both tenures are treated as a single position. See A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) for the information on positions filled. 175 Considering the high turnover of Delegates in Restoration Era assemblies, this would indicate that the Calverts were proving to be fairly astute in identifying who was likely to be successful in a bid for a seat in the Assembly before they were elected. For an in-depth analysis of the Delegates, 1661-1689 see David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) esp. pp. 63-96 See “The Proprietary Assembly of 1671-1674/5” in the Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. Edward C. Papenfuse, et al, eds. (Baltimore: the Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) p.26. See also the individual Biographical Dictionary entries for each member for the information on positions filled. In the eighteenth century, a small number of professional politicians like Thomas Bordley, Daniel Dulany, and Philip Thomas made a significant income from proprietary offices. “Not surprisingly, the holders of these posts were far wealthier than the rest of the elite...” Trevor Burnard. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776 140 appointments, the members of the assembly were named by the Calverts to forty-two appointative positions at some point from during the sitting of the assembly, 1671-75; although merchant-planters were only slightly more than one third of the Delegates, they held twenty-one (fifty-percent) of these appointments.176

Lord Baltimore actively courted merchant-planters and favored them with patronage to build among them what was known as a faction—a group of legislators who could be relied upon to support the patron’s interests in the assembly. The merchant-planters were already a deeply interconnected group that shared common attitudes and ideas about policy, and many of those were shared by Charles Calvert, as will be shown below. This pattern of favoritism towards the merchant-planter Delegates persisted in Charles’ first assembly as proprietor. The Delegates in the 1676 and 1678 sessions of the assembly had been named by the Calverts to seventy-three different positions either before or during their assembly service, and merchants had filled thirty- seven (fifty-one percent) of them. Again, excluding militia appointments, of the appointments made during these two sessions, forty positions were filled by delegates as they sat in the assembly, twenty-two of them (fifty-three percent) by merchants.177 (New York: Routledge, 2002) p.47. 176 See “The Proprietary Assembly of 1676-1682” in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p.27. See also the individual Biographical Dictionary entries for each member for the information on positions filled. Militia appointments were excluded because it is unclear whether or not a commission was active, as military titles such as Captain, Colonel, and Major were often used long after the officer had left the duties of that office, and the positions were not offices of profit. John Jarbo, for example, was named Colonel in 1660, but whether or not he served in that capacity from 1671-75 is unclear. There were, however, seven men who were clearly all active militia officers in the period, four of whom were also merchants. 177 See “The Proprietary Assembly of 1676-1682” in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, p.27. See also the individual Biographical Dictionary entries for each member for the information on positions filled. As before, for the total number of offices, promotions in militia ranks were excluded, but doing so does not seriously alter the conclusions. Of the ten militia officers who served in the Lower House of the assembly, five were merchants. Unlike the 1671-75 assembly, seven members 141 Total Merchant- Members Planters Non-Merchants 1671-75 13.93 13.4 14.25 1676-78 16.02 17 15.00 Table 5.6 Legislators’ Years in Maryland, Before Election to Named Assembly178 Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

Avg. # of % Of Previous # of Veteran # First Time % Veteran 1671-75 Elections Legislators Legislators Veteran Legislators All Members 0.69 15 30 33.3 Merchant- Planters 0.71 7 10 41.1 46.7 Non-Merchant 0.68 8 20 28.5 53.3 1676-78 All Members 0.76 16 29 35.5 Merchant- Planters 0.62 6 15 28.6 37.5 Non-Merchant 0.88 10 14 42 62.5 Table 5.7 Delegates, Number of Previous Elections to the Assembly, 1671-78

(fifteen percent) had never been appointed to any position ever, three of whom were merchants. Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan briefly discussed the support Calvert had built up ‘over the years’ constructing a following among the Delegates and other public officials who had been elected and appointed to office, see Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689-1692. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974, pp.189-91. 178 By 1688 the length of residence in Maryland prior to first election lengthened to an average of sixteen years, but in none of the assemblies in Restoration-era Maryland were a majority of the Delegates have less then ten years residence. For a more comprehensive breakdown of Legislators’ years of residence in Maryland before election, see “Table 2. Years in Maryland at time of election, elected members, 1661- 1689” in David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987 pp. 74-75. Jordan noted that the few instances of brief residency in Maryland before first election “... came from a newly established county, where virtually all eligible voters and candidates were newcomers, or were individuals of exceptional skills, wealth or status, like the young William Calvert, nephew of the Proprietor, and lawyers Thomas Notley, John Morecroft, and Thomas Burford,” (p.74) 142 Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

The Calverts were neither rewarding long-time Maryland residents, nor simply favoring members who had been re-elected; their patronage was clearly skewed to merchant-planters. For example, merchants elected 1671-75 as delegates had, on average, 13.4 years of living in the Province before their filling their seats. Non- merchants who served in the assembly, on the other hand, had 14.25 years of residence or ten months more time in Maryland by the time of their election to this assembly.

Merchant-planter delegates had lived in Maryland ninety-four percent as long as non- merchant delegates, a very slight difference. In 1676-78 the positions reversed, with merchant-planters bringing seventeen years of experience to the non-merchants’ fifteen

(non-merchants had lived in Maryland for 88.2% as long as the merchant-planters).

Length of residence in Maryland was not the metric used by Cecil and Charles Calvert to choose to whom they gave patronage (see Table 5.7). Similarly, the Proprietors were not simply rewarding members who had been previously elected to the assembly. As

Table 5.7 shows, there was very little difference between merchant-planters and non- merchants in the average number of previous elections won. In 1671-75, merchant- planters were more likely to have been elected at least once before (41.1% of merchants were veterans, where only 28.5% of non-merchants were), but in 1676-78 the position reversed itself almost perfectly (28.6% of merchant-planters were veterans, and 42% of non-merchants were veterans of previous assemblies). In both assemblies, non- merchants were the majority of veteran legislators (53.3% in 1671-75, and 62.5% in

1676-78). If the Calverts’ granting of patronage had simply followed previous 143 experience in the Assembly, merchant-planters would have earned fewer appointments, not more (see Table 5.7).179 Neither previous tenure in office, long residence in

Maryland, religion, nor any other factor can explain the proprietors’ skewing of appointative offices to merchants. Only the conscious attempted on the part of the proprietors to develop a proprietary faction centered on resident merchants can.180

In His Lordships Patronage

The patronage available to the lord proprietor can be divided into three broad categories: provincial, county, and local. In general, provincial appointments were more

179 Furthermore, it is telling that the compilers of the Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature found no evidence that any of the merchant-planters in 1671-1678 were opponents of the proprietary. In fact, of the twelve members definitively identified in the records as Proprietary supporters, seven were merchant-planters. See the session lists in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635- 1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp.24-25 180 All of these numbers were extracted from a spreadsheet created from the entries in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985). There was considerable turnover in the assembly’s membership, 1660-89. Nine different assemblies met—in contrast in Virginia, 1661-76, there was only one election—half of the men elected sat in only one assembly, and only 24% sat in more than two legislatures. Of course, opportunity for election was cut in half in 1682, but in the six assemblies that sat before that date 48% were one-termers. “The Assembly of Maryland closely resembled its counterpart in Virginia in the low incidence of reelection, and both legislatures continued to contrast markedly with the contemporary House of Commons in England, the General Court of Massachusetts, and the assembly of Barbados, where more frequent reelections, lengthier tenures and a dominant political elite remained characteristic.” This fact would tend to give more experienced legislators more power, relatively. David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp.70-72. In Virginia the “Long Assembly” was elected in 1661, and sat until 1676 without a new general election held. Even so, there was turnover in the House of Burgesses comparable to that in Maryland due to deaths, appointments to the Council and offices (for example, as in Maryland, appointment to a shrievalty precluded service in the Virginia legislature), and other reasons. Seventy-seven men filled the fifty seats, twenty-seven of whom were veterans of the previous assembly. Only eight percent of the legislators sat in every session. See Warren M. Billings. A Little Parliament: The Virginia Assembly in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond: The Library of Virginia, 2004) pp. 107- 108. Similarly, the Virginia Assemblies of 1684 and 1685-1686 and 1688 were 50%, 40%, and 37% newcomers, respectively. See “Table 11: Number of Newcomers (First Timers) Elected to Burgesses” in Martin H. Quitt. Virginia House of Burgesses, 1660-1706: The Social, Educational, and Economic Bases of Political Power (New York: Garland Publishing, 1989) p.183. Neither Billings nor Quitt examined the occupations of the Burgesses beyond their ownership of land and slaves. Quitt’s “Chapter 5 The Wealth of the Burgesses” begins the discussion with the 1680 burgesses, see pp. 133-179. Quitt only examined the Shrievalty as a place of profit, although he begins the discussion noting that every member of the burgesses, 1660-1676 was also a member of their county courts, see pp.194-208 144 lucrative then county positions which were more lucrative than local ones. Assessing the relative desirability of each office must consider not only the potential of each position for profit, but also the duties required to earn them as well as how the position was paid. A cash salary, paid out of the annual levy, for example, was preferable to tobacco fees, usually collected by the sheriff —and then in usually in lower value trash- tobacco—who forwarded the receipts to the office-holder once per year, minus a commission. Other positions bore little more recompense than a daily expense allowance, while some carried nothing more than titles or military ranks.181

Not surprisingly, the most lucrative provincial positions went to the Calvert family. After all, Maryland was fundamentally a profit-making enterprise for the family. From 1671-75, nine men on the council held fifteen different provincial offices.

Eight held justiceships on the Provincial court. For five of the members these were the only provincial offices they filled. The remaining four councilors, Philip and William

Calvert, their nephew, William Talbot, and Baker Brooke (who had married Leonard

Calvert’s daughter) possessed some of the most powerful and lucrative positions available in Maryland. For over two decades Philip Calvert was the Chancellor, and he received fees for every patent that required the use of the Great Seal. The former governor was also Commissary General, President of the Council (de-facto Lieutenant

Governor) as well as a Justice on the Provincial Court. William Talbot filled the powerful Secretaryship, and Baker Brooke was Surveyor General, a lucrative office that collected fees for every land-grant applied for.

181 Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) pp. 102-3 for a thorough discussion of ranking the desirability of any given office. On military titles, pp. 1, 11 145 The most powerful and lucrative patronage position available to the Proprietor was the governorship, and from 1661-1676 the position was held by Charles Calvert, the heir to the title.182 When Charles Calvert departed for England to settle his father’s estate, he appointed his stepson-in-law Jesse Wharton to the post, but Wharton took ill and died within a month of his assuming the office, and according to instructions left by

Charles, the Council named the Deputy Lieutenant Governor Thomas Notley to succeed him.183

Notley had served in five consecutive assemblies in the lower house, from 1663 through 1676. In three of them (1666, 1671-75 and 1676) he was elected as Speaker of the Lower House. Although he had held only a single provincial office prior to his governorship, the Deputy Receiver Generalship in1669-70, it was one of the richest and most lucrative posts in the colony being in charge of all the income of the entire

182 Although precise numbers for the seventeenth century proprietary period are not clear, it is doubtful that the Governorship ever brought more than £1500 in any year, and it is probably safe to say that the income was nearer to £1000 during much of the 1661-80 period, still a princely sum for the time see Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) pp. 21, 23, 102. In the planned stint year, such duties would not have been paid, and so the assembly passed an act for paying Governor Charles Calvert twenty-five pounds of tobacco per pole “for as much as in the yeare sixty Seaven the will be noe tobacco made...” There was no comment on the authorizing of payment in a commodity that, of all went according to plan, would not be available to pay the charge. see Archives 2:149-150. The establishment of the Governor’s salary was included in the 1671 “Act for the Rayseing and Prouideing a Support for his Lordship...and likewise a Supply towards the defraying the Publick Charges of Gouernment” Archives 2:284-286 183 The title of the chief executive was officially Lieutenant Governor- as he was seen to be the proprietor’s lieutenant in Maryland. It should be made clear that the official Lieutenant Governor of Maryland in Charles’ absence was his infant son, Benedict Leonard Calvert. Wharton was thus technically the Deputy (i.e., acting) Lieutenant Governor, and Notley was the Lieutenant Deputy Lieutenant Governor. For obvious reasons, Wharton was simply styled Deputy Governor and Notley was simply Deputy Lieutenant Governor, and then Deputy Governor after Wharton’s death. See Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) p. 19 for a discussion of the titles. David W. Jordan commented that the naming of Wharton as Deputy Lieutenant Governor was unexpected, as doing so bypassed several other more experienced Councilors, including Chancellor Philip Calvert, the former Governor. Wharton’s unexpected death brought Thomas Notley into power, again bypassing Catholic Calvert Relatives. See Jesse Wharton “Delegation of Powers to Notley” Archives 15:112-118 for Wharton’s directing Notley’s succession as per Charles Calvert’s instructions. 146 province. The Receiver General was responsible for collecting all taxes, provincial levies, and duties owed for public expenditures but also all quitrents and other private income of the Lord Proprietor as well. The office-holder was entitled to a portion of the monies it collected, and as a deputy Notley would have paid a salary to Charles Calvert

(the nominal holder) and kept the remainder for himself. After his rise to the Council, he was named to the position outright; this time he was no deputy, but he had to share the office with his close friend (and recent husband to Charles’ stepdaughter) Benjamin

Rozer. The two men would have split the revenues from the position.184

Merchant-planter William Stevens joined Notley in holding a Provincial office.

Stevens was named by the Proprietor to the newly created post of Naval Officer of the

Pocomoke district, charged with inspecting and clearing all ships leaving the province, collecting all duties and fees from the ships inspected owed to the province and proprietor. As was normal for such revenue-receiving positions, Stevens would keep part of the collected duties and fees as his own payment, a very lucrative employment.185

184 Thus, from 1676 to his death in early1679, Notley enjoyed the incomes and responsibilities of two of the most lucrative and powerful positions in Maryland. See Notley, Thomas in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 616. See also Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) p. 166 185 See the individual Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 entries for the offices held. See Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) pp. 6-13 for the naval officers’ pay. Christopher Rousby was the Royal Collector of Patuxent- appointed by the crown- and as such earned a Royal salary of £200 per annum. He would have a famous falling out with the proprietor (see Chapter Three’s discussion of the Liverpoole Merchant case for an explanation), and would be murdered in 1684 by Col. George Talbot, a cousin of Charles Calvert. Before the 1678 break with the Calverts, Rousby seems to have been somewhat close to the proprietor; although a Royal appointment, it was normal for the crown to appoint someone nominated by Lord Baltimore. Despite this potential influence of the Calverts in his appointment, as an enjoyer of Royal patronage, Rousby’s service has not been included as part of this discussion on Proprietary patronage. See Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) p. 179, see also Rousby, Christopher in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: 147 At the county level, the members of the 1671-75 assembly had filled fifty-two county level positions at some point before 1675; twenty-four of these (forty-six percent) were filled by merchants. Of the thirty-four county positions delegates were named to during the assembly, fifteen (forty-four percent) were held by merchants. In the 1676-78 assembly, delegates had been named to fifty-one county offices, thirty-one

(sixty-one percent) of which were held by merchants. Thirty-four of the fifty-one were county justiceships, plus an additional Justice of the Peace for St. Mary’s County.

Five were sheriffs, easily the most potentially lucrative of the positions available at the county level. The sheriff not only possessed a salary as the proprietor’s representative in each county, but he was also entitled to a commission on virtually every type of remuneration they collected. The office was entrusted with collecting all the various fees due county and provincial officers in tobacco, and thus only collectable once per year, as well as all the levies, taxes, and after December, 1671, they were even deputed by the Naval Officer to collect the duties. While the potential for profit was great, the shrievalty was also one of the busiest offices in the entire province, and made great demands on time. “Unfortunately...” as Donnell MacClure Owings pointed out,

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp. 704-705. Talbot was taken out of Maryland to stand trial in Virginia, as it was feared that he would not see justice in a Maryland run by his cousin. For the contemporary account of the murder of Rousby, see the “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1681- 1685/6.” Archives 17:181-184, 243-244, 271, 272, 298-300, 300-311, 322-324, 326-348, 355-57, 359-60, 373, 410-412, 426, 475-483. Talbot would be convicted and sentenced to death in Virginia, but would be pardoned by King Charles II. Rousby’s murder by “an Irish Papist” was used to show the “ill usage and Affronts to the King’s officers” by the Calverts in the 1689 Declaration of the Protestant Association, justifying their overthrow of the Proprietary. See The Protestant Association of Maryland, 1689. The Declaration of the Reasons and Motives for the Present Appearing in Arms of Their Majesties Protestant Subjects in the Province of Maryland Licens'd, November 28th 1689. (St. Maries City, Maryland: printed by William Nuthead. Re-printed in London, and sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers Hall, 1689). See also: David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 130-131 148 ...the nature of the sheriff’s office in Maryland, as it required the collection of large sums in tobacco, made [a short tenure] impracticable. The sheriff had to hire numerous deputies, and he often gave credit to the poorest planters, paying their immediate obligations out of his own pocket. He was thus apt to lose money his first year and to realize a profit only in the second or third year of his incumbency.

It also disqualified the sheriff from serving in the Lower House. The members of the

1671-75 Lower House had held eight shrievalties, three of these by merchants. The delegates of the 1676 and 1678 sessions had held six, five by merchants, but three of them served for less than two years.186

County % of Justice County Members Before or Justices who who were During were Justices and Assembly Merchants Merchants 1671-75, Lower House 24 11 45.8 1671-75 Council / Upper House 1 1 100 1676-78, Lower House 32 15 46.9 1676-78 Council / Upper House 1 1 100 Table 5.8: Delegates, 1671-78, Named to County Justiceships by 1678 Source: Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature

186 See Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) pp. 3, 11, 59-60, 63, 67-71. See also entries for the members of the Lower House in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985). 149 The County Justiceship, on the other hand was relatively poorly paid, only entitling the possessor to a per diem payment for each day the Court actually sat. What these positions lacked in remuneration, they made up for with power and prestige; the justices were responsible for setting and spending the county levy, running the counties on a day-to-day basis, as well as hearing both criminal and civil cases. A merchant sitting as justice found it easier to prosecute his debtors, defend himself from his own creditors, not to mention the day-to-day regulation of all the trade practices passed by the assembly, all extremely important concerns to ambitious resident merchants. Of the twenty-four lower-house members of the 1671-75 Assembly named by the Calverts to the bench by 1675, eleven (45.8%) were merchants. In the 1676-78 assembly, merchant-planters had been named to fifteen of the thirty-two seats (46.9%) on the county bench filled Delegates by 1678, roughly equal to their overall proportion in the whole assembly. (see Table 5.8) To anyone who had frequent business before the court, filling a county-justiceship was vitally important despite low remuneration, a fact known to the Proprietor who distributed them and to the merchant-delegates who accepted them.187

187 See Donnell MacClure Owings. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953) p. 2 for a discussion of the remuneration of County Justices. In fact, Carr and Jordan, in their Revolution of Maryland Government concluded that the 1689 overthrow of Charles Calvert was so orderly precisely because of the emergence in the 1670s and 1680s of competent county courts. Populated by justices who were capable and used to exercising local power, and maintaining the peace, the county court system maintained a semblance of regular government, and regular order. It was this that prevented Maryland from once again falling into chaos, even as her central government dissolved. Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland's Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca, NY Cornell University Press, 1974). Peter Bergstrom found that in eighteenth century Virginia, the more merchant-planters who sat as justices on the county courts the suits for debt brought by merchants went through more quickly and proved easier for them to collect debts. In the counties with the fewest or no merchant-planter justices, debt cases experienced long delays and debtors often avoided judicial actions easily. Peter V. Bergstrom. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700-1775 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983) pp. 223-224 150 Merchants in Power

Service on the assembly or in the council not only served to affirm wealthy merchant-planters’ social status, but it also offered them an opportunity to shape policy congenial to their economic interests. In seventeenth century New England seaport towns, merchants “exercised a decisive influence in public affairs.” Their business required “regulation of markets, weights and measures, and the care and protection of harbors....” Maryland merchants were concerned about all of these topics, too. From

1661 to 1688, Maryland’s assembly passed 294 individual bills into law.188 Some of these were not about policies per se, but were rather directed at some specific individual or group. Twenty-five were for naturalizations, including the VanSweringen and

Cordea families, and another eight were directed declarations of resolution of individual legal cases. For example, merchant John Long of London, longtime client of Thomas

Notley, would be confirmed by the Assembly in 1674 in his lease of Walter Story’s land that had been won earlier by Notley as a judgment for debt. Story’s son was about to come of age and had legally challenged the decision in an attempt to immediately reclaim his patrimony. The assembly, with Long’s attorney Notley sitting as its

Speaker, declared the previous settlement to be binding, ending Story’s suit. It was good for an attorney to sit in the legislature.189 188 For New England see Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)), p. 96. Drawn from Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland. There were dozens, perhaps hundreds, of proposed bills during these years, but due to time and space constraints, this discussion will be limited only to bills that actually became law. 189 See “Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly September 12, 1681” Archives 7: 166 for a mention of the contract and the “Act for the Releife of Jacb Leisler of Newyorke Merchant” Archives 7:255 for the payment. Leisler had supplied Maryland’s 1677 diplomatic mission to the Iroquois at Albany, New York. For Story’s case, see John Long. “Petiton of John Long of the Citty of London, 151 Most laws passed were ‘temporary’ in that they were only to last three years, or until the end of the next meeting of the assembly. This provision in legislation functioned to ensure the proprietor called an assembly at least once every three years, lest most legislation simply cease to be in force. Eighteen of the acts of the Assembly reflected this and were acts ‘reviving’ (i.e., continuing) various temporary laws that otherwise would have expired; as few as seven were re-confirmed via this method in

1661, and as many as 170 in 1676. On average thirty-eight laws were revived.

Similarly, four more acts were collective repeals or confirmations of the expiration of previous legislation.190 Excluding these limited and routine types of bills, the Delegates

Merchant.” Archives 2:459-460. 190 Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan discussed the role the usual three year limit played: it enabled time to see how the laws would work out in practice, and ensured the assembly would meet at least once every three years, see Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974) p. 15. A constant problem in this period was discerning which laws were, in fact, laws. The assembly of 1671 in their review of legislation discovered that nearly half of the continuing laws were duplicates and others were incomplete in their dealing with some matters. See David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632- 1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 112. There were multiple orders to compile and publish all extant laws of Maryland, but with the vast majority of laws having so short a life, it was difficult to keep precise track. The information on the laws herein was collected from Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland. The proceedings of the Assembly were cross referenced in the Archives of Maryland Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/8 - September 1664; Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, April 1666 - June 1676; and Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly October 1678 - November 1683. Charles, third Lord Baltimore’s 1676 assembly was unusual in ‘confirming’ 170 laws as in force and an additional seventy as repealed or of no force. Charles was probably attempting to clarify the legal situation—doing some legislative housecleaning upon his ascension to the peerage before he departed for England. Excluding this extreme outlier, the second highest number of laws continued this was in the second session of the 1682 assembly where fifty-one laws were revived- the average number of laws revived in each assembly drops to thirty-three. A similar outlier for repeals was also in 1676 when seventy laws were confirmed as of no force. Excluding 1676 as an extreme outlier, the average number of laws repealed via this method drops to eight. 152 passed some 239 individual laws between 1661 and 1688.191 Sixty-two of these (twenty- six percent) were in some way related to trade.

Labor was a valuable imported commodity, and as such was deeply interesting to merchant-planters as both retailers and consumers and the Assembly moved to regulate both servants and slaves. Various acts set out the length of terms newly imported servants would be subject to, clarified what was meant by the common ‘according to the custom of the country’ clause in indentures, and regulated the terms of indentures.192

Slavery had first appeared in the legislative records of Maryland in 1639 when

Delegates ordered that all Christians “Slaves excepted” should have the liberties of

Englishmen, but it was in the mid-1660s that the statutory organization of the institution took shape. In 1664, the Delegates, led by their Speaker, Thomas Notley, passed An Act

Concerning Negroes & other Slaues. The act echoed earlier regulations passed in

Barbados, and it is probable that Thomas Notley, who had emigrated from Barbados, introduced the legislation. This statute established firmly in law that all “Negroes and other slaves” imported into the province would serve for “Durant vita.” Freeborn women who married slaves became slaves themselves, and any of their children were also enslaved. The Assembly did not address the issue of religious conversion of slaves to Christianity, however.193

191 Many of these individual laws were very closely related; there were for example, multiple Acts ‘Limiting Servants’ Times’ (1661, 1662, 1666, and 1671 with an additional clarifying act in 1662. There were two acts limiting ordinary keepers (1666 & 1669) and an additional two more ‘concerning’ them (1674, 1676) not to mention the 1661 “Encouragement of’ and the 1678 ‘regulation of’ ordinaries. 192 For example, “Acts for Limiting Servant’s Times” were passed in 1661, 1662, 1666, and 1671. Various other laws regarding servants were also passed, regarding bastardy (1662, 1674), runaways (1662, 1664, 1666, 1669, 1671, 1674), etc. see Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. (Baltimore: 1883-present.) Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland 193 See the “Act for the Liberties of the People” Archives 1:41. See the “Act Concerning Negroes & other Slaues” Archives 1:533-534. The construction of a slave-code in the 1660s and 1670s in Maryland is 153 The October, 1671 Assembly led once again by former Barbadian Thomas

Notley, serving as Speaker of the House, finally dealt with the issue. The Assembly passed the Act for Encourageing the Importacon of Negros and Slaves into this Province that made it clear that baptism in the Christian faith did not end a slave’s perpetual and inheritable servitude, just as earlier legislation had done in Barbados. The Assembly lamented that slave owners were not attempting to proselytize their charges, “...upon a mistake and vngrounded apprehension that by becomeing Christians they and the Issues of their bodies are actually manumited and made free and discharged from their

Servitude....” The salvation of African souls was only of secondary concern to the

Assembly, however. In the preamble of the act, the Delegates explained the real issue:

“Whereas Severall of the good people of this Province have been discouraged to import into or purchase within this Province any Negroes or other Slaves....” Saving slaves’ souls was not as important as importing, selling, and exploiting their bodies, as the title of the act made patently clear.194

The Delegates also addressed concerns over exports. In 1666 they outlawed trade with Indians for meat other than deer or wild fowl. The Assembly complained that

discussed in somewhat greater detail in David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp.101-103. For an in-depth discussion of Barbadian slave regulation see Richard S. Dunn. Sugar and Slaves; the Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624-1713 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972) pp. 324-362. 194 “Act for Encourageing the Importacon of Negros and Slaves into this Province” Archives 2:272. The important leadership in the assembly that Thomas Notley and other merchant-planters in trade with and frequently from Barbados is reflected in the similarities between the sugar island’s slave code and Maryland’s. It is no accident that both Thomas Notley and Benjamin Rozier were early adaptors of the practice. Both traded with Barbados and Notley at least had come to Maryland after living on the Island. The links between Barbadian and Chesapeake slavery were discussed in David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 101-102.

154 “the Indians under pretence of killing wild Hoggs doe Hunt and drive away their Tame

Hoggs and Cattle and doe moreouer Sell and Trade with the Inhabitants of this Prouince and likewise with forreigners and strangers for beefe and Porke....” This prohibition was in effect until its repeal in 1676. The importance of exporting pork had grown to the point where it had become a valuable enough commodity that it had become an important trade good for the natives as well. Very similar regulations were put in place at the same time in New England where they came in response to “enterprising Indians” successfully competing with whites in the sale of swine. The preamble to New

England’s regulation advised that New English mark their swine so as to prevent the natives from stealing unmarked pigs and selling them. “Earmark regulations aimed at least as much to make Indian sales difficult as to make Indians honest... In 1669 the chief complaint against the Natives’ trade in pork was their ability to undersell whites, and these regulations were designed to squeeze native competitors from the market.”

For large landowning merchants like Notley, Bateman, Cordea, Bateman, Rozer, etc., such acquisitions may have come at the expense of their own livestock holdings, and this limitation can also be seen as a protection of the larger merchant-planters’ economic endeavors.195

195 On the meat trade with natives, see Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, April 1666 - June 1676. Archives 2:130, 291, 337, 413. For the repeal of the prohibition on the Flesh Trade with natives, see Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. (Baltimore: 1883-present.) Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland p. 63 Swine were the animal most easily adopted into native ways of life. In New England, the General Court of Massachusetts forbade Indians from using earmarks to delineate ownership of swine. Leaving “Indians at the mercy of unscrupulous settlers who might steal their animals and mark them as their own. Colonists did not prohibit Indian ownership of swine, but they denied Indians the acknowledged symbol of legitimate possession” In 1669 Plymouth licensed some traders to sell guns and ammunition to the Indians, who had been producing the pork and selling it to Massachusetts for the weaponry. “If the Indians could obtain arms from Plymouth suppliers, they presumably would cede the Boston pork trade to Old Colony producers.” See Virginia DeJohn Anderson. “King Philip's Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problem of Livestock in Early New 155 Maryland’s most ambitious attempt at the regulation of exports also came in

1666 with the Act for the Encouragement of Trade, more commonly known as “the stint.” At first glance, the attempt to boost tobacco prices by forbidding its planting and limiting supply would seem anathema to merchants whose lifeblood was in the export and sale of the noxious weed. But politically powerful merchants in Maryland were also large plantation owners who had to contend not only with low tobacco prices, that hovered about a penny-per-pound in price, but also with the persistent trend of falling tobacco prices from 1660-1690. From 1660 to 1668 the farm price for tobacco fell by nearly half, from near 1.5d/lb to 0.8d/lb.196 Maryland’s assembly thought that the stint would reverse these fortunes and that “the desired End (vizt) the Encouragmt of Merchts to trade with us for our necessary apparell.” The stint would lower the supply on the market, thereby driving up prices. In the interim, it was hoped to encourage a diversification and development of the economy as Maryland planters turned to other crops and endeavors to earn their livings. The Assembly hoped that as the economy diversified new merchants who were not in the tobacco trade might follow and carry

England.” The William and Mary Quarterly. Third Series, Vol. 51, No. 4 (October, 1994), pp. 615-7 James E. McWilliams article on transition from a capitalist economy in the Chesapeake declared the local production of livestock for sale to newcomers a topic unstudied in Maryland: see note 16 in James E. McWilliams. “The Transition from Capitalism in the Chesapeake Bay Region, 1607-1760, an Interpretative Model.” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Summer, 2002) p. 151 Robert Cole’s production was centered on familial subsistence and local markets, including pork: see, Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard, and Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1991) pp. 33-49 196 “Act for the Encouragement of Trade” Archives 2:143-4. The Farm Price of Tobacco fell more or less consistently from a high of about a penny and a half per pound in 1660, to under a penny per pound in 1668, to 0.7 pennies per pound in 1690, the lowest price it ever reached. See Figure 6.1, Farm Prices and British Imports of Chesapeake Tobacco, 1616-1775 in John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British America, 1607-1789. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985 (1991 paperback edition)) p. 121. The downward trend in tobacco prices can be seen in Figure 3. Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 1616-1730: Logarithmic Model. in Charles Wetherell. “’Boom and Bust’ in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984) p.193 156 whatever Maryland produced, breaking the hold tobacco merchants had on Maryland’s trade. To pursue these ends, Governor Charles Calvert and the Assembly named six men to a commission to treat with both Virginia and Carolina in order to secure a complete cessation of all tobacco production in English North America. Philip Calvert led the commission, joined by planter-councilors Henry Coursey and Major Thomas

Brooke. The other three members were all resident merchant-planters from the lower house: Nathaniel Utie, former Speaker of the House Robert Slye, and the then current

Speaker, Thomas Notley.197

Maryland’s resident merchant community not only supported but led the efforts to impose the stint. Even though only about one quarter of the Delegates in the 1666 legislature were traders, resident merchant-planters were the entirety of their representatives on the commission entrusted with negotiating the stint. As merchants in the overseas trade, and as planters, they understood how reliance on a single commodity had left the province’s economy badly underdeveloped and they hoped to diversify the economic production of Maryland. In this attitude they were not alone. Famously, Sir

William Berkeley was a strong advocate of diversification efforts, and was a chief proponent of using a tobacco cessation to push the Chesapeake away from tobacco and into the production of other commodities like silk and potashes. Other contemporary thinkers like William Bullock in his 1649 work, Virginia Impartially Examined, 197 Governor William Berkeley in Virginia similarly hoped that diversification of production would take hold in the Old Dominion during the stint, and he too hoped to break the hold that tobacco merchants had on the economy of Virginia. Berkeley believed that the only way to create a sustainable, diverse economy in Virginia would require free trade. See Warren M. Billings. “Sir William Berkeley and the Diversification of the Virginia Economy.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 104, No. 4, (Autumn, 1996) pp. 433-454. For a brief analysis of efforts to limit tobacco production, see Theodore Saloutos “Efforts at Crop Control in Seventeenth Century America.” The Journal of Southern History. 12:1 (February, 1946) pp.45-66.

157 concluded that tobacco monoculture was a detriment to the development of the

Chesapeake, and advocated silk and grain production. Maryland’s Eastern Shore economy would diversify into grain production, but only in the eighteenth century.198

Notley and Rozer, both from Barbados, undoubtedly knew of the potential to build a victualling trade to the Caribbean. Cordea, Quigley, et al, were also closely tied to the

198 John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard summarized the literature that Virginia was not a success until tobacco was discovered and production took off in the 1610s-1620s. They agreed that the economy of the region was dominated by tobacco throughout the colonial period, but acknowledged that there was considerable variation on the local level. Even though diversity and exports other than tobacco grew from the 1620s to the 1770s. “The Tobacco Industry must stand at the center of any interpretation of the economy of the colonial Chesapeake.” Ironically, “...when times were prosperous colonists possessed the means to diversify, but not the will; during depressions the will was there, but not the means.” See John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British America, 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985) pp. 118-119, 126. Governor Berkeley’s failed efforts to diversify Virginia’s production are traced expertly in Warren M. Billings. “Sir William Berkeley and the Diversification of the Virginia Economy.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 104, No. 4, (Autumn, 1996) pp. 433-454. Billings concluded that Berkeley’s efforts ultimately failed because: 1. Free trade, necessary to supply markets for non-tobacco exports, was not acceptable to the Stuart vision of a London-centered empire and Navigation system. 2. His ability to produce various crops on Green Spring tended to give him exaggerated confidence with which ordinary planters could switch themselves- his successes came because of his access to capital, markets, and labor; only a handful of other Virginians could match him. Most planters simply could not afford to switch. 3. He completely missed promoting easier crops and their emerging markets, especially the growth of grains for a victualing trade to the West Indies. Berkeley’s Virginia, unlike Maryland, never sought statutory encouragement of grains. From the ordinary planter’s perspective, much of his anti-tobacco measures were of no real benefit to them, and the increased taxes were supporting the economic experimentation of only a few- and they choose to stay with tobacco monoculture rather than engage a “misbegotten policy” that benefitted only an elite few. (pp. 451- 453). Lorena Walsh agrees that diversity was an elite concern, as realistically only the elite had the resources to purchase the plows, afford the labor to manure the land used for grains. “Even the most ardent advocates of more diversified enterprises recognized that the certain annual income [from tobacco] put attempts to produce other staples ‘out of the hands of the common people.’ It was ‘the wealthier sort’ [who had to begin the process.]” Chesapeake elite continued to advocate diversity (as had the VA Co) in the same ways as had been done in the past. “They sought to achieve these objectives by similar methods —manly exhortation, restraints, and bounties that benefitted only the elite. Their actions seem to have stemmed from a naive belief that planters could shift overnight to other economic activities if they only would, and from an exaggerated faith in the natural potential of the country.” All the while, these largest planters continued to produce ever larger crops of the weed, contributing to the very glut that they decried.” Lorena S. Walsh. Motives of Honor, Pleasure, & Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607-1763 (Chapel Hill: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2010) pp. 187-188 Peter Thompson’s “William Bullock's ‘Strange Adventure’” discusses a heavily annotated copy of Bullock’s Virginia Impartially Examined and shows how in the mid- seventeenth century, diversifying the economic output of the Chesapeake was a topic very much in the air. Bullock proposed that Virginia begin encourage silk production and the growth of grains for export. Bullock even transported 300 settlers to Virginia in an effort to see his plans come to fruition, but a storm and a shipwreck dashed his plans. Peter Thompson. “William Bullock's ‘Strange Adventure’: A Plan to Transform Seventeenth-Century Virginia” The William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, Vol. 61, No. 1 158 more diverse intercoastal trade. The traders who would benefit most from a diversification of production were resident Maryland merchants themselves; they already had the connections to other New World markets to export grains, salt-pork or

(January, 2004) pp. 107-128. Paul G. E. Clemens argued that on the Eastern Shore in the eighteenth century, diversification in agricultural output came not from problems in the tobacco market, but rather from greater opportunities in other markets, enabling greater profits and less reliance on a single crop. “Many of the merchants and planters who took the lead in introducing cash grain farming long continued to derive a substantial part of their income from tobacco.” Adding grain production came from two factors: one, the growth of demand in grain markets thanks to crop failures in southern Europe, and the realization that grain production could be added to tobacco w/o dropping tobacco production. The Merchant-planter elite that Clemens is discussing rationally directed its efforts where market demands could be met. As rational economic actors, they shifted in the mid-eighteenth century because they knew that they could do so and make money. Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) pp. 168- 170. If true, these earlier efforts were doomed as markets for diverse produce were not developed sufficiently to take up their demand. Lois Green Carr argued that diversification of the Maryland economy was a largely eighteenth century phenomenon. Until 1680, tobacco had been an expanding industry, even as prices were falling. But enough profit was possible because as prices fell, markets expanded, and planters became better and better at prizing hogsheads, gaining efficiency in shipping costs and maximizing production per hand.. After 1680, due to war and saturation of the home market, tobacco stagnated. And there were no more efficiencies to squeeze out of tobacco- workers produced as much as they could, and hogsheads were prized as full as they could be. Lois Green Carr. “Diversification in the Colonial Chesapeake: Somerset County, Maryland, in Comparative Perspective.” in Colonial Chesapeake Society. Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1988) pp. 342-382 James Horn argued that increased diversity in grain, meat, and other foodstuffs like fruit and cider emerged in the last third of the seventeenth century as returns from tobacco slumped. He links the shift as dependent upon falling returns from tobacco sales, and argues that it was those planters on marginal or poor tobacco lands, in the interior, on the frontier, far from the best lands on rivers; the regions with the poorest lands shifted first. James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) pp. 143-144. James E. McWilliams argues that that the seventeenth century Chesapeake was a more capitalist place than that of the eighteenth century. “The Chesapeake region from 1620 to 1700 was a place where the barriers to economic progress through capitalistic strategies were lower, more fluid, and easier to hurdle that they would be between 1700 and 1760, when the burgeoning colonial American economy hemmed itself in with rigid social, political, and legal constraints.” (p.137) McWilliams agreed that the more diverse economic world after 1720 on the Eastern Shore described by P.G.E. Clemens was the result of fewer opportunities for small planters, and greater economic, social, and political control of the elites. See James E. McWilliams “The Transition from Capitalism in the Chesapeake Bay Region, 1607-1760, an Interpretative Model.” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Summer, 2002) p. 151. The development of a sizable export in grains and flour would have to wait until the mid-eighteenth century, despite the best efforts of Virginia and Maryland elites in the seventeenth century. After 1750, Baltimore Town began to grow rapidly, as the region was pulled away from tobacco and more into the grain and flour trade. This move was the result of crop failures in Europe, better mechanisms for distributing colonial produce, new German migration to family farms growing wheat on lands unsuitable 159 other manufactures, if they could only break the hold of non-resident English overseas tobacco merchants.199

The Delegates of the 1666 assembly were deeply concerned about the non- resident merchants, who were not terribly interested in diversifying their purchases and who could be expected to be angry at efforts to limit the tobacco crop. This fear of

English merchants working to undermine efforts at weaning the Chesapeake off of tobacco was shared by Governor Berkeley. The stint was only one part of a concerted effort on the part of Maryland’s assembly to liberate Maryland from them. Maryland’s

1666 Assembly passed other bills designed to strike at English tobacco-merchants’ dominance of the trade and their actions that could potentially derail the stint. Passed in the Spring of 1666, the Delegates complained in the Act Touching Payment of Debts in the Year 1667 that merchants “trading into” the province, i.e., non-residents, were refusing to accept the leftovers of the 1665 crop even as seconds, and were instead for tobacco in any case. The shift finally came from larger economic and demographic dynamics not legislative proscription, see Charles G. Steffen. From Gentlemen to Townsmen: The Gentry of Baltimore County, Maryland, 1660-1676 (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1993) pp. 137-163. 199 It appears from what (poor) evidence survives for Virginia, that Maryland was a better “poor man’s country.” Most servants got land into the 1670s, and nearly half eventually held some office. Whereas Virginians, “Hedged in by meager profits and dependence upon merchants and wealthy planters for credit to but essentials, the world of the small planter became increasingly constricted as the going got tougher in the last third of the century.” James Horn pointed out that in Virginia, where poverty among small planters was worse than in Maryland., there were complaints that the planned 1668 stint would simply relegate the small planters, on old and worn grounds to crushing poverty as they would be limited in the number of plants they could tend, tending to support the reasoning that Cecil Calvert gave for vetoing the bill. James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994) pp. 152-157. But it appears that in Maryland, the smaller planter would possibly have been able to get by, thanks to the rest of the legislation written by this assembly discussed below. Powerful, elite merchant-planters support the stint; they had the mercantile connections to the West Indies to expand a victualling trade, and other colonies for other produce in the intercoastal trade. They also had land that could be used to produce more goods, and yet maintain production of tobacco. Their labor supply, much of it enslaved, could be forced to work on additional crops in ways that smaller planters and servants may have balked at. Servants did have rights, after all, in ways that slaves did not. For the wealthy, land-rich, slave-labor, merchant-planter the stint could do nothing but help.

160 contracting debts to be paid out of 1666’s crop, leaving Maryland planters with half a year’s production to simply discard and forcing them to plant another crop of tobacco besides. This would have ruined any efforts to cease tobacco production. It was no great leap to assume that a similar circumstance would exist at the end of 1666 if the plans for the cessation of tobacco production were thereby forced to fail. If this happened, by 1667 Marylanders would be saddled with an entire years worth of production in storage, doomed to rot, or worse yet, exported during the planned stint, maintaining the tobacco market and thereby ruining the entire valorization project.

Unfortunately, Marylanders were dependent upon imports brought, in large part, by the tobacco merchants. With the alternative being to leave most Marylanders unable to purchase vital imported goods, or being forced to grow tobacco and thereby break the stint, the Delegates ordered that

... all mrchts their Factors & Attorney's and all other psons whatsoever within this Province shall be obliged to receive their debts being duely tendred uto them att any time betweene the 10th of November next [1666] and the last of January [1666 / 67] then next following And that all Sound tobacco whether of this yeares planting or of the next crop so tht itt be free from ground leaves and Seconds shall be held Merchantable and Fitt to be tendered for any debts whatsoever200

Under the law, merchants trading into the province would be required to accept the by then year-old tobacco as satisfaction for debts as if it were from the new crop. While the

Assembly did not forbid the planting of a new crop, by making stored tobacco worth the same as new would not only enable smaller planters to pay off debts with tobacco

200 See the “Act Touching paymt of Debts in the Yeare of our Lord MDCLXVII” Archives 2:142-143 161 already on hand, but hopefully less tobacco would be planted, reducing supply that might be used to carry the tobacco trade and sustain its crushingly low prices over the planned stint year.

The Assembly continued its offensive, passing the Act Prohibiting Foreign

Ingrossers. An engrosser was someone who purchased goods in large quantities with the intent of setting up a monopoly in order to drive out local competition. This was of deep concern to local resident merchants, who, although wealthy by Maryland’s standards, were not as well capitalized as overseas traders and could not hope to compete with any such attempt at dominating local trade. The anger of Marylanders at the structure of the tobacco trade controlled by ‘strangers’ trading into the province was clear in the preamble to the law:

Whereas divers masters and Merchants of Shipps and other Vessels tradeing into this Province doe purchase great quantityes of Tobacco and afterwards, imploy the same Tobacco in buying Comodities Imported and either sell the said Comodities to the Inhabitants of this Province att Excessive Rates or Export the said Comodities to the great losse damage and detryment of the Inhabitants of this Prouince...201

Maryland’s Delegates echoed the age-old complaint of farmers producing commodities for the market, that middlemen reap all of the profits by paying below fair market value for the produce and sell imported goods—themselves purchased with the sale of the planter’s crop—to the planters at exorbitant prices. All of the mind-numbingly hard labor of tobacco planting was the planters’ and yet every year tobacco prices either stayed depressingly low or worse, fell. At the same time, what the planters purchased with that tobacco became more and more expensive. These two trends taken together

201 See the “Act prohibitting Forreign Ingrosers” Archives 2:131 162 served to drive the material standard of living down ever further. Every year, the harder they worked, the less they had to show for it. The only winners in the game were the

“Merchants of Shipps and other Vessels tradeing into...” Maryland. The interests of the

Maryland-based resident merchants and the pure planters came together here, and the

Assembly ordered that all non-resident merchants who had bought tobacco at excessively low prices, and / or sold goods at excessive high prices to be fined the value of all the goods they carried. Exactly what excessive prices were, and who was to adjudicate them, however, was not made clear in the act.

Considering all of these acts together, the planned stint was not only an attempt at valorizing of tobacco prices and perhaps even fostering greater diversity of production, but it should also be seen as part of a larger expression of anger against overseas English merchants trading into the province, anger shared by both ordinary planters and the merchant-planter elite. Without a surviving record of the debates it is impossible to determine who supported these bills. It is clear that initially many in the

Lower House resisted the efforts of the Governor and Council to cease tobacco planting, fearing the smaller planter would be unable to pay his debts, usually contracted for in tobacco. But once this other legislation aimed at overseas merchants and the payment of debts was promised, the Thomas Notley led assembly approved the measure. It is of no small significance that Thomas Notley was only in his second assembly as a representative of St. Mary’s County, and this was his first assembly in which he had been elected to be Speaker of the House. As such, it is likely that he was critical in uniting the common desire for the cessation with the Delegates’ concerns over debts.

Merchant-planter Robert Slye, who joined Notley on the commission to negotiate the 163 stint, had been Speaker in the previous assembly. Maryland’s leading resident merchant-planters who were also the leading legislators supported and led the stint and the other bills that were passed to make certain it succeeded, forging political links that would last well into the future.202

Supporters of the stint hoped it would raise the price of future crops and by fostering a more diverse production of crops for the market by planters experimenting with other crops in the non-tobacco year. In the end, Lord Baltimore’s veto—which he explained came because of “the great Inconveniences wch may follow from the same

Not only to the Poorer Sort of the Planters within our sayd province” and, perhaps more importantly for a Catholic peer living in England, “but alsoe to the Kings most excelent

Majesty in relacon to his Maties Customes” destroyed this attempt at valorizing tobacco prices. It bears noting that the only cessation attempt to actually have an appreciable effect on tobacco production took place in Northern Virginia in 1682 when impoverished planters, angered at the failure to get a legal cessation enacted in 1681, angrily went out and destroyed as much of the crop as they could, so Cecil, Lord

Baltimore’s professed fear that smaller planters would be driven to ruin in 1667 were possibly overplayed. While the Hurricane and Dutch attack of 1667 temporarily raised

202 See David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 103-105 for a discussion of the assembly and the negotiations between the two houses. On the “Plant cutting Riots” See Arthur Pierce Middleton. Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1953 (1984 paperback edition)) p.127. Aubrey C. Land described the problems that tobacco monoculture fostered among smaller planters: “He was at the mercy of a European market and of market mechanisms operated by others. None of the measures ready to his hand ever really promised the decided hike in prices necessary to put the small producer on the road to affluence. Through his representatives in the provincial assemblies he tried restrictions on planting and in seasons of extremity he took to direct action in tobacco-cutting riots. Neither helped appreciably, even temporarily.” see Aubrey C. Land. “The Tobacco Staple and the Planter’s Problems: Technology, Labor, and Crops.” Agricultural History 43:1 (January, 1969) p. 75

164 prices, just as if a stint had taken place, it did not enable the Marylanders to work over the course of the growing season on new crops or products that might permanently wean the province off of the noxious weed. Another solution was needed. The 1669

Assembly simply declared that debts contracted for in money would be paid for in tobacco at the rate of one and one-half pence per pound—its 1660 market price. Any creditor who refused to accept tobacco valued at that rate would be without redress to collect the debt at law. This controlled price was nearly double the price tobacco had been selling for on the market and offered considerable advantage to the debtor. Of course, overseas merchants could simply inflate the prices of their goods to make up any potential losses, but at least Marylanders would be better able to predict their precise indebtedness in any given year.203 This heavy-handed solution did not alter the real problems that underlay the economic system. The 1669 Assembly incorrectly identified the root of the problems as the greed of avaricious merchants. Although greed certainly

203 See Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “Disassent to Cessation of Tobacco Planting” Archives 3: 561-562. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 104. 1667 was a disastrous year in the Chesapeake. In April hail not only destroyed most of the tobacco and corn already planted, but killed hogs and cattle. The Dutch raided the bay in June, followed by a biblical forty day rain that swamped out most of the remaining tobacco. In August, a hurricane hit, ‘the great gust’ which ruined most of the housing, fences, and tobacco left. Only thirty shiploads of tobacco left Virginia that year. The next year, eighty ships left, and the Secretary of Virginia noted, sadly, that Virginians could produce enough tobacco in two years to fill the fleet for three. Edmund S. Morgan. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975 (1995 paperback edition)) pp.242-243. See the “Act for Paymt of money debts with Tobacco, 1669” Archives 2:220-221. The law would not be renewed in 1671, and was confirmed as repealed / of no force in 1676. See Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, April 1666 - June 1676. Archives 2:338-339 and Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. (Baltimore: 1883-present.) Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland pp. 53 & 63. Lorena S. Walsh argues that Cecil, Lord Baltimore was worried that it would have relied upon neighbors to report on neighbors for enforcement, which he feared could have led to social disorder. Lorena S. Walsh. Motives of Honor, Pleasure, & Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607-1763 (Chapel Hill: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2010) p. 184 165 impacted local prices, it was largely a glutted tobacco market in Europe that was dictating the price English merchants were able to pay.

The repayment of debts was a constant concern to Restoration-era Marylanders and her merchant community. With the vast majority of debts valued in tobacco, it was at least implicitly required that tobacco be grown to pay them. The planter had little choice but to plant or otherwise procure tobacco if he hoped to pay off his debts, taxes, and quitrent at the end of the year regardless of the price and profitability of the crop. A local, circulating currency would help to solve these problems. In 1661 Maryland’s

Assembly explained why the colony should launch its own currency in the Acte

Concerning the Setting up of a Mint within this Province of Maryland:

For as much as money being the Rule and measure of the vallue of Commodityes noe trade or Comerce can be well managed without itt, And the want of itt in this Province is a mayne hinderance to the Advancement of this Collony in Trades Manafactors Townes and all other thinges which conduce to the flourishing and happy State thereof... 204

With debts in the colony valued and paid in pounds of tobacco this bill was expressing the same frustration with being locked into tobacco production as the stint. The

Delegates blamed the lack of a circulating currency not only for the one-sided extractive agricultural economy, but also for the lack of economic development into manufactures and the troubling lack of towns and other such signs of European civilized society.205

204 See the “Acte Concerning the Setting vp of a Mint within this Province of Maryland” Archives 1:414- 415. 205 That the British colonies were perpetually in need of currency is well-known. See Curtis Nettels. “British Policy and Colonial Money Supply” The Economic History Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, (October, 1931) pp. 219-245 While later authors have disagreed with Nettels’ assertion that it was mercantilist policy that drove coins from the colonies, it is well accepted that circulating currency was in short supply 166 The mint was never allowed, and the problems of the lack of a circulating currency did not go away. The March-April 1671 session of the Assembly again took up the issue. In An Act for the Advancement of Fforreigne Coynes, echoing their counterparts form ten years earlier, the Delegates lamented:

fforasmuch as Tobacco is the only comoditie of this Province which is att So Low a Rate that noe Manufactures handicrafts or Tradesmen in which Consists the welfare of all fflowrishing Countries Cannot Subsist without the help Conveniences and assistance of Ready mony

This Assembly decided to encourage all who might import foreign coins into Maryland to do so. After ten years it was clear that England would not supply coins anytime soon, in Briton’s North American colonies. For one example of a critique of Nettels, see Roger W. Weiss.“The Colonial Monetary Standard of Massachusetts” The Economic History Review New Series, Vol. 27, No. 4, (November, 1974) pp. 577-592. Massachusetts’ mint, established in 1652 was suppressed in 1684 by the crown as it violated the royal prerogative. See Richard Sylla “Monetary Innovation in America” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 42, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History (Mar., 1982), p. 24. See also Arthur Nussbaum. A History of the Dollar (New York: Columbia University Press, 1957) p. 4. See also Philip L. Mossman. Money of the American Colonies and Confederation: A Numismatic, Economic and Historical Correlation (New York: The American Numismatic Society, 1993) pp. 72-90 For a comprehensive history of Massachusetts’ Mint, 1652-1684, and its mint master see Louis Jordan. John Hull, the Mint, and the Economics of Massachusetts Coinage (London: University Press of New England, 2002) In 1659 Cecil Calvert actually had coins minted for use in Maryland, the coins were never shipped to the Province, although some sample coins apparently were sent to the Council. See Clayton Colman Hall. The Lords Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate: Six Lectures on Maryland Colonial History (Baltimore: J. Murphy, 1902) pp. 177-179. See also: Philip L. Mossman. Money of the American Colonies and Confederation: A Numismatic, Economic and Historical Correlation (New York: The American Numismatic Society, 1993) pp.90-92. In New England, the lack of a sufficient circulating currency was responsible for retarding the development of the economy, and kept specialization in trade from taking hold. The merchant-retailer (shopkeepers did not emerge as a separate occupation) had to accept a variety of goods in exchange for his own wares. Bernard Bailyn. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century. (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955 (1979 Paperback Edition)) p. 100. Cecil, Lord Baltimore concluded from his reading of his charter that he was enabled to mint coins, but “On October 4, 1659, information having been laid before the Privy Council that Baltimore was coining and exporting large quantities of silver, a warrant was issued for his apprehension…” The arrest was modified the next day to a summons to appear before the Council. No record of Cecil’s answers to the Council survives. See William Hand Browne. Maryland: The History of a Palatinate (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1887) pp.114-117. Maryland never really solved the problem of the lack of a currency until the inspection system emerged in the mid-eighteenth century. The Warehouse-issued deposit slips functioned, poorly, as a circulating currency of sorts, see: Mary McKinney Schweitzer “Economic Regulation and the Colonial Economy: The Maryland Tobacco Inspection Act of 1747.” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 40, No. 3, (September, 1980) pp. 551-569 See also Arthur Pierce Middleton. Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1953 (1984 paperback edition)) pp.50, 137-141

167 either sterling or a Maryland currency. Foreign coinage was the only other possible supply, but confusion over their value created a potential conversion problem.

Accordingly, the assembly ordered that

That all Coynes (except the Coynes of his Royall Maiestie the King of great Brittayne) hereafter named shall be Advanced Taken and Recd by all Persons for the ffull value in mony sterling as they by this Act are Enioyned

English sterling was exempted from enumeration in the act as convertibility between pounds sterling and tobacco had already been established in earlier legislation—at a premium of over fifty percent. The act was comprehensive and deferential to English markets in its enumerations, ordering that all non-English gold and silver coins be valued at the rate they were in England. But, once converted, the Assembly ordered that those coins “shal be paid taken and Received with the Advance of three pence sterling in the vallue of Twelve pence sterling Conteyned in Every Such pece as the Same is vallued in England...” i.e., a twenty-five percent premium for paying a debt in coin, a strong incentive for a debtor to attempt to gain them. Any creditor who refused to accept the coins at the rates mentioned as payment would have no recourse at law to recover the debt. Of course, in order to maintain the circulating currency, the imported coins would have to stay within Maryland and the Assembly forbade their re-export.

The Delegates saw this legislation as so important its term was to last for ten years and was not to expire at the end of the next assembly; in other words, this was a more or less permanent law.206

206 See “An Act for the Advancement of Fforreigne Coynes” Archives 2:286-7. Maryland was following a trend in the colonies to pass such legislation that inflated the value of coins in exchange. Pennsylvania Passed similar legislation in 1698, and Virginia’s attempt at “inhancing the vallew of al foran quoine” was introduced by Accomack in 1697. See John J. McCusker. Money and Exchange in Europe and America, 1600-1775 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978) footnotes 6 & 8 pp.118, 118-119, 189 168 As a final inducement to import coins, the Assembly also required that all payments of the two-shilling excise they had granted to Cecil, Lord Baltimore for his life be made in coin, not tobacco. This requirement forced planters to acquire some coins in order to pay the duty, thus encouraging the import of coinage. It was hoped that local planters would acquire more coins than would be required to pay and whatever was left over would remain in the province and help fill the need for a circulating currency.

Although the drafters of the 1671 foreign coins law felt it to be so necessary they gave it the unusually long terms and the bonus to the Proprietor, it would be repealed in 1676 as part of Charles Calvert’s housecleaning as he prepared to leave for England after his father’s death. Restoration-era Maryland never solved the problem of the lack of a circulating currency, despite their best efforts.207

Lacking coins made the tobacco-based bartering system expedient, but not ideal, as it locked planters into tobacco production. On top of the difficulties already

207 Thomas Notley was instrumental in getting this permanent excise granted to the proprietor. See Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, April 1666 - June 1676. Archives 2:287 See Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. (Baltimore: 1883-present.) Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland pp. 56, 63 Although the drafters of the 1671 foreign coins law felt it to be so necessary they gave it the unusually long terms and the bonus to the Proprietor, it would be repealed in 1676 as part of Charles Calvert’s housecleaning as he prepared to leave for England after his father’s death. Charles’ voyage was to confirm his inheritance and rejecting this act may have been an attempt to curry favor with the crown. It was not until the 1730s that Maryland issued a paper currency in the form of £90,000 in Bills of Credit. Although there were increasing references to gold and silver coins in Maryland, “From the 1730s to the mid-1750s ‘the current money of Maryland’ meant paper money.” In addition, in the eighteenth century, receipts for tobacco stored in official warehouses began to circulate as ‘tobacco notes.’ Tobacco certificates had circulated in the 1660s in Antigua. See John J. McCusker. Money and Exchange in Europe and America, 1600-1775 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978) footnote 4 pp.117, 191. The continental colonial assemblies used various laws in efforts to correct the lack of a sufficient circulating money supply, using “commodity money, overvalued coin, and paper currency. In the process they were not always careful to offer full protection to the rights of English merchants and the crown.” Like Maryland, it was not uncommon to allow payment in devalued colonial currencies or at unfavorable—to the creditor—exchange rates. The Board of Trade consistently struck down such rules. See McCusker’s Money and Exchange, pp. 125-126

169 mentioned, Marylanders knew that tobacco hampered trade through its great bulk relative to its value. Every year ships came into the Chesapeake in ballast, the space and tonnage on board the tobacco fleet required to carry the goods brought out of England into the province was far lower than that of the tobacco used to purchase it. Ideally, every leg of a trading adventure would carry a profit, but those in the Chesapeake tobacco trade had to send out from England nearly empty ships in ballast. A nearly empty ship carrying mostly ballast cost the same to operate as a one fully loaded with goods, only ballast paid no freight. This drove down the prices paid for tobacco in the

Chesapeake, as the tobacco alone had to bear the costs of both legs of the journey. This higher cost made entry into the Chesapeake trade more difficult for merchants who were less-capitalized. Ships arriving in ballast were not only driving down the value of

Maryland’s tobacco crop, but the practice was feared to threaten the future of all trade in the Bay. In 1664 the Assembly complained that ships customarily dropped “their ballast in such Creekes and Harbours where they Comonly Ride to take in their ladeing...” So much was being dumped in the estuaries that the Assembly feared that if it was not

“timely prevented and redressed” that the custom would prove to be the ruin of the chief harbors in the province because it would fill the places they easily took on their cargo.

If the dropped ballast did fill in the loading places, ships would still be loaded but only by the transport of smaller vessels first, an expensive and labor intensive process; a development that would again favor the larger, better capitalized overseas merchants.

The Act for the Preservation of the Seuerall Harbours within this Province ordered that in the future any dumping of ballast be done on shore, above the high water line, and ordered a penalty of 2000 pounds of tobacco for every infraction. As in the passing of 170 the stint, this was of keen interest to local merchant-planters, and highlights the need they had to build coalitions of interest with planters and the proprietor in order to get their policies passed into law.208

The desire to diversify away from tobacco pre-dated the stint, however. In 1662 the Assembly continued to deal with these various concerns raised by tobacco-maize monoculture. In An Acte for Encouragem t of Soweing English Grayne, the delegates attempted to ensure greater cultivation of wheat, barley, English peas, rye, and oats.209

The motivation for such a move was so obvious to the assembly that they offered no

208 See the “Act for the Preservation of the Seuerall Harbours within this Province” Archives 1: 533. This was a persistent and ongoing issue. The Assembly renewed the bill continuously in succeeding years, and even the royal assembly of 1692 endorsed a similar measure. See note 46 above. The problem of ‘one- sided” trade was not unique among England’s export economy. Many of England’s exports were fairly high value for their bulk, like cloth, lead and tin. For the most part, England imported bulk cargos, and ships almost always left in ballast: “The holds of most ships sailing from England on long voyages were nearly empty.” So much space was available on board the ships, that “Outward freights were low, and even—in appearance, though not in reality—non-existent.” This effectively raised prices of imported commodities in England as “one cargo had to bear not only its own carriage costs but also the cost of the outward journey of a ship to fetch it.” See Ralph Davis. “Merchant Shipping in the Economy of the Late Seventeenth Century.” The Economic History Review. New Series Vol. 9, No.1 (1956) pp. 60-62. John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard in their discussion of the staples thesis (that the growth of a single export, i.e., ‘staple’ is the determinative factor in the rate of economic growth in areas of recent settlement) noted that under the staples thesis, manufactures will only develop slowly in the colony, as labor and capital will be scarce, and because staples are high-bulk goods, higher-bulk than the goods they will purchase, this in effect subsidized their transport; a surfeit of space and tonnage that would have to be taken up in (non-remunerative) ballast, drove down transportation costs for imports. This also served to lower costs of travel for migrants. See John J. McCusker and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British America 1607-1789 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985) pp. 19-32, esp. p. 23. While McCusker and Menard amply demonstrate the deficiencies of the staples thesis in that it ignores subsistence production, the development of domestic markets, and the expansion of domestic production., as well as the domestic service economy—as attorneys, physicians, public office, tavern keeping, etc.. It is interesting that this theory does match what was seen in ships coming in ballast. 209 The inclusion of the legume might seem confusing at first glance. Wheat, rye, oats, and barley were all classic staples of English bread baking and brewing. Although barley was the primary brewstuff, wheat, rye, and oats had all been used as adjuncts. Interestingly, there were some brewing and bread recipes that called for the addition of peas. Peas then, are not an odd addition in this light. In this way, the law reflects the ancient Assizes of Bread and Ale that had long regulated the prices of these staples of the English diet, although here Maryland placed their value at a premium to encourage their production, not a low minimum to ensure access as had been the case in England. James Davis. “Baking for the Common Good: A Reassessment of the Assize of Bread in Medieval England.” The Economic History Review New Series, Vol. 57, No. 3 (August, 2004) pp.465-502. For a comprehensive overview of the regulation of brewing, along with its gendered aspects, see Judith Bennett. Ale, Beer, and Brewsters in England: Women's Work in a Changing World, 1300-1600 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996). 171 detailed explanation, offering simply: “Whereas it appeares that the soweing of English

Grayne will conduce much to the publike good of the Inhabitants of this Province....”

The Delegates hoped that developing such grain production would have a cascading effect on the socio-economic organization of the colony. It would have required the construction of centralized mills, mill-ponds, towns, as well as carefully corralled and barn-housed livestock to ensure adequate supplies of manure to fertilize the grain fields, developing the colony’s economy and providing an alternative export. The mechanism of encouragement was simple: various grains (and one legume) were legally valued at a premium for the payment of private debts. Wheat, for example, was to be worth five shillings per bushel. Furthermore, “all persons that shall tender paymt in such Graynes either upon Publike paymt of rents leauyes or money debts...” would be allowed the

“discount of tobacco debts at 2d plb,” a significant advantage.210

The law had little effect. Overseas tobacco merchants from the metropole had little use for grains; they were too bulky to ship profitably across the Atlantic and the far closer sugar-island markets that would eventually consume them were not yet fully developed. Chesapeake residents were making rational economic decisions in their use of labor and land. In the absence of a ready market in which to sell grains, Old World furrow based agriculture was simply too labor intensive and plows too expensive to effectively challenge maize as the staple food crop, especially considering the incredible yields per acre offered by maize. While some European grains were grown largely as luxury goods, it was not until the eighteenth century that these crops grew to be

210 See the “Acte for Encouragemt of Soweing English Grayne” Archives 1: 445. The law was renewed in 1664, see the “Act ffor Reuiuinge Certaine Lawes wthin this Province” Archives 1: 537, see also Archives 75: 49, 51. The law was confirmed as expired / repealed in 1676, see “Act for Reviving of Certain Lawes within this Province.” Archives 2: 215-216, see also Archives 75: 63. 172 significant in the economy. Tellingly, it was on the marginal tobacco land of the Eastern

Shore and the hinterland of Baltimore City where these grains were finally grown for export as part of the victualling trade into the Caribbean that finally developed in the eighteenth century. Once again, Restoration-era resident Maryland merchants were ahead of the curve.211 The hope of the assembly was not quickly dashed, however; the act would be renewed by every assembly until its eventual repeal in 1676.

There were other possible exports that might be produced in Maryland, and the

Assembly continued to fight to break the grip of tobacco on their economy. In 1671, An

Act for the Encouragmt of the Sowing and Making of Hemp and Fflax the assembly noted that great quantities of linen cloth and “and other wares & Comodities wrought by manuell Occupacon which are brought from fforreigne Places into and Spent in this

Province.” The purchase of these goods, they complained, compelled Marylanders to spend “vast Sumes of mony and Quantities of Tobacco” in order to acquire them.

211 On the rational use of labor in the Chesapeake, see Carville Earle. The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System: All Hallow's Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783 (Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1975) The development of an export trade in grains from Maryland took decades longer to establish, and then on the Eastern Shore. The Eastern Shore was only marginal in terms of tobacco production, and when the victualling trade at last emerged, and when the price paid for their tobacco did not rise, planters there moved to grain. See Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983). Baltimore city, at the mouth of the Schuylkill River, found its hinterland to be among the family farms of Southern Pennsylvania and Northern Maryland. These non-slave operations grew grain, and Baltimore rose to prominence on the need for a grain processing and export center. Of course, this was only possible because of the emergence of a mass victualing trade, see: Geoffrey N. Gilbert. “Baltimore's Flour Trade to the Caribbean, 1750-1815” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 37, No. 1, (March, 1977) pp. 249- 251 Although flour was recorded as being exported out of Virginia into the Sugar Islands by 1700, tobacco remained the “lifeblood” of Virginia’s economy, although the “urge to sell grain away to the West Indies and New England was apparently so great during the 1690s that legislation had to be passed embargoing further exports lest Virginians face a severe food shortage at home… it was for the most part ignored. Corn, wheat, and even some flour were shipped openly… Pork, beef, shingles and even some tar were also exported in 1701, but the combined value of all of these products was so small as to constitute not even 1% of the total value of the colony’s 1701 exports.” Peter V. Bergstrom. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700-1775 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1983) pp. 107-117, 131-132.

173 Furthermore, the lack of local production of cloth “as is done in other Countries” was

“to the great furtherance and advancemt of their Comon Wealth.” Again, Maryland’s assembly was dealing with the exorbitant costs of importing, and again attempting to liberate Marylanders from what they saw as the usurious gouging of overseas merchants in the tobacco trade, as well as to encourage the diversification of the economy into at least some manufacturing, just as the use of coins had been hoped to do. To that end, the Assembly authorized the payment out of the public funds of one-hundred pounds of tobacco for each one-hundred pounds of linen or hemp processed into an exportable form. The producer of the linen and hemp fibers was then given license to sell their goods as they saw fit. This Assembly, led by Speaker Thomas Notley, was still trying to break the reliance on tobacco, encourage the development of the local economy into more profitable process, and hoped to break the hold of overseas import merchants.212

Legislation on Managing Debt

The practices of non-resident merchants were a constant concern and issue for the assembly, especially the way they managed debt, a universal problem for

Marylanders. In 1663-4, the bills, bonds and other written instruments upon which 212 See the “Act for the Encouragmt of the Sowing and Making of Hemp and Fflax” Archives 2: 300-302. The bill was adamant that only full 100 pounds of fibers be rewarded. It was to last for two years, and was confirmed to be repealed or of no force in 1676. See Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. (Baltimore: 1883-present) Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland, p.56. After twelve years, the merchant-dominated assembly of 1688 would again take up the attempt to diversify into fiber production. This time they not only encouraged the sowing of the plants and production, but also the manufacture of cloth from it. The counties were ordered to pay weavers of linen cloth in Maryland six pounds of tobacco per yard, and woolen cloth production would earn ten pounds of tobacco per yard. The bill was passed with the unusual term of seven years, but with the upheavals of 1689-91, it was doubtlessly not enforced, and would be repealed in the sweeping repeal of all previous legislation not specifically reenacted by the Royal assembly of 1692 see the “Act for Encouragement of makeing Linnen & Woollen cloath within this Province” Archives 13/220, 222. For the repeal, see Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. (Baltimore: 1883-present) Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland p.92 174 credit was based were problematic, and three of the twenty-eight laws passed in the first session of the 1663-4 assembly dealt with the issue. Two were aimed at clarifying that the maximum allowed age of instruments of debt presented in Maryland courts as proof of indebtedness be three years. But this only addressed part of the problem. The

Delegates complained that

the many Inhabits of this pvince have formrly suffered much prejudice by reason of Bills Bonds & Specialtyes Comeing out of England & other prtes vppon which many have been sued here & very slight evidence hath been pduced As to the Testimony & pofe vpon which many psons have been Lyable to vexacous & Trouble some suites

The problem was not that such instruments were produced constantly in Maryland’s courts. After all, theirs was a system that lived on credit and endemic debt. The instruments that recorded them were ubiquitous and could not be avoided. Instead the issue was the slimness of the evidence of debt the produced instruments provided themselves or that was provided to prove the instruments in court. Specifically the Act was designed to prevent forgery of such bills and bonds. Accordingly, after the passage of the act, no foreign (i.e., with origins not in Maryland) bills or bonds would be accepted by Maryland courts as evidence of debt unless they met very specific requirements and proofs. For instruments coming out of England, none were to

be allowed or be Judged authenticke in any Corts of this Province vnlesse the pti vnto whome such Bills Bonds or Specialtyes doth apprtayne doe pve the same by Evidence (viva voce) or else such Bills Bonds or Specialtyes be pved before the Lord Major of London & Certified vndy the Citty Seale or before any other Mayor of Citty or Borough Towne Corporate of England And Certificate vnd the Seale of such Citty or Borough Towne corporate

175 As for merchants from other colonies, their bills had to be proved by the governing body of their home plantation by bearing the seal of that governing body. In 1664 the assembly required that all ‘foreign’ instruments regardless of their age be sworn and notarized in their home jurisdictions before they could be used as evidence in Maryland.

Bills and bonds executed within Maryland, by Marylanders, were not subject to this extra layer of procedure, nor its expense. Local merchant-planters, along with the planters who were the majority in the assembly directed these regulations against their overseas competitors. This law, unlike most passed by the assembly had no limit placed upon it at all. It was one of the great rarities in Restoration-era Maryland legislation: it was permanent.213

Cecil, Lord Baltimore who was resident in England, had a different audience of tobacco merchants and politicos to appease and frequently made decisions that were contrary to the desire of Marylanders (as he had by reversing the decision of Maryland’s judiciary in the Bateman case, and in his veto of the stint) but that were more in line with desires of his English audience. From England, Cecil disagreed with this unbalanced regulation and he notified the Assembly that he disapproved of the law, along with several others passed in 1663-4 in 1669. The 1669 announcement of

Baltimore’s veto of many laws so long after their passage, repeated revival and use, undoubtedly fed the tensions and disputes that marked that assembly’s meeting.214

Despite the veto, the concerns over the validity of the instruments of debt that the 1663-

213 See the “Act Providing what shalbee good Evidence vppon Bills Bonds and Specialtyes Comeing out of England And other ptes” Archives 1:502-3 214 The indictment and attempted impeachment of Morecroft discussed in Chapter Three was only one small part of the disagreement that pervaded the assembly of 1669. In the opening sermon, Rev Nichols exhorted the lower house to act, as there had never been a body elected which the electorate had higher hopes for. (see Chapter Six, below) 176 4 assembly had were still present. Accordingly, the 1669 assembly revisited the issue and passed a new version of the act, entitled Provideing What Shall be Good Evidence to Prove Forreigne Debts. Hoping to overcome Baltimore’s objections, the Assembly changed tactics slightly and explained that the problem with debt instruments cut both ways. The Assembly explained that debt instruments were often not verified by any third party, and it was impossible to ascertain what debts were really owed. Nor was there any way to prove that payments on a valid debt had been made. This was especially problematic if the debt had been transferred to a third party by an (overseas) merchant, but had either not recorded any payments made or continued to collect on a debt that now belonged to someone else. The Assembly was worried that witnesses to the validity of debts and debt payments made in Maryland would find it difficult if not impossible to come to a court and defend a local debtor. Even worse was if a witness, like the original creditor, was overseas and virtually impossible to bring to testify at all.

And so, the Assembly ordered that all bills and bonds presented as evidence of indebtedness had to be sworn and notarized by both parties. Any payments to the bill had to be likewise recorded by a notary or other public official. They also addressed the problem of double billing, and stipulated that no judgment against a defendant be executed “untill the originalls be given and delivered up to the Defendt or his Attorney or Sufficient & Legall Releases [,] in Case the Originalls be Lost...” By ensuring the turning over of the original instrument of debt to the debtor before any judgment could be entered was hoped to end the double collection on bonds and bills previously paid.

The assembly further ordered that only if at least one of the original parties to the debt was alive could such debts be pursued, if the debt was greater than a rather generous 177 twelve years old. 215 And so the Assembly tried to maintain its protections against the abuses of the overseas merchants by making the restriction apply to all merchants, local or foreign, and by increasing the time that such debts could be pursued legally.

The 1669 Assembly was deeply concerned about debts and debt instruments, passing the Act to Avoid dowble paym t of debts that book debts (accounts, not sworn instruments) be limited in their collection to a single year, and passed An Act for

Limitacon of Certain Actions for avoyding Suites at Lawe, what was in effect an statute of limitations that ordered that lawsuits brought by merchants on accounts or pleas of trespass, the usual complaint filed by creditors, had to be filed within two years, or were to be considered invalid. These bills usually employ a universal language, that would apply to all merchants, resident or foreign, and this act declared that all actions were subject to the limits, which would presumably include all filings, regardless of the location of the plaintiff’s home. But this universal statement was immediately followed by a declaration that all “...accons of accompt Contract debt booke and upon the Case other then such accompts as Concerne the Trade of Merchandize Between Marchant &

Marchant their factors and servants which are not Resident within this Province...”

(emphasis mine). These proscriptions were still primarily directed against the merchants who were not resident in the colony.216

The Thomas Notley-led assembly of 1671 addressed yet another area of concern to merchants: the standards for the weights and measures used in commerce. In An Act

215 “Provideing What Shall be Good Evidence to Prove Forreigne Debts” Archives 2:209-11.

216 See the “Act to Avoid dowble paymt of debts” Archives 2:218 and “An Act for Limitacon of Certain Actions for avoyding Suites at Lawe” Archives 2:201-202. See also Archives 75:52 for the renewals. 178 for the Provideing a Standard with English Weights and Measures in the Severall and

Respective Counties Within this Prouince the Assembly noted and ordered

that noe Inhabitant or trader hither shall buy or Sell or otherwise make use of in tradeing any other weights or measures then are vsed and made according to the Statute of Henry the seventh King of England...

The Delegates ordered that a Keeper be appointed in each county they would procure master weights and measures from England. Small weight measures such as pounds and ounces were joined by larger amounts, twelve half-hundredweight standards, for example. Brass measures of yards and ells, the usual measure for lengths of fabric were to be acquired, as well as sealed volume measures of bushel, half bushel, peck, down to pottles and pints.217 Each Keeper was further ordered to possess various stamps to be used to mark merchants’ measures in some tamper-proof way, as being acceptably reconcilable to the standard. For their pains in inspecting and sealing others’ measuring devices, the Keepers were allowed “the sume of two shillings and alsoe Six pence for every wooden and pewter measure markt...” Thus, the position was one that could generate income as well as regulate trade. Resident merchant-planters, not itinerant merchants and mariners would be far more likely to have access to the sealed standards.

Eight of the nine Keepers of Weights and Measures appointed in 1671 were members of the Assembly, and the ninth, Robert Dunn, had sat in the lower house in

1663 and 1669. Again following the patterns of favoritism towards Protestant merchant- planters already established in nominations to positions of profit, four were merchant- planters, and one, Daniel Jenifer was also an attorney, land speculator, and an innkeeper in St. Mary’s City. Three of the four merchant-planters were Protestant, and all were

217 A pottle is a volumetric measure of a half gallon. 179 known as strong supporters of the proprietary, Daniel Jenifer was a Catholic and probably pro-Calvert as well.218

For all these reasons the Assembly bore a powerful attraction for merchants.

Election not only served as an affirmation of high socio-economic status in the community, but it also enabled resident merchants so elected to regulate and attempt to level the playing field against much larger and better funded metropolitan competitors.

Their presence informed and influenced the attempts to deal with the adjudication of debts and debt-instruments, topics of absolutely critical importance to their livelihoods.

As they were also planters, they too struggled with the stultifying effects perniciously low tobacco prices had, and assisted in the assemblies’ multiple attempts to foster greater diversity in Maryland’s production. Not surprisingly they took the lead in attempts to limit the domination of tobacco production. As not only early slave- purchasers but slave importers, they used their presence in the assembly to better define a practice long dormant in English law. Service in the assembly also enabled them to build and enhance reputations in the wider community. All the while, in the midst of the political battles that swirled around politics in the religiously diverse colony, the interests of the planter and merchant-planter elite converged and built necessary political coalitions. Some merchant-planter elites, like Thomas Notley, proved themselves to be honest and trustworthy stewards of the people’s confidence, which would prove critical in the crisis year of 1676.

218 See in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) for details on Daniel Jenifer, Robert Dunn, Thomas Taillor, Charles Brooke, Henry Adams, John Van Hack, William Hambleton, William Stevens, and Daniel Clark 180 Chapter 6: Maryland and Notley Before 1676

The Maryland that the post-Restoration immigrant merchants came to dominate was markedly different than that inhabited by those who came from 1634-1660. The first two-and-a-half decades of Cecil Calvert’s rule were marked by several serious challenges to his authority, often accompanied by violence. Metropolitan upheaval and uncertainty was echoed with disorder in Maryland throughout the Civil Wars, Regicide, and Interregnum. In Maryland in the middle decades of the seventeenth century, as in

England, political crisis followed political crisis. But there were troubles even before the 1634 sailing of the Ark and the Dove with the first settlers; Baltimore’s grant was hotly contested by Virginia from which she had been carved. While the Old Dominion successfully secured her claim to already settled Accomack County at the tip of the

Delmarva Peninsula, she lost her claims to the rest of the Bay north of the Potomac, including the trading post of Virginia Councilor William Claiborne on Kent Island, established under Virginian authority in 1631. Claiborne had little desire to have to acquire a new trading license from Maryland, to bow to the will of a proprietary government, or to pay quitrents and taxes to the Calverts. He claimed his outpost was excluded from Maryland by its own charter that gave Calvert authority only over lands not yet settled. The claim, whatever its legal merits, was ignored. Eventually, violence broke out between Calvert and Claiborne forces. Submission to the Calverts was only

181 secured with the arrest of two of the leaders of Kent Island, and the execution of one of them as a pirate. Claiborne would not surrender his claims so easily, trying repeatedly to petition the central government to either confirm Kent Island as a pre-existing part of

Virginia, or offering to hold the land directly from the King himself. These approaches did not work, Kent Island remained part of Maryland and Claiborne became a persistent thorn in the Calvert’s side for the next two decades.219

As political and religious tensions rose in England and finally burst into the Civil

Wars, none of England’s North American empire was immune from the upheaval. Held by an openly Catholic proprietor, Maryland was perhaps more susceptible than others.

When the Puritan zealot Capt. Richard Ingle sailed into the Province to trade in 1644, he was arrested, “accused of high Treason for wordes wch he had spoken agst the King.”

Merchant-planter and councilor Capt. James Neale conspired to release Ingle within eight hours of his arrest. Considering the tenor of the times, Neale may have been reluctant to hold onto a vocal parliamentary partisan and by helping to quickly release him, hoped to avoid any further trouble for the young colony. If so, the plan did not work. Capt. Ingle returned, joined with anti-Calvert Protestant William Claiborne and launched a series of devastating raids on plantations and even captured the capital of St.

219 For a concise exposition of Virginia’s opposition to George Calvert’s application for a grant in the Chesapeake, and Claiborne’s resisting the Calvert claims to his trading post on Kent Island, see Manfred Jonas. “The Claiborne-Calvert Controversy: An Episode in the Colonization of North America” Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien. Bd. 11 (1966) pp. 241-250. The conflict with and eventual defeat of Claiborne can be found in J. Frederick Fausz. “Present At the ‘Creation’: The Chesapeake World That Greeted the Maryland Colonists. Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 79, No. 1 (Spring, 1984) pp. 11-16. A somewhat dated and celebratory biographical portrait of Claiborne may be found in Nathaniel C. Hale. Virginia Venturer: William Claiborne, 1600-1677 (Richmond, VA: Dietz Press, 1951). See also J. Herbert Claiborne. “William Claiborne of Kent Island” The William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April, 1921) pp. 73-99. See also Aubrey C. Land. Colonial Maryland: A History (Millwood, NY: KTO Press, 1981) pp. 6, 11-12, 21, and 26. Robert J. Brugger. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634-1980 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988) pp.12-13. 182 Mary’s City, where he destroyed the provincial records. Claiborne attacked and reestablished himself, briefly, as master of Kent Island. The two men and their forces nearly did in the Calvert’s tiny colony completely. After their 1646 attacks, fewer than one hundred Marylanders remained of the nearly four hundred settlers counted in 1645.

Those who survived this period gave it the name “The Plundering Time,” or “The Time of Troubles.” Despite the raid’s severity, it was not a death blow to the colony and by

1648 Cecil Calvert reestablished his government and began building the family enterprise once again, thanks to his capable brother, Governor Leonard Calvert who returned from Virginia where he had fled.220

220 For a list of the governors of seventeenth century proprietary Maryland See Bernard C. Steiner. “A List of Those Who Governed Maryland Before it was Made a Royal Province” in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 22, No. 1 (1898) pp. 98-101. See also Stone, William in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3997. For a good discussion of the religious tensions within the colony, and its intersection with the various upheavals during Maryland’s first three decades, as well as the fight to secure the charter, see John D. Krugler. English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004) pp. 104-191 Lois Green Carr lists the unrest in the first three decades, and contrasts it strongly with the three decades of mostly peaceful development from 1660-1689 in Lois Green Carr. “Sources of Stability and Upheaval in Seventeenth-Century Maryland.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 79, No. 1 (March, 1984) pp. 44-70. Dr. Carr noted that before 1661, upheaval in England wracked the entire Empire and noted the effects that Ingle’s Plundering Time had on Maryland’s Anglo population. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632- 1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 14; 47-49 For his part in securing the escape of Ingle, Capt. James Neale would be suspended from his position on the council, and fled the colony soon after. Capt. Neale spent the interregnum trading in Spain and Portugal, acting as a diplomat for the exiled Stuarts, and returned to the colony in 1660, where he briefly resumed his councilor office. See Neale, James in the Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. Edward C. Papenfuse, et al. Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 609 Although the editors of the biographical dictionary conclude that Neale was not a Calvert supporter because of his assistance to Ingle, by securing the release of the mariner the Catholic Neale may have hoped to protect Maryland’s unique position in the English Empire as a haven for open Catholic worship. This, in my opinion, was in the Calvert’s long-term best interests, regardless how they saw it, or how it actually turned out. Timothy Riordan links Ingle’s attack to the wider Anglo-Atlantic of which it was a part, arguing that the absence of deep family networks and ineffective local government joined with conflict with Virginia (and William Claiborne) and local Indians, religious disputes among the settlers, protestant and Catholic, and among the Catholic and the Catholic Jesuits combined to make Maryland vulnerable to Ingle and Claiborne’s efforts at destroying the Calvert’s hold on the tiny colony, made possible by the exporting of England’s Civil War conflicts into the bay. See Timothy B. Riordan. The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War, 1645-46 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 2005). The quote is from “Cornwallis v Ingle” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., (Baltimore: 1883- present.) Volume 3 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1636-1667, pp.166-168 (hereafter cited as 183 The Calvert’s claim to their province quickly came under attack again. In the

1650s, Maryland Puritans joined with Parliamentary forces sent to Virginia and again overthrew the Calvert Government. Parliament had sent a Commission to reestablish

Barbadian and Virginian obedience to the Commonwealth and named the Calvert’s old nemesis William Claiborne as a member, after a long vigorous campaign of lobbying by the former Kent Islander. Despite counter-lobbying pressure from Cecil, Lord

Baltimore, Claiborne’s was able to secure wording in the commission that implied sweeping authority over the entire bay, not just rebellious Virginia. Nonetheless,

Maryland was considered loyal by the Commonwealth and Claiborne had to bide his time for an excuse to overthrow the Calvert regime. It came when Maryland’s

Governor, William Stone, issued writs in the name of the Proprietor as the charter required, instead of Parliament as the Commissioners demanded. Using this to charge disloyalty to the Commonwealth government, the Commissioners and their Puritan allies abolished the Calvert Government at St. Mary’s City, seized the provincial records, and removed the capital to the Puritan settlement of Providence on the Severn River. A few weeks later a letter from Lord Protector Cromwell arrived addressed to William Stone as

Governor. Using this as confirmation of the Calvert claim, Stone raised a force of

Calvert loyalists, and marched north to Providence to wrest back control. There, Stone’s men met up with a stronger Puritan force, and were captured after the brief Battle of the

Archives 3:166-168). For a good, general overview of the first six decades of Maryland, see Aubrey C. Land. Colonial Maryland: A History (Millwood, NY: KTO Press, 1981) pp. 3-81; see also Robert J. Brugger. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634-1980 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988) pp. 3-40. 184 Severn. Once again, Calvert proprietary rule seemed to have been violently extinguished in Maryland.221

In England, both Calvert and the Providence government lobbied the Lord

Protector for control of Maryland, and in 1657 Cromwell again confirmed Baltimore’s

Maryland Charter. Cecil, second Lord Baltimore dispatched a Calvert veteran of the

Battle of the Severn, Josias Fendall, from England to reestablish his proprietary rule.

Providence’s Puritans surrendered to Cromwell’s will and Fendall’s authority only asking that the 1642 law guaranteeing freedom of religion to all Christians they themselves had repealed be restored. But in 1660, in one last gasp of political rebellion,

Fendall, egged on by an angry Catholic Councilor, Thomas Gerard, turned on the

Calverts and attempted to radically reorder the structure of Maryland’s government by overthrowing the Charter, declaring the Assembly supreme, and claiming his Governor’s commission from them, and not from Lord Baltimore. This attempted constitutional revolution collapsed as the proprietor’s allies quickly reasserted Calvert’s power.

Tellingly, whereas this has come to be known as Fendall’s Rebellion, former Governor

Fendall was fined only £50, where the Catholic former Councilor Gerard was fined

£100, plus an additional 5000 pounds of tobacco, and had to post a 10,000 pounds of tobacco bond for his future good behavior. Gerard temporarily lost his lands in

221 William Claiborne was instrumental in getting the authorization to restore rebellious Caribbean and mainland colonies to loyalty to read Chesapeake instead of Virginia, despite the efforts of Cecil Lord Baltimore to prevent that. For a brief discussion of Governor Stone’s troubles in tenure, see David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 51-56. An older, but more comprehensive analysis can be found in Bernard Christian Steiner. Maryland Under the Commonwealth; a Chronicle of the Years 1649-1658. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science; Series 29, No. 1, 1911. (Reprint; New York: AMS Press, 1971) pp. 53-105. See also Carla Gardenia Pestana. The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640-1661 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004) pp. 151-154 185 Maryland, but they were restored to him within a few months. The Calverts barred both men from ever voting or holding office in Maryland again.222

Politically, from even before the first settlers landed in 1634 to the Restoration in

May, 1660, Maryland’s government rarely had any form of long-term stability; it continually fell apart, brought down by Maryland’s own internal conflicts as well as

222 Claiborne’s interference was more of a personal vendetta in Maryland and more than vaguely illegal; this fact, coupled with Cromwell’s own difficulties with Parliament, helped Baltimore successfully petition the Lord Protector for the restoration of his rights. The Severn settlement of Providence still survives; today it is Annapolis, see: Jordan, pp. 51-55. The 1642 Act Concerning Religion divorced religious expression from state apparatus, and granted absolute freedom of religion to all who professed belief in the Christian trinity. John Krugler argues that this version of religious freedom was from the very beginning the centerpiece of the Calvert’s plans for their overseas adventures. See John D. Krugler. “The Calvert Vision: A New Model for Church-State Relations.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 99, No. 3 (Fall, 2004) pp. 269-286. He expanded his ideas in John Krugler. English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004). For an analysis of the Act and how historians have viewed it over time, see: Carl N. Everstine. “Maryland’s Toleration Act: An Appraisal.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 79, No. 2 (Summer, 1984) pp. 99- 116. For a discussion of Fendall’s tenure as governor, his treachery, and Baltimore’s reclamation of his province, see David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 56-59 For a detailed discussion of Thomas Gerard’s leading role in driving Fendall to rebellion, see Edwin W. Beitzell. “Thomas Gerard and his Sons-in- Law” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 46, No. 3 (1951) pp. 189-206. Gerard was one of the largest landowners in early Maryland, and lord of the 10,400 acre St. Clement’s Manor; his manor house was destroyed by Ingle in 1646. He sat on the council, and was a Calvert Loyalist during the Parliamentary takeover, and served as one of Gov. Stones’ Captains. In 1659 the Attorney General attacked him for violating the secrecy of the Council, insulting the Calvert’s Governor (Josias Fendall) saying he was a ‘tool’ of the Providence Puritans, and embezzlement. Lord Baltimore himself ordered the charges dismissed. His role in the 1660 legislative uprising appears to center on his fears that a ten shilling per hogshead tax was about to be collected. It is possible that Fendall and his Providence-Puritan allies misled Gerard about Cecil, Lord Baltimore’s intentions—the proprietor had actually written his governor to reduce the tax to two shillings on all tobaccos exported to England, maintaining a ten shilling tax to any other destination only. Add this to Lord Baltimore’s 1659 decision to take a 1000 acre tract of Abel Snow after Snow’s death, claimed by Gerard’s wife (who was Snow’s sister). These events appear to have broken Gerard’s confidence in the Calverts, and Gerard maneuvered to arrange that the meeting of the 1660 Assembly be at his St. Clement’s Manor. There, politics made strange bedfellows as Gerard, a leading Catholic who had built a Catholic Chapel and who had been indicted for locking the Protestant chapel on St. Clement’s in 1641 and the Anglican Fendall, Lord Baltimore’s hand-picked governor, joined by the Providence’s Puritans attempted to declare that the Assembly could make and even originate laws in the name of, but without the assent of the Proprietor, vacating any veto by the Proprietor. The May 1660 restoration of Charles II, and Lord Baltimore’s favor with the returned King doomed the effort, and in August Cecil Calvert ordered that Philip Calvert take the governorship and deal harshly with Fendall, Gerard, and others who took part in the revolt. From this article it is clear that Fendall’s Rebellion was not part of a Catholic-Protestant political divide, and that political divisions in Maryland were not so simple at the end of the interregnum. For a general overview of Maryland’s first three decades, see Robert J. Brugger. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634-1980 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press,1988) pp. 3-40. For a political history of the same period, see David W. Jordan. Foundations of 186 those rolling across the entire Anglo-Atlantic. But from 1660 to 1688 the government in

England was more or less settled; no armies marched length and breadth of England waging seemingly endless civil war, there was no regicide, nor any Rump. No major waves of disorder would wash across the ocean. The next major threat to Maryland’s security, Bacon’s Rebellion, would come from within the Bay itself; indeed it would be launched from events that took place in the Calverts’ Province. This time, however,

Maryland weathered the storm as Virginia fell into chaos.

As the acting Governor of Maryland during the crisis, leading merchant-planter

Thomas Notley benefited from markedly different set of circumstances than Governor

Berkeley faced in Virginia. Virginia’s governor liked the House of Burgesses elected in

March, 1660/1 so much that he did not call for a general election for over fifteen years, and even then only in the face of insurrection in May of 1676. With an at best slowly evolving membership in Virginia’s lower house, Berkeley and his loyal council dominated the entire legislature for nearly a decade and a half. From her governor’s perspective, Restoration-era Virginia enjoyed a modern, centralized government, tightly controlled by the executive and his cronies.223 In Maryland, however, from 1661-1676 Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 1-59. Dr. Jordan noted in an earlier work, that every time the Calverts came back into power—after Ingle, the Parliamentary Commission, Fendall/Gerard’s 1659 ‘rebellion’—they would ban the losers from public office. Denied a public vent, these men and their families became the core of a vocal and vigorous opposition, leading to much of the instability that plagued Maryland up to 1689. See David W. Jordan. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979) pp. 249-250. 223 James D. Rice. Tales from a Revolution: Bacon’s Rebellion and the Transformation of Early America. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) p. 45. The assembly elected in March, 1660/1 “... sat through seventeen consecutive sessions before their dissolution, which made the General Assembly of March 1660/1-May 1676 the longest of any in the history of Virginia. Berkeley never accounted for why he retained the body some historians later dubbed the ‘Long Assembly,’ though several explanations seem plausible. Regular elections and rotation in office were novel ideas in the seventeenth century, so they found little resonance in Berkeley, the members or Virginia voters. From a purely expedient standpoint, however, continuing the assembly fulfilled practical purposes of Government well into the 1670s. Among 187 there were six different assemblies elected, with considerable turnover in the membership—the one constant was the participation of merchant-planters who were post-Restoration immigrants. Certain names gained re-election time and again, but every assembly introduced new faces. As Marylanders expanded into new areas, new counties were formed, and representation in the Assembly was expanded for them, bringing even more new Delegates. Two of these Restoration-Era assemblies sat for but a single session. Even in those that sat for multiple sessions before new elections were called, no two sessions’ memberships were identical. As members died, or were named to offices like the sheriff that barred them from serving in the elected body, new elections were held to replace them. The end result was a high rate of turnover and variance in membership from assembly to assembly, and even between sessions of the

others, it deepened the loyalties of those who depended upon the governor for patronage, it augmented the stature of the House of Burgesses, and it greased passage of important legislation. Not least of all it bespoke an arrangement between the Governor and the planter elite. Berkeley shared power with those he regarded as dependable partners, which ensured them nearly unmitigated dominance in local politics. In return he gained great latitude in determining the course of public policies such as the colony’s economy and its external affairs.” This attempt at creating a coherent ruling class ultimately served to debase Berkeley’s political capital. The ruling elite planters “abused their less privileged neighbors, and their callousness bred social discontents that Berkeley failed to grasp, let alone mitigate.” See also: Warren Billings. A Little Parliament: The Virginia General Assembly in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond: The Library of Virginia, 2004) pp. 43, 46. The House elected in March, 1660/1 was comprised of mostly Berkeley allies, see: Warren Billings. Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of Colonial Virginia (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2004) pp. 133-134. Berkeley built his support, known after his death as the ‘Green Spring Faction’ through judicious use of his patronage powers especially the granting of licenses to trade with the natives. This fact was cited by the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate the causes of the rebellion as explanation offered by disgruntled Virginians for why Berkeley refused to support the popular war against all Indians: “This made the People jealous that the governor for the lucre of the Beaver and otter trade etc. with the Indians, rather sought to protect the Indians than them...” Royal Commissioners. “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, by the Royal Commissioners, 1677.” In Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. Charles McLean Andrews, Ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915) p. 109. See also Billings, Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of Colonial Virginia pp. 75, 96, 99. Frustration over these restrictions in entering the Indian trade was a part of the leading men drawn to Bacon, who in September, 1675 attempted to “...press [the Governor] for a greater share in the fur Trade.” ibid, pp. 134-235 It was also complained that the weapons wielded against the Frontier Virginians had been sold to the Natives by the traders—and Berkleyan allies—licensed by Governor. See also Steven Saunders Webb. 1676: The End of American Independence (New York: Knopf, 1984) pp. 14, 16. 188 same assembly. For example, only five members of the 1669 assembly sat as one of the fifty-seven members who served in the 1676-1682 assembly. In addition, before 1670, the suffrage in Maryland was extended to all freemen. In the early 1670s, as in contemporary Virginia and Massachusetts, Charles Calvert limited voting to freemen possessing at least fifty acres or personal estates of forty pounds sterling, conforming

Maryland suffrage more closely to English practice. But this restriction did not spark any widespread complaints among the small Maryland planters.224 In other words, the freemen of Maryland actually had some, albeit limited say in their own government, and they could hold Delegates responsible by refusing to return them in future elections. In short, the poor’s complaints had some outlet. In Maryland, ambitious recent merchant- planter arrivals had a way to have their social status affirmed at the local and provincial level, to influence the policies of the government, and to rise in power and prestige, as men with leading socio-economic status would have expected to. And they did contest and win elections much out of proportion with their actual numbers. The Calverts,

224 Between 1634 and 1638, every male colonist sat in the legislative body. In 1638/39 Leonard Calvert called upon all freemen to choose two delegates from each hundred. The eligibility to vote in Maryland had very low qualifications. For example, in St. Clement’s Hundred in 1640 seven men voted. Of the seven, only three were literate and only two would have been eligible to vote under English standards. See David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 19-22. Similarly, the men who served as delegates were only slightly more successful than their neighbors, and little distinguished them. This so troubled Charles Calvert that he proposed that Provincial officeholders be given some sort of medal so as to distinguish them more easily. Jordan, p.70. See also Cecil, Lord Baltimore “Instructions orders and authorityes to be observed and Executed by our most deare sonne Charles Calvert Esqr our Leivetenant and Cheif Governor, and by our Councell of our Province of Maryland.” Archives 15:16. In Maryland, from 1660- 1689 156 men were elected to nine assemblies. Seventy-seven were elected to a single assembly, twenty- seven were elected twice, and only thirty-three—twenty-four percent—were elected to more than two assemblies. “An extensive turnover of membership continued to be the norm, despite more frequent elections and larger assemblies.” Jordan, p. 70. Where Virginia’s and Massachusetts’ suffrage restrictions were passed by the assembly, in Maryland Charles Calvert limited suffrage by declaration. This did not, however, raise much concern among the planters. “Little evidence exists of widespread disruption by the poor in Maryland or of such pronounced class differences as some have described for Virginia... the opportunities for freedmen in Maryland remained less limited that they apparently were in Virginia or were to become for Marylanders in another few decades.” Jordan pp.70, 82-83. 189 possessed considerable patronage with which to influence the Lower House and spread their largess amongst these new Assemblymen, with the large group of merchant- planters getting especial focus. The ego is a powerful thing, and in Calvert’s Maryland the newly arrived merchant-planter class had a place to feed it. When the crisis of 1676-

78 hit, they were a disproportionately large part of a newly elected assembly, fifty percent of the Delegates in the Lower House were involved in mercantile activities, merchant-planters filled six of the Council’s nine seats, and one of their own was

Governor.225

The merchant-planter elite had not only the opportunity but the ability to maintain Maryland’s security in 1676. By 1675 the leading members of the merchant- planters in Maryland, like Thomas Notley, had come to mediate between the Calverts and their opposition. With good access to capital and deep economic connections throughout the Atlantic they offered generous credit terms and had a reluctance to sue for small amounts, eliminating a source of potential friction with the smaller planters who were their customers. As planters themselves, they understood the problems that tobacco monoculture brought to Maryland’s residents, and attempted in every way they could think to foster diversity of production and development of the local economy

225 In 1676-82 twenty-seven of the fifty-four members were merchants. The Delegates of 1671-75 were thirty-nine percent merchants (twenty of fifty-one total members) and in 1669 that were forty-six percent merchants (twelve out of twenty-six total Delegates), but only three of these would be elected to the 1676- 82 assembly. Only five members from the troublesome 1669 Lower House were elected to serve in the 1676-82 assembly. See Edward C Papenfuse, et al. eds. The Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979). See also Chapter Five above for a more detailed discussion of the makeup of the assembly. Frequent elections, and low rates of re- election indicate a truly independent electorate who only returned men as Delegates whose legislative actions pleased the voters, see David W. Jordan. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979) pp. 258-260 190 away from the noxious weed, and yet at the same time working to ameliorate the economic hardships the smaller planter might suffer from stinting tobacco production.

They sought and won election to the Assembly and they were courted by the Calverts with patronage largess; staying in the Calverts’ good graces was key to maintaining their access to prestigious, powerful, and lucrative appointments. Some, like the wealthy merchant-physician-attorney John Morecroft, proved quick to sue, even for small amounts, and identified too strongly with the proprietary for the smaller planters’ comfort. He was not a planter himself, and did not share the fears and anxieties of crushingly low and falling tobacco prices. He alienated the smaller planters, and left himself open to political attacks. Others, perhaps most notably Thomas Notley, proved able to both serve the Calverts and smooth over the differences between proprietary desires, other elites’ ambitions, and the fears and concerns of those in the populace who distrusted the Catholic “Absolute lord and proprietary,” or at least his charter-granted sweeping regal powers. That Notley was successful in his cultivating of the Proprietary was clearly expressed in his appointments to the Receiver Generalship and, in 1676, the

Council and finally the Governorship. That he simultaneously enjoyed the trust of the freemen of St. Mary’s was reflected in their constantly re-electing him as their Delegate.

Maryland’s freemen did not re-elect men whose legislative positions ran contrary to their desires. It was Governor Notley’s ability to balance these needs, fears, and wants that enabled him to act quickly, not alienate the smaller planters by those actions, and keep the province firmly in the hands of the Calverts in 1676-77.226

226 The constant re-election presence of well-educated and politically skilled arrivals like Thomas Notley, Philemon Lloyd, and at least initially John Morecroft as delegates “brought a new sophistication and stability to provincial politic.” Politics is a profession, and possesses a steep learning curve. With each re-election, Notley grew in power if for no other reason than his experience enabled him to understand 191 Arriving in Maryland by 1661, as a well-capitalized and already-established merchant, Notley sought public office, and was elected to serve in the Lower House of the 1662 Assembly and was one of only a handful of delegates 1661-1689 who were elected so soon after their arrival.227 There, his status, ambition, intelligence, and education paid off, and he quickly emerged as one of the leading Delegates. Moving into the province from Barbados, he brought experience with black chattel slavery, a labor supply the Calvert family hoped to exploit to great profit. It was perhaps no accident that the 1662, 1663 and 1664 sessions of the assembly in which he served saw the enacting of legal definition and regulation of the practice that closely followed

Barbadian precedent. Notley may not have only offered personal testimony of the system, but considering his legal expertise he may have actually authored and introduced

1664’s An Act Concerning Negroes & other Slaves. In it, Maryland defined slavery as a lifetime, heritable condition; all children born of a slave parent, whether father or mother, were themselves enslaved. This act formalized the de facto system that had existed in the colony previously. The practice had existed in custom since at least 1639, when An Act for the Liberties of the People guaranteed all the “rights of Englishmen" to all Christian inhabitants, "Slaves excepted.” Maryland’s earliest regulation of the practice came not to define what a slave was, or how the status was ascribed, but rather how the Assembly worked, and his positions were popular; if they had not been, he would have been turned out by the freemen.. David W. Jordan. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979) pp. 260- 262. 227 At least half of the members of every assembly after 1660 had at least ten years of residency before their first election, and in the assembly of 1676-82 half of the delegates had lived in the province at least sixteen years. David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 74. See also Chapter Five above for a discussion of time of residence in Maryland before election. 192 to proscribe death for those who kidnapped Native Americans for sale, thus threatening the peace of the colony. The same assembly expressly excluded slaves from the provisions of An Act Limiting the Time of Servants. There were the occasional references to the purchase or sale of slaves in the 1640s and 1650s, and even the occasional suit by a slave for release on the grounds that they had served their terms as agreed upon. The 1660s legislation was designed to put an end to such loopholes.228

Elected again to the assembly in 1666, this time Notley became Speaker of the

Lower House. He was one of the leaders of the attempts to establish the Stint, along with fellow resident merchant-planter Robert Slye, the previous Speaker of the House and son-in-law to Notley’s legal client Thomas Gerard, the instigator of former

Governor Josias Fendall’s attempted 1660 coup. Initially, the smaller planters were reluctant to support the effort to break tobacco’s hold on the Maryland economy. They were deeply concerned about being able to pay debts to overseas merchants who had contracted them in tobacco, and who were refusing stored tobacco left over from previous years as payment, forcing the smaller planter to plant a new crop. But Notley,

228 The Calvert family members were among the earliest and largest converts to slave labor. The earliest mention of the practice judicially came in a 1642 land contract in which "the said John Skinner covenanted & bargained to deliver unto the said Leonard Calvert, fourteene negro menslaves, & three woman slaves." See Archives 4:189. “Act for the Liberties of the People” Archives 1:40. “ Act Limiting the Times of Servants” Archives 1:80. “Act Concerning Negroes & Other Slaves” Archives 1:533-534. For a history of slavery in the law of Maryland, see Jonathan L. Alpert “The Origin of Slavery in the United States-The Maryland Precedent” The American Journal of Legal History. Vol. 14, No. 3 (July, 1970), pp. 189-221. The connections between Barbados and Maryland dated from 1634, when the Ark and her passengers made first New World landfall at the tiny island, see: Glenn O. Phillips. “Maryland and the Caribbean, 1634-1984: Some Highlights” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 83, No. 3 (Fall, 1988.) pp.199-214 For a brief exposition of Slavery in seventeenth century Maryland, see Whittington B. Johnson. “The Origin and Nature of African Slavery in Seventeenth Century Maryland” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Fall, 1973) pp. 236-245 On the influence of Barbadian legislation on Slave Codes in England’s North American colonies, see Richard S. Dunn, Sugar and Slaves: The Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies 1623-1713 (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1972) pp. 9, 238, 245 See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632- 1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 100-102. 193 already closely aligned with the proprietary, worked with the Upper House / Council to address those concerns. As speaker, he introduced the stint, and then followed that with all the legislation designed to help make debt payment easier, force acceptance of old tobacco to settle debts, etc., all desired by the smaller planters, and that could potentially be used against the resident Merchant-Planters’ attempts to collect the debts owed them.

Compromise is the heart of politics, and Notley proved to be a skilled politician, deftly balancing the wants of the pro-stint side with amelioration of the fears of the poorer sort, getting both what they wanted.229

During the 1669 assembly, three year-old tensions in Maryland burst into her legislature. Shortly after the 1666 assembly adjourned, a letter arrived from Cecil, Lord

Baltimore, announcing his veto to eight laws passed in the 1663-64 sessions of the 1662-

64 assembly. The vetoed legislation had reformed legal procedures in wardship, defined and limited what evidence of indebtedness would be allowed in lawsuits, and to promote settlement in Baltimore County. Cecil’s disallowing of laws years after they were passed in after their passage was problematic in and of itself, but this veto was doubly upsetting as seven of these laws had been renewed in the just ended session of the 1666

Assembly. The length of time between passage of a law and its veto by the proprietor was a constant point of contention for Marylanders; several years could, and did, transpire between the passage and implementation of a law and a Proprietary veto. This delay made all laws, no matter how long they may have been in effect or how often renewed, uncertain. It was impossible for Marylanders to be certain what rules and regulations might actually govern them, as any might be disallowed at any time, even

229 See Chapter Five for a more complete explication of these laws. 194 after years. Thus, all decisions made and all legal proceedings adjudicated under laws passed by the Legislature were not as final or binding as they had seemed to be. With a

Proprietary veto that could be so long delayed, everything the government tried to do was suspect; there was no telling which laws might be thrown out, and when. It smacked of arbitrariness and capriciousness, and not unfairly.230

The Stint, so carefully constructed in 1666, was another victim of Cecil Calvert’s negative, but at least that veto had been immediately announced in 1666, even if was still unpopular. Governor Charles Calvert undoubtedly knew he had a problem when he received his father’s letter of the other eight vetos in mid-1666. Seven of the laws had been renewed, and the one expired law, not renewed required that land taken up in

230 The Laws vetoed were An Act for the Quietting Persons of Lands & Establishing the Manner of Conveyances of Lands for the Future, An Act for Appoynting a Publick Notary, An Act for the p r servacon of Orphans Estates, An Act for the Rule of Arrests & Sumons for the Wittnesses by all Sherriffs & a rule for entring accons & fyleing accons & petns, An Act for Proceedings at Lawe, An Act for Seateing of Lands in Baltemore County, An Act Providing What Shall be Good Evidence Upon Bills Bonds & Specialtys Comeing Out of England & Other Parts, An Act Concerning Paymt of Debts Due by Bill. See Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “A Comon to the leiutennt Genll to declare his lops disassent to severall acts of Assembly heretofore passed by both howses” Archives 2/157-58 for the text of the veto. Notice that the vetoed laws were about land tenure, legal procedure, and evidence in lawsuits for debts; all critical pieces of legislation to all Marylanders. Cecil Calvert opposed the limits imposed upon his prerogatives and the imposition of regulations designed to make debts to overseas merchants, i.e., metropolitan-based harder to pay. That two of the laws were similar to legislation on “proving” bonds and paying debts that had been passed in 1666 to quiet resistance to the Stint, and to break the hold of overseas merchants must have been especially upsetting. Michael G. Kammen wrote that “One of the most keenly felt causes of unrest in Maryland lay in the Status of legislation within the province. During the quarter-century preceding 1689 (1664-1689) one grievance stands out owing to the great consternation it caused; there was no time limit on the proprietor’s veto. He denied legislation years after it had been passed and put into effect, The result was a double barreled problem. One facet is the procedural device itself: the injustice of repealing laws by which a group has regulated its life for years. Another lies in the character of the very legislation at stake. Why did the lower house feel certain laws desirable and necessary, and why did the proprietor feel it equally essential to reject them?” Kammen went on to declare the issue of the veto to be the “greatest concern” of common Marylanders. See: Michael G. Kammen. “The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 55, No. 4 (December, 1960) pp. 299-303. Kamen methodically listed the laws, and explained why Marylanders wanted each. The complaint against the lengthy time between passing of a law and its veto was one of the chief complaints made against Charles, Lord Baltimore by the Protestant Association that overthrew him in 1688/89. See: The Declaration of the Reason and Motive for the Prest Appearing in Arms of His Majtys Protestant Subjects in the Province of Maryland, 1689” Archives 8: 102-103. Fendall’s attempted constitutional revolution in 1660 would have effectively enabled the Assembly to pass legislation with or without the consent of the Proprietor, which, at its most basic would have ended the possibility of a proprietary veto. 195 Baltimore County be built upon within six months of the law’s passage (by 1664) or the grantee would forfeit their patent; renewing it in 1666 was therefore pointless. The seven other laws were all set to expire naturally at the end of the next session of the assembly, or in April of 1669, whichever came first. For three years Governor Charles

Calvert did not call a session. So, when a new election was held and a new legislature convened in April of 1669 and the veto was officially read into the record, the laws were due to expire naturally anyway. Although the veto would upset the Lower House, perhaps Charles Calvert calculated that vetoing laws just renewed in 1666 was a much harsher blow than announcing that the naturally expired legislation would, in effect, simply not be allowed to be renewed in 1669.

Three years without an assembly had built considerable tension in the province, and the Delegates arrived at St. Mary’s primed for a fight. In the opening sermon preached to the Lower House, Protestant minister Charles Nicholet roared at the

Delegates

... that they were now chosen or Elected both by God & man & have a power putt into their hands. The Country has often had an Assembly but never an assembly that soe greate expectacons were as from this he could haue wisht that they had read the proceedings of the Commons of England to see what brave things they had done...

Part of the problem facing Maryland was the archaic form of government proscribed by the Charter, which placed the regal powers possessed by the marcher Bishop of Durham in the Middle Ages in the hands of the Proprietor. But the social organization supposed by the Calverts, of manor lords and tenant labor, that this political power was to be built upon was not what actually emerged in the Chesapeake. And, the intellectual world of

Englishmen had transformed over the course of the seventeenth century, and the ‘Court’ 196 party of the Calverts, which rooted its claims to power as in the charter was opposed by a ‘Country’ party that instead drew upon “the precedents set by the House of Commons and the rights of seventeenth-century Englishmen.” Nicholet’s sermon resonated among a House that shared a desire to claim the same rights for the Assembly in Maryland, amid a belief that it was tantamount to a parliament, and not simply a body to rubber stamp the proprietary wishes, the position taken by the Calverts since 1632. Indeed,

Nicholet himself would admit that he had been urged by “...some delegates... to ‘stir up the Lower House to do their Duty...’” Not surprisingly, the sermon was labeled sedition by the Council once they heard of it. Nicholet was forced to admit his errors before the council, and was ordered to apologize to the Governor and the entire assembly, including the Council, in session.231 231 For the originals of the Nicholet crisis, see “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, April - May 1669” Archives 2:159-63 “The unsettling news of disallowed legislation, combined with worsening conditions in the province and popular unrest, made the Assembly of 1669 a particularly argumentative legislature... Thirteen [of the twenty-seven members] were serving for the first time, and only eight members were veterans of the previous assembly... Only one definitely identifiable Catholic was elected.” See David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979) pp. 94-95, 105. The events are also covered in David S. Lovejoy The Glorious Revolution in America (New York; Harper and Row, 1972) pp. 75-76. Nicholet was a Puritan minister who “styled himself ‘Preacher of the World’ a nomenclature that had a definite content of meaning for Presbyterians.” His congregation was on the Pawtuxet, near the Cliffs, where Josias Fendall and other opponents of the Calvert regime lived. The Pawtuxet congregation he led had been founded in 1658 by Rev. Francis Doughty. Doughty had originally been in office in Gloucestershire, but he was banished by the Court of High Commission for praying in 1626 for “’Charles, by common election and general consent, King of England,’” publicly denying the doctrine of divine right. Exiled to Boston, he quickly alienated the authorities there for his vigorous promotion of Presbyterian teachings regarding childhood baptism, and was forced to leave for Rhode Island, migrated to New Amsterdam, and on to Virginia where he learned of the Presbyterian congregation at Pawtuxet in Maryland in need of a minister, where he served, 1658-1662. He would have been pleased, no doubt, to note the anti-regal and pro- legislature tenor of his successor’s 1669 sermon. Nicholet was fined forty shillings, and ultimately left Maryland, settling in Salem, Massachusetts. See: John H. Gardner, Jr.. “The Beginnings of the Presbyterian Church in the Southern Colonies.” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, Vol. 34, No. 1 (March, 1956), pp. 42-44. The Calverts’ 1632 Charter granted the Proprietor any and all the powers ever possessed by the Bishop of Durham, a grant of sweeping powers that seriously circumscribed legislative initiative. While Durham had had an assembly, it possessed little control over taxation. “Although barons and freemen had a voice in the government, the powerful bishop substantially circumscribed their role.” These prerogatives which would have been considered at best archaic in 1630s England were justified by Calvert as more suited to the establishment of a colony in hostile territory. David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: 197 It was in this atmosphere that Charles Calvert tried to do his best to keep the tensions in the assembly as low as possible. After the opening, the Delegates asked to be allowed to choose its own speaker. Governor Charles Calvert allowed the House to select Thomas Manning to head the chamber. The Governor may have regretted granting the permission immediately. Manning had immigrated in 1658, and had been quickly incorporated by the Calverts into Maryland’s ruling elite, holding office of

Attorney General from 1661-1666. He had first been elected to the 1661 assembly, and again in 1662, but there his public career stalled. He had not sat in 1663-64 sessions, nor had he been elected in 1666. He served as a Calvert County Justice from 1661-67, and the end of his tenure on the bench marked the end of his favor with the Calverts. In

1668 he was indicted for striking the Calvert County sheriff, a proprietary appointee, and in 1669 he was charged with both assaulting a female child and indicted as a common barrator, i.e., for the crime of filing nuisance lawsuits. In 1669, Manning was anything but a member of the proprietary party.232

Cambridge University Press, 1979) pp. 1-3. For a more in depth discussion of the clause, including an historiographic essay on the interpretation of the clause, see Tim Thornton. “The Palatinate of Durham and the Maryland Charter” The American Journal of Legal History. Vol. 45, No. 3 (July, 2001) pp. 235- 255. As a palatinate, the Proprietor of Maryland held powers that were elsewhere in the English domains exercised only by the crown. “In the early years of the colony, the colonists struggled with the proprietors for control, and often denounced the broad powers claimed by the proprietors as contrary to the English constitution.” see Albert J. Martinez, Jr.. “The Palatinate Clause of the Maryland Charter, 1632-1776: From Independent Jurisdiction to Independence” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 50, No. 3 (July 2008-2010), pp. 305-307 232 See entry for Manning, Thomas in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) pp. 571-572. This procedure and language used in this election of the Speaker was different. Normally the Lower House was simply asked if they had made their choice: see “Opening of the Assembly, March 27, 1671” Archives 2:239 and “Opening of the Assembly, October 10, 1671” Archives 2:312 for other examples of their making the choice. For the Election of Notley and Morecroft to the 1669 assembly see: John Jarbo “Sheriff’s Certification of the Election of Delegates from St. Mary’s County, March 23 1669” Archives 51:324. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979) pp. 105-108 198 It was immediately after Manning’s selection that Charles Calvert publically read the letter detailing his father’s veto. The Governor and his Council did not have to wait long for the storm to hit. The next day, after the mid-day recess of the assembly,

Delegates Thomas Notley and John Morecroft came before the Council and reported that the Delegates of the Lower House had voted to leave their rooms in the “vsuall place of meeting appoynted by the Governor in the howse purchast by the Province for the houlding of Assemblys & administracon of Justice.” Instead, the House had reconvened itself, unconstitutionally, in a separate building.233 The Lower House was attempting to physically separate itself from the Council and have greater latitude in its deliberations.

The two houses normally met in the same building. The move by the Delegates now sparked a constitutional crisis. The Council informed Notley and Morecroft that they had done the right thing by refusing to attend the now-illegal session, confirming that the Lower House was required to sit in the chambers supplied, unless the Governor gave them permission to do otherwise. When two other Delegates came in and asked to see a

“true Coppy” of the Charter—a routine request made in most assemblies— Chancellor

Philip Calvert denied their request on the grounds that they were not a Lower House unless seated in the legally appointed chamber. But, just as quickly as the storm rose, it fell again. Additional Delegates then came in and formally requested permission to meet in another house, and Charles Calvert diplomatically granted it. The Lower House again asked for a copy of the Charter “that they may the better proceed & not intrench vpon his lops prerogative.,” or, more likely to see if there was any way to fight the prerogative. This too was granted, and the immediate crisis was averted. The troubling

233 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, April 15, 1669” Archives 2:158 199 issues at the heart of the Delegates’ actions were not. The next day, responding to the announced veto of seven-year old laws, the Lower House in a frustrated petition to the

Council, asked

whither or no there be any Person so quallifyed within this Province, as to Confirm such Bills as shall be Consented to by both Houses of this Present Genl Assembly so far to be Confirmed as not to be revoked without the Consent of the Upper & Lower House.

The Council explained that the Proprietor could veto any bill passed; the veto was a prerogative held under the charter by Cecil, months away, in England. This was, from the Lower House’s perspective, an unsatisfactory but indisputable answer.234

Delegates Morecroft and Notley’s loyalty to the Calverts did not go unnoticed.

Later in the 1669 assembly, the Burgesses attacked Morecroft, impeached him, and attempted to disbar him under the pretext of his charging of excessive legal fees, calling them extortion. This was no minor attack: had it been successful, this would have financially ruined the busy attorney. Being one of the greatest proprietary stalwarts in

Maryland had some advantages; none of the accusations were allowed to go through by the Council. Morecroft, his seat, and his legal career—the basis of his wealth—were all safe. But it is telling that no such charges were ever brought against Notley, guilty of the exact same act. In his previous assemblies Notley had proven himself to be more in tune with the planters’ concerns over the problems with debt, currency, and tobacco monoculture in the Chesapeake, unlike the merchant-physician Morecroft who had even been sued by one of his servants to gain his freedom, a move that could not have helped his popularity among the smaller planters and freedmen. Undoubtedly, the fact that

234 For the complete text of these exchanges see: “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, April 15, 1669” Archives 2:160-162 200 Notley led the Stint as well as passing the various acts to make debts easier to pay for smaller planters in 1666 also helped. In short, Notley was more popular than Morecroft within the assembly, and this saved him in 1669, and would save Maryland in 1676.

Such open loyalty to the Calverts came with some political risk, as even Thomas

Notley discovered in 1671. When electors chose a new assembly in the spring of 1671, neither he nor Morecroft were returned to the seats for St. Mary’s County that they had held for nearly a decade, despite the fact that the County was predominantly Catholic and a stronghold of support for the Proprietor and his allies. Morecroft and Notley had repeatedly proven themselves to be invaluable to the Proprietary party in the Lower

House, and the Calverts wasted little time in figuring out a way to return the two to the assembly. St. Mary’s City had been granted a charter by the proprietor in 1667. While building up St. Mary’s City to live up to its grand title was important to the Calverts, the political organization of the tiny hamlet was not a major concern in the late 1660s, and the 1667 and 1668 charters had never become active. On September 15, 1671 a charter for St. Mary’s passed the province’s Great Seal and this time went immediately into effect. In it, Morecroft was named recorder of the new borough, and Notley to the post of Alderman, loyal merchants Mark Cordea and Garret VanSweringen, et al, were named councilmen. Most importantly, the charter granted St. Mary’s City the right to send two Delegates to the Lower House. Morecroft and Notley easily won the seats in an election called just two weeks after the city had been incorporated. The two experienced legislators took their seats together in the second session of the 1671-74/5 assembly when it opened on October 10, less than a month after the chartering of the

201 city. Once back in the assembly, Notley resumed his place in the Speaker’s chair; this time, the Governor nominated his candidate himself.235

The Calverts had missed the two men in the first session of the 1671-1674 assembly. It was only with great difficulty that Charles and the Council had extracted from the Lower House a permanent grant to the proprietor of two shillings per hogshead duty on all tobacco exported from the province, providing an assured, permanent income for Cecil, Second Lord Baltimore. While ultimately successful, the Governor and

Council had had to make several major concessions to the House to secure the grant.

First, the Lower House had won that at least half of the duty was to go to defray the costs of government, such as salary for the governor and the Council. They also successfully established that one half of the duty was to pay for maintaining a magazine with arms and ammunition for the defense of the province. And that as long as the duty was in effect, the Proprietor could not impose a levy for the defense of the province without the approval of the Delegates. In addition, the provision of the Act Concerning

235 See “Opening of the Assembly, March 27, 1671” Archives 2:239 for the returns to the first (March- April) session of the 1671 assembly; see also Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds. A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) p. 26. Samuel K. Dennis, J. Hall Pleasants, and John M. Vincent. “Letter of Transmittal” Archives 51: xviii-xx: For the text of the charter of 1667, see Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “Charter of St. Mary’s City, 1667” Archives 51:64 For the Charter of 1671 see Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “Charter of St. Mary’s City, 1671” Archives 51:383- 390, and the return of Morecroft and Notley as Assemblymen see Philip Calvert. “Mayor’s certification of the election of Delegates from St. Mary’s City. October 2, 1671” Archives 51:393. For Notley’s election as Speaker, see “Opening of the Assembly, October 10, 1671”Archives 2:312. The one time Notley leaned too far towards the Proprietary, tattling on the Lower House’s not meeting in its legally appointed place in 1669 lost him the next election. David W. Jordan. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, Eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979). pp. 260-262. Notley learned his lesson. After a brief stint as Delegate from St. Mary’s City, essentially a pocket-borough of Charles Calvert’s, he was returned as Delegate by the County he had represented for nearly a decade, indicating he had convinced the voters that he was conforming to their legislative wishes, and was not simply a tool of the Calverts. In contrast, the more contrary and closer-to- the-Calverts Morecroft never again sat for the County.

202 Leavying Warr Within this Province, 1650 that automatically repaid the expenses of the proprietary in the defense of the colony, whether from invasion or insurrection, was suspended. Such military expenses could be reimbursed, but only after being approved by the Delegates in the Lower House. Finally, the Governor and Council had agreed that payments to the Proprietor for land, quitrents, fines, and other dues would be accepted in tobacco, but at a conversion rate of two pennies per pound, a significant premium over market prices, double or nearly triple the rate at which tobacco traded at in the 1660s-1670s. As a permanent income had been granted to build up the arms of the Province, the Lower House then repealed the four shilling per poll Muster Master

General’s fee. At the time, a hogshead held about 500 pounds, or about one-third to one-quarter of a mancrop. Per poll, this new duty would produce between six to eight shillings per worker, half of which was earmarked for military expenditures, offering at worst the same impost as the previous fee, or even perhaps a slight relief to the taxpayer, depending on the size of the crop per hand in a given year.236

Even with the financial restrictions it placed on the government, this permanent grant was welcomed by the Proprietary—it was guaranteed and did not need be 236 “Act Concerning Leavying Warr Within this Province, 1650” Archives 1:302-303. For the complete text of the Act granting the Duty, see the “Act for the Rayseing and Prouideing a Support for his Lordship the Lord and Proprietary of this Prouince dureing his natureall life and likewise a Supply towards the defraying the Publick Charges of Gouernment” Archives 2:284-286. The negotiations over the bill had taken place over the entire first session. See “Assembly Proceedings, March - April 1671” Archives 2:239-256. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632- 1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979). pp. 110-111. See also Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974) pp. 16-17 For tobacco price trends in the colonial period, see Charles Wetherell "’Boom and Bust’ in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 15, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984) figs. 1 & 2 p. 189. See also Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland's Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) pp. 225-227. For the price of tobacco before 1660, see Russell R. Menard “A Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 1618- 1660” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 84, No. 4 (October, 1976), pp. 401-410

203 renewed. But, from Charles Calvert’s perspective, it had a significant flaw. The Lower

House had made it permanent only for his father and for a single harvest past his death.

Charles desperately wanted that guaranteed income for himself during his lifetime, and in the 1674 session of the assembly he pushed for its extension to himself. By the 1674 session, John Morecroft had died, leaving speaker Thomas Notley to lead the effort to secure for Charles Calvert the permanent income given his father. As in 1666 Speaker

Notley was called upon to negotiate a delicate balance between the desires of the

Governor and the fears and concerns of the Lower House. Delegates from the Lower

House came to the Council and indicated that, in order “to make a gratefull

Acknowledgmt to his Lordship & Assure him of or Loves to him” they were willing to extend the two shilling per hogshead duty to the future third Lord Baltimore for his lifetime, but with some caveats. All of those previously negotiated concessions given by the Calverts were to remain in force, however. Even worse, the Delegates made this new offer contingent upon the yielding of yet another concession. The Lower House’s offer was only good if Charles agreed that if duty-paid tobacco was lost to shipwreck or seizure after the payment, and thus could not be sold for the benefit of the planter, that the duty would either be refunded or the planter would be permitted to ship as much tobacco as had been lost without paying any additional impost. For the planters, this was a pressing and immediate issue. Only a few months earlier in the summer of 1673 the Dutch had sailed into the Bay and scattered the tobacco fleet, capturing many, and causing several ships to run aground and founder. Berkeley in Virginia had granted those masters whose ships and cargoes on which Virginia’s duty had already been paid to ship additional tobacco up to the amount lost without paying any additional duties. 204 Maryland planters wanted the same arrangement. After all, 1673 was not the first time foreign Men-of-War had sailed into the Bay, and it would not be the last.237

Charles was concerned by this request. He asked if the new act with the new concession would go into effect upon the expiration of the old one, i.e. one year after the death of his father, or if that the new provisions would be in place immediately. If immediate, the losses from the previous year’s Dutch raid would exempt affected planters from any additional duty in 1674, offering them some small relief from the previous year’s losses, but of course, costing the Proprietor the additional revenues from the replaced shipments. The House clarified that this concession would have to go into effect immediately, if Charles ever wanted the two-shilling duty himself, warning if the

Governor / heir refused to grant the relief immediately that “ noe Act for 2s p hhd to

Passe during his Excelencies Life.” Charles, perhaps thinking he was calling a bluff

“Retorne[d] Answr tht he doth not thinke fitte to Accept of the sd 2s p hhd on such termes” risking not having the duty given him at all.238

Now came the time for Notley to shine. Two days later Speaker Notley brought the issue back up in the Lower House for an additional vote, knowing full well how determined the Lower House was about receiving credit for duty already paid on the lost shipments immediately and that its threat to never give the two shilling duty to Charles

237 John Van Heck (merchant/factor-planter protestant) and Henry Darnall (Calvert relative, merchant- planter, Catholic) were the Delegates chosen to broach the subject with the Council. See “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings May – June 1674.” Archives 2:381-382. The Dutch had attacked and captured the fleet previously in 1667. The fleet of 1673 was better defended and only about a quarter of the ships were lost. See John R. Pagan “Dutch Maritime and Commercial Activity in Mid-Seventeenth- Century Virginia.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 90, No. 4 (October, 1982), p. 500. See also Arthur Pierce Middleton. Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of the Chesapeake in the Colonial Era (Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1984) pp. 337-338 For Berkeley’s response to the Dutch raid in 1673, see: Warren M. Billings. Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of Colonial Virginia. (New Orleans: Louisiana State University Press, 2010) pp. 223-225 238 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings May – June 1674.” Archives 2:381-382 205 was no bluff. The Delegates had a powerful position, and they knew it. Wanting this to be perfectly clear, Speaker Notley asked the Delegates “Whether the Allowance for

Tobaccoe Lost or Taken shall now Take place or after the Lord Proprietaries death yea or not?” There was no debate, and the House “Voted That it now Take Place...” and repeated their earlier threat, that if this concession were not given immediately, that

Charles could expect to never receive the duty. Notley then asked if the assembly would like to reconsider their votes; the members refused. Notley had allowed the burgesses to make their point clear, and at last the Governor and the Council heard the message.

They agreed to accept the newest concession and its immediate effect, and the bill passed.239

Notley again proved his worth to the Calverts by successfully getting the bill to pass, Charles was pleased with the machinations that had returned Notley to the Lower

House and the Speaker’s chair: it was this effort by Notley to secure the permanent duty for Charles Calvert that secured his appointment to the Council in 1676.240 No one doubted Notley’s loyalty or the value of his service to the Calverts. But in this negotiation, Notley also served the genuine concerns of his fellow planters, for whom the immediate need for relief from the previous year’s Dutch raid was undeniable, especially considering the low returns brought by tobacco even in a normal year. Notley

239 See “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, May - June 1674” Archives 2:384-6 for this tense exchange. 240 In a letter to his father, Charles Calvert explained the machinations that returned Notley to the 1671 Assembly, and secured his election to the speakership. He explained that he was determined to keep Notley in the post as long as he could. See Charles Calvert, “Letter of the Governor to Cecilius, Lord Baltimore, 26 April, 1672. Calvert Papers, Number One. (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication No. 28, 1889) pp. 264-265. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 91. See also the entry for Thomas Notley. in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) p.616 206 recognized that 1674 was the perfect year to attempt to secure Charles’ income as proprietor, even if the future proprietor did not see it that way. In other years, a debate over the granting of the duty might see the Lower House attempt to wring even greater concessions from the Proprietor, and could potentially wreck the arrangement altogether, returning the province to the older, more arbitrary revenue mechanisms, such as the per- poll Muster Master General’s tax, and the automatic granting of the repayment of any expenses incurred in the defense of the colony, again to be assessed per poll; hated impositions and potential points of conflict that could threaten the stability of the Calvert

Government. Charles, for his part, had no desire to give up any of the revenue for 1674, or in the future due to acts of God, the Dutch, or the French. But by linking the two together, and demonstrating to his patron, twice, that the Delegates were steadfast in their resolve and would not back down, Notley successfully got both sides what they wanted. In the end, losses like those of 1673 were unlikely to be that frequent, and for

Charles, the concession would not be all that onerous. The planters were able to keep what they had already won in 1671 for the foreseeable future: more predictable taxes, continued say over future levies as well as relief from duties paid on lost cargoes.

With Notley as Speaker the Assembly met with less controversy. No outrageous sermons in the vein of Nicholet’s 1669 convocation were preached to the Lower House.

Petitions of the Delegates to the Governor and Council went through Notley, and their tone was more deferential. But this but did not mean that the Lower House abdicated its role. For example, in the Autumn, 1671 session the Notley-led Lower House submitted to the council a request to consider that appeals to the Provincial Court from the county courts not be permitted, unless the debt “realy & Bona fide Exceed the Value of six 207 hundred pounds of Tobacco...” As an experienced Chesapeake merchant, Speaker

Notley had long since abandoned suits for such paltry amounts having learned that the court costs (paid by the loser in a suit) were simply too high for them to bear, even more so if an additional layer of adjudication was added. Reforming the top-heavy legal system was a popular desire that was well known to Notley. Laws regulating debts, legal procedure, and rules of evidence had been passed by every assembly he had sat in and / or presided over. Part of the controversy in 1669 was the veto of several of these laws. For both sides in such cases, this proposal would have simplified procedure, made decisions rendered more certain, reduced costs, and speed up final execution of decisions. The Council—which also sat as the Provincial Court—chose not to limit their own power and refused to pass the efforts at such a legal reform.241

The desire to reform the legal system would not be so easily dismissed. In the third session, the Lower House once again attempted to gain relief from Maryland’s slow and expensive judicial apparatus. This time they aimed at the Court of Chancery.

They complained “...tht the tediousness of Proceedings there hath been very prejudiciall to manie Jnhabitants of this Province tht have or may have busines in tht Court...”

Accordingly the Delegates requested that new regulations be put in place to ‘abridge’ the length of time required in the court to hear and decide a case, echoing complaints about

Chancery long heard back in England. This time the Council concurred, and ordered that “the Lower house be requested to propound some Certaine rules for the regulacon of the sd Proceedings to be Considered of by this house.” 242

241 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October 1671”Archives 2:314-315. 242 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, May - June 1674” Archives 2:350. Chancery was a prerogative court of equity that heard cases that were not decided according to common law principles that faced serious attack by common-law critics during the interregnum, although it continued to function. 208 What, if any rules were proposed, and whether or not they were put into practice has not survived in the records. The proposed rules may have been quite limiting. Two years later Thomas Notley, this time serving as governor, would take his place as the

Chief Judge in Equity, presiding over the Court himself. Notley, like the Delegates in

1671, did not like the Chancellor’s court, and as the Chief Judge in Equity, refused to authorize the issuing of writs from Chancery. Because the Chancellor had to have permission from the Governor to issue the writs, Notley’s refusal effectively shut the

Complaints largely centered on the inconsistency of its rulings, and expensive and lengthy procedures, see: Stuart E. Prall. “Chancery Reform and the Puritan Revolution” The American Journal of Legal History. Vol. 6, No. 1. ( January, 1962) pp. 28-44. See also Henry Horwitz and Patrick Polden “Continuity or Change in the Court of Chancery in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries?” Journal of British Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (January, 1996), pp. 24-57. Efforts to reform the court system began at least under Elizabeth I, and James I was, in general, sympathetic to parliamentary efforts to make English justice more streamlined, quicker, and cheaper. As in Maryland half a century later, Parliament passed several bills regarding procedural and fee reforms. Maryland’s own constant confusion about which laws were in effect at any one time, addressed by Charles Calvert’s 1676 housecleaning, was also a constant worry in James I’s England. “By contrast the reign of Charles I exhibits a decline in reformist activity. This decline no doubt had many causes, among them the rift between Parliament and King, the general disinterest of Charles, his advisors and most of his judges, and, after 1629, the cessation of Parliament.” In the period 1640-1660, the range of reforms proposed ranged from the Levellers’ proposals to eliminate virtually the entirety of the traditional legal system; in 1653 the Barebones Parliament after a day of debate, voted to eliminate the Court of Chancery in its entirety. Ultimately, the court was salvaged, but the debate over its excessive fees continued. In the Restoration Era, the drive for reform did not abate. In 1677 Thomas Sheridan attacked the Court for having too many lawyers who charged excessive fees on top of those already imposed by the Courts byzantine procedures—the attack on Morecroft by the 1669 Lower House was directly in this vein. Sheridan proposed that the attorneys and officers of the court be paid regular salaries, not per-case fees, as well as limiting the duration of suits. After 1688, reform continued to focus on making the legal system cheaper and easier to access. See: Barbara Shapiro. “Law Reform in Seventeenth Century England” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 19, No. 4 (October, 1975), pp. 280-312; Barbara Shapiro. “Sir Francis Bacon and the Mid-Seventeenth Century Movement for Law Reform” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 24, No. 4 (October, 1980), pp. 331-362. Chancery continued to be a lightning rod for criticism in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but survived until it was taken over by the Supreme Court of Judicature in 1873-75. See Michael Lobban “Preparing for Fusion: Reforming the Nineteenth-Century Court of Chancery, Part I” Law and History Review, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Summer, 2004) p. 389. The Lower House with Notley as its speaker in 1674 requested that the Governor and Council reform the court for its excessive delays, again virtually identical to contemporary complaints against the court in England. See: “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, May - June 1674” Archives 2:350-351 for the text of the request. The Court of Chancery in Maryland adhered to the rules used by the Court of Chancery in England, and the clerk of the court in Maryland kept a copy of the rules of the English court at hand for reference, and was enjoined to collect the same fees “in this Court as the officers of this Court in England.” See Carol T. Bond. Introduction to the Legal Procedure in “Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679,” Archives 51: xxii. For a brief history of the Maryland Court, see J. Hall Pleasants “The First Century of the Court of Chancery in Maryland” Archives 51:xxxviii. See “Powers to Chancellor” Archives 15:161 209 Court down. Reform of the court would be unnecessary if the court did not sit at all.

Notley shared the anger towards the court, as Speaker he had heard the unpopularity of

Chancery, and as a merchant he knew it was too expensive, especially in the Maryland context. He may have felt that the court was an archaic holdover. Whatever his reasons,

Notley clearly shared the popular anger towards the court. Chancellor Philip Calvert did not want to see his court effectively eliminated, and appealed to his nephew, Charles,

Lord Baltimore to give him the authority to issue the necessary writs without Notley’s approval. In February, 1678, from England, Charles ordered that the Chancellor, Philip

Calvert was

fully & absolutely impowered & Authorized to Seale with the great Seale of our said Province of Maryland all such writt or writts of scire facias Subpena or any other writts or proces whatsoever out of our high Court of Chancery... 243

By giving the right to issue writs out of Chancery to the Chancellor, Notley’s efforts to stop the court came to naught. It is worth emphasizing that once in power,

Notley took the popular position towards Chancery expressed in the bill produced under his speakership in the autumn of 1671, and complained about again in 1674. It is also worth noting that the Justices of the court were the members of the Council, which, under Notley, had resident merchant-planters as six of its nine members. The higher fees and long delays the Court imposed made collection of debts even harder and more expensive. This, along with the more arbitrary, unpredictable—decisions the court imposed, threatened their mercantile endeavors.

The Winter 1674/75 session was a busy one, and the Lower House, artfully led by its speaker, aired other concerns. The Lower House proposed to the Council to

243 See “Powers to Chancellor” Archives 15:161-162 210 change regulations regarding the sale and shipping of tobacco, asking that it not be required any longer for those who lived far from the water “having dealt for their tobaccoe wth anie mercht or others be not Obliged to bring it to some Convenient secure place within halfe a mile from the Water side & within a week after it is recd.” This relief would offer planters additional time to prize and move their tobacco to the ships for lading. As the tobacco fleet spent months in the Bay, there was ample time after an early bargain was made to pack the crop for shipment. But, by requiring such rapid transshipment, the only tobaccos that could be sold were those already prized, or ready to be. The more time to prize the crop, the less the damage it would sustain, and higher prices might be seen by the planters. This was important to large planters like Notley, but critical to smaller planters who, possessing less labor, needed the extra time to cask the tobacco. This popular reform, one that would alleviate significant pressure on backcountry planters, was passed into law, and the idea had originated in Notley’s

Lower House.244 But this reform would not have only appealed to poorer planters.

Resident merchant-planters would also have gained advantages. The Act also stipulated that suits to recover debts would take place in the county courts, easily accessible by residents, less so easily by non residents. Here are echoes of the 1666 acts that had been directed against English tobacco merchants. In the mid-1670s the smaller planters and leading merchant-planters interests had remarkable similarities. And the merchant- planters were also closely connected to the proprietor in order to secure patronage positions. Thus, when the crisis of Bacon’s Rebellion hit, the power elite were bridging both sides, as they had been doing for some time.

244 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, May - June 1674” Archives 2: 352-3 211 Of course, the root cause underlying Bacon’s Rebellion was tension and violence between Natives and English on the frontier. Unlike Virginia, however, Maryland had never experienced widespread violence from Indian attacks. As the result of struggles amongst the Native nations prior to their 1634 voyage, the Ark and the Dove arrived at a territory that was relatively lightly peopled by Algonquin tribes who were fairly weak compared to Virginian Natives. The Calverts were well aware of how conflict and war had devastated other colonies, and from day one were committed to peaceful, friendly relations with natives on the Potomac and Pawtuxet rivers. The settlers followed the advice of Virginia Gov. Sir William Alexander who warned that in order to avoid future conflicts like the Second Powhatan War (1622-1632) the Marylanders should not dispossess local natives of land without their agreement. There was also a deep desire to trade on both sides. Both factors helped keep relations between the two relatively peaceful. Maryland never experienced an explosion of violence as Virginia did in 1622, or New England did in the 1630s with the Pequot war. That is not to say that there were no tensions in the province, but the relationship between the Marylanders and Indians was characterized by scares, rumors of impending attack, and the occasional murder committed by both sides, and not widespread war.245

245 “The relatively small number of Indians in the colony of Maryland contributed to the good relations that Governor Leonard Calvert, brother of Cecil Calvert, Second Lord Baltimore, was able to promote with the Piscataway. Calvert also benefited from the Indian's interest in obtaining English assistance against enemy tribes such as the Susquehannocks and by the English proffering useful articles in exchange for territory.” W. Stitt Robinson. “Conflicting Views on Landholding: Lord Baltimore and the Experiences of Colonial Maryland with Native Americans.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 83, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), p.88. See also: Robert J. Brugger. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634-1980 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988) p.10; J. Frederick Fausz. “ Present at the ‘Creation’: The Chesapeake World That Greeted the Maryland Colonists.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 79, No. 1 (Spring 1984) pp. 15-16; Aubrey C. Land. Colonial Maryland: A History (Millwood, NY: KTO Press, 1981) pp. 22-23. On the Western Shore, along the Potomac, the Marylanders found the Piscataway confederacy, which included the Yaocomico, the Patuxent, the Choptico, and Nanjemoy. The settlement at St. Mary’s was at a recently abandoned Yaocomico town. The tidewater Algonquians had been under 212 In part the good relations were the conscious decision of the Calverts, but also the alliance benefitted both sides in resisting the attacks of the Susquehannock. From

1639-49 the province mounted several expeditions against them. But, in the 1640s,

Maryland was no real threat to the mighty Susquehannock, especially after Ingle and

Claiborne’s attacks, when the majority of Marylanders and her government fled into

Virginia. Larger developments worked to Maryland’s advantage. Susquehannock competition with the Iroquois over access to western fur territories burst into war in

1651-52, when the Mohawk attacked. The Iroquois were ultimately repulsed, but victory came with steep losses for the Susquehannock who sued for peace with

Maryland in 1652. They ceded their claims to most of the Bay in exchange for the opening of trade with the English colonists, especially in weapons. For their part,

Maryland’s Indians were so few, and Indian trade so small that in 1650 the Proprietary government revoked the requirement that licenses be obtained to trade, opening it to all pressure for some time from raids by the warlike and expanding Susquehannock, and the Yaocomico had decided to abandon the tidewater. Leonard Calvert took the advice of experienced local trader Henry Fleet, and sailed up the Potomac, and Piscataway Creek to the chief village of the Piscataway, to meet with the “Emperor” and ask permission to settle in his lands. Initially there was considerable tension, as the Piscataway knew the English were to be both feared and respected, having had their ancient home burned by vengeful and indiscriminate Virginians following Opechancanough’s 1622 attack. But within two years, the wariness of the Piscataway had become alliance. The Emperor had been assassinated in 1636 by Kittamaquund, who converted to Catholicism and needed the support of St. Mary’s settlers to offset those in his own tribe who opposed his usurpation. For their part Marylanders were pleased with this development; they needed the help of the Piscataway Confederacy against the Susquehannock, who continued to threaten the Western Shore, as well as Indian corn supplies, and Indian trading partners. In 1641, shortly before his death, Kittamaquund gave the Maryland government the right to choose his successors, and transformed the Piscataway confederation into a subordinate status. As the English moved up the Potomac and Piscataway valleys, contact between the two increased, Piscataway attended council meetings, negotiated treaties and complained to the Calvert Government about white encroachment and incursions on their lands. Piscataway warriors fought along side Anglo militias, but Piscataway’s’ subordinate status limited their movement and its diplomacy with foreign Indians. On top of everything else, they were subject to Maryland laws and justice. In 1670, the Piscataway complained to the Government that they were poor and much reduced in number. But, even after raids by the Susquehannock and Seneca in the 1670s and 80s, the Piscataway confederacy remained the principal Native group on the Western Shore. James H. Merrell. “Cultural Continuity among the Piscataway Indians of Colonial Maryland.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series. Vol. 36, No. 4 (October, 1979) pp. 553-60, 563 213 who wished. The Iroquois were supplied by the Dutch, whom the Calverts suspected encouraged the Mohawk and Seneca to raid into Maryland. Both the Dutch and the

Calverts laid claim to Delaware. In 1661, the Susquehannock became allies of

Maryland, and carried out a proxy war with the Dutch by fighting their Iroquois allies.

And so, Restoration Maryland officially enjoyed peaceful alliances with the major native groups in her vicinity.246

The Dutch-allied Iroquois were a different matter, and they continued to launch raids against the province’s allies, the Susquehannock, and local, individual disputes occasionally turned violent. After the Dutch reconquered parts of her former holdings, they once again claimed the Delaware settlements that had been declared under New

York’s protection by Governor Andros. As long as New York did so, Calvert’s hopes to establish his claim in Delaware were effectively ended. But with the Dutch once again claiming them in 1674, the opportunity to take them once and for all had arisen, if only

Charles Calvert could convince the Delegates of the necessity to launch war. In the

June, 1674 session of the Assembly, the Governor and Council told the Notley-led

Lower House of rumors of Susquehannock attacks in order to get them to approve of

246 Robert J. Brugger. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634-1980 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988) p. 33. For a detailed and convincing analysis of the Calvert’s Susquehannock policy 1661-1676 see: Francis Jennings. “Glory, Death and Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (February, 1968) pp. 15-53. The revocation of the license requirement can be found in the “An Act concerning Trade with the Indians” Archives 1:307-308. See also Frank W. Porter. “A Century of Accommodation: The Nanticoke Indians in Colonial Maryland.” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 74, No. 2 (Summer, 1979) p. 178. In 1666 former indented servant George Alsop wrote a promotional tract for the Calverts, in which he only described the Susquehannocks- as the only ones that he had any experience with personally. He never once mentioned any violence perpetrated by them on Marylanders. As a promotional tract, he would have little incentive to describe such an attack, but at the time he had been in Maryland, the Susquehannock had either been at peace or allied with the province. George Alsop. “A Character of the Province of Maryland, 1666.” in Narratives of Early Maryland. Clayton Colman Hall, Ed.. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910) pp. 365-371. 214 war against the Susquehannocks. The House agreed and authorized the raising of a

50,000 pounds of tobacco levy in order to prosecute war or make peace with the

Cynigoe (Seneca) or the Susquehannocks “...if his Excellency and Councill shall thinke expedient to make such warr or peace this psent yeare....” War was not desired by

Charles with his allies the Susquehannocks, however, but rather the Lenape, a tribe long since defeated and made tributary to the Susquehannock. Calvert was sure of his ability to safely negotiate the continuation of peace with the Susquehannock—which he did at

Mattapany later that same year. The Lower House was all too ready to believe these indistinct and vague rumors, all the more so when in the morning of February 18,

1674/75, Thomas Hawkins petitioned the Council for assistance, explaining that

“Indians have lately broke into your Petitioners House with Violence and Spoiled him of all his Goods so that he hath not a Bed left him to Lye on or a Spoon to eat his

Victualls.” A concerned Council asked that the Lower House consider the petition and agreed to join with them in whatever relief they found fit to grant, deferring completely to the judgment of the Notley-led Lower House. The day before Hawkins’ petition, in accordance with the act granting the permanent two shilling duty, the Lower House had decided that the Lieutenant General [i.e., Governor] and Council should be authorized to raise a levy assessed per poll for the defense of the province from Indians. Immediately after Hawkins presented his petition to them on the eighteenth, the Council agreed to institute the levy and the permission to collect the tax was granted to Governor Charles

Calvert to do so, for a period of one year lasting until Feb 14, 1675/6. Notley’s Lower

House then petitioned the Council to agree to require the Lieutenant General to post thirty firearms in each county to be used to defend against Indian attack. Calvert’s 215 hopes to conquer the Dutch settlements with Maryland militias sent to fight the Lenape were dashed when they were once again forced from North America, and New York

Governor Andros once again placed them under his protection.247

Notley’s Lower House was actively involved in critical policy decisions in 1675.

A levy was collected and earmarked not for massive, and mostly useless fortifications in the backcountry, but rather for the supply of arms and ammunition in each county, only useful in the hands of the local militiamen, and a far more flexible force for the defense of Maryland then immobile forts could be. Not insignificantly, dispersing the public arms throughout the colony would put the defense of the Province in the hands of the

Protestant majority. Again, in this policy decision, the Council deferred to the

Delegates, an action undoubtedly made easier by the leadership of Notley whom the

Governor and Council knew to be of impeccable loyalty. In Berkeley’s Virginia, the planters had to march in rebellion on the Capital to have a say in Indian policy. At the same time in Maryland the Lower House effectively influenced that policy.

By 1676, Notley had repeatedly proven his worth and loyalty to the Calverts.

After fifteen years in the province, and public service to the proprietor and people of the province, he was elevated to the very inner circle of power. Shortly before Charles’

247 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5” Archives 2:426-427; “Lower House Journal Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5.” Archives 2:451-452; “Act for the Raysing a present supply for his Excettcy the Capt Generall to defray the Charges of making Peace with the Cynegoe Indians and making warr with the Susquehannes Indians and their Confederates if accation requires” Archives 2:462-465; “Upper House Journal, February 1674/5” Archives 2: 485-86. The issue in 1674 was the re- emergence of the Dutch in New Amsterdam. Seeing an opportunity to claim Delaware once and for all, Charles Calvert and the Council hoped to use an expedition against the Lenape of Delaware as the cover for the military conquest of the Dutch settlements. In order to do so, the Lower House was told of attacks and murders in the northern counties of Maryland in order to build support for the grant of a levy to equip the forces. Interestingly, the Lower House accepted these reports without demands for evidence and corroboration. See Francis Jennings. “Glory, Death and Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (February, 1968) pp. 15-53. 216 becoming third Lord Baltimore in mid-1676, he named Notley and his close friend,

Benjamin Rozer, who had married Charles Calvert’s stepdaughter, joint holders of the office of Receiver General, collecting all taxes, rents, and other dues owed the proprietor. The sizable commission from this office made it one of the three most valuable posts in Maryland. With Charles Calvert’s ascension to the proprietary, Notley and Rozer finally gained seats on the Council. And, with the unexpected death of

Wharton in July of 1676, Notley rose to the Governorship, a post he would retain until his own April 1679 death, long after Lord Baltimore’s return from England. By the time

Bacon’s Rebellion hit, Maryland’s new governor had over fifteen years of experience in the government and a carefully cultivated, wide network of contacts within and without the province. But the new Governor had something else: the Lord Proprietor’s opposition also trusted him.

217 Chapter 7: Navigating the Crisis

Bacon’s Rebellion became a civil war but it had its roots in Indian conflicts of

1675. From the earliest date, it has been well-known how a trade dispute between

Thomas Mathew and some Doegs sparked the violence that led ultimately to the uprising. Mathew was accused of cheating the Doegs. In response, the Natives of raided Mathew’s plantation, stole some livestock, and in the process murdered Mathew’s herdsman. In response, Virginia launched an expedition into Maryland that saw some

Susquehannocks collaterally attacked as well. The Susquehannock launched a restrained mourning war in response to the attacks, killing two in Virginia and a few more in

Maryland. Virginians in Suffolk County sent Jamestown panicked accounts of Natives terrorizing backcountry residents. Governor Berkeley, who had long made peace, alliance, and trade with the Susquehannocks one of the cornerstones of his Indian policy, had been reluctant to order an expedition against the tribe, or any for that matter. He feared the potential of an Indian war to cause an uprising of Virginians over the tax would have to be imposed to pay for it, and the possibility it had for turning into a devastating general conflict with all natives like King Philip’s War in New England.

Still, the reports were concerning, perhaps this was the beginning of a general war against the English. Governor Berkeley realized that Virginia had to act. He and the Council authorized John Washington and Isaac Allerton to take the Northern

218 Virginia militias into Maryland to the main Susquehannock settlement at their fort on the Potomac to investigate the causes of the recent clashes. Their orders were to demand the handover of any Susquehannock who had participated in the attacks for punishment by the Virginians. Berkeley hoped that a show of force would end the Susquehannocks’ raids, and with the punishment of Susquehannocks suspected of previous attacks, sate the anger and fear of the backcountry settlers, and hopefully end the crisis.

Before they crossed into Calvert’s province, Washington and Allerton contacted

Maryland, demanding 250 men to supplement their expedition. Also uncertain over the precise situation with their feared native allies, Maryland’s Governor and Council agreed. Councilor Thomas Truman was given command and sent to join Virginia’s forces’ mission, but was explicitly instructed to not use force against any Indians without permission. Maryland’s forces arrived at the fort first. The nervous

Susquehannock brought out a medal and a copy of their treaty of alliance with Maryland for Truman to see and explained that the attacks had been in fact perpetrated by Iroquois raiding parties who had left the Chesapeake four days earlier. Truman and the

Virginians who had arrived as this initial parley was ending were not convinced of the

Susquehannocks’ protestations of innocence, especially when they refused to help the

English pursue the Iroquois raiding party, explaining that pursuit was pointless as the raiders had a four day head start and could not be caught. Overnight Washington and

Allerton convinced Truman that the Susquehannocks were guilty, and the next day

Truman murdered five Susquehannock who had come to continue the parley under a flag of truce, and the joint force then besieged the fort. A few weeks later the

Susquehannock successfully sallied forth after a brief fight. Most of the tribe fled west 219 and south, deep into Virginia’s backcountry; a few fled north towards the Iroquois.

Neither group was pursued by besiegers who feared ambush. Starting in January,

1675/6, the Susquehannock again launched a mourning war and began attacking frontier

Virginia settlements. After killing between thirty-five and sixty whites, the

Susquehannocks felt that their dead from the siege were sufficiently avenged, and in dispatches told Berkeley that they would not continue their mourning war, peace between them and Virginia could resume. It was too late. Virginian frontiersmen were already demanding vengeance and a general war on all Indians to end all Anglo-Native conflict once and for all. Berkeley’s reluctance to launch indiscriminate war on any and all Indians, and Bacon’s willingness to lead it, led many Virginians into rebellion and civil war.248 248 Bacon’s Rebellion has a long historiography, and the basic narrative of events summarized above has been long known. The earliest accounts date as the events in Virginia were still happening, and all agreed that Indian troubles were the spark for the Rebellion. An incomplete manuscript detailing the events from 1676 that begins with the siege at the Susquehannock fort has survived. See Unknown. “The History of Bacon’s and Ingram’s Rebellion (1676)” in Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. Charles M. Andrews, ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s’ Sons, 1915) pp. 47-98. The trade dispute between the Doegs and merchant-planter Thomas Mathews was identified as the root cause of the troubles by the Royal Commissioners sent to investigate the causes of the upheaval in their 1677 report. See Royal Commissioners. “A True Narrative of the Rise, Progresse, and Cessation of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, Most Humbly and Impartially Reported by his Majestyes Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the Affaires of the Said Colony, 1677” in Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. Charles M. Andrews, ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915) pp.105-139. The official records of the Commissioners’ investigation were only published in 2005, see Michael Leroy Oberg, Ed. Samuel Wiseman’s Book of Record, the Official Account of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2005). Governor Sir William Berkeley began his account with Bacon’s attack on the friendly Occaneechee. See Wilcomb E. Washburn. “Sir William Berkeley’s ‘A History of Our Miseries.’” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 14, No. 3 (July, 1957) pp. 403-413. Thomas Mathew himself wrote a memoir of the events in 1705, and also placed the trade dispute he had with the Doegs as the root cause, see Thomas Mathew. “The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacons Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676. (1705)” in Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. Charles M. Andrews, ed. (New York: Charles Scribner’s’ Sons, 1915) pp. 15-41. One of the earliest published accounts was an eight-page pamphlet published in London in 1677. It began with the Susquehannock raids of January 1676 as the spark of the Rebellion. See: Anonymous. Strange News out of Virginia, Being a Full and True Account of the Life and Death of Nathaniel Bacon, Esquire... (London: William Harris, 1677). Printer Harris would follow this with an account of the aftermath of the uprising, including the executions of Baconite leaders. See: Anonymous. More News from Virginia, Being a True and Full Relation of all Occurrences in that Countrey, Since the Death of Nath. Bacon... (London: William Harris, 1677). Robert Beverly, in his 1705 opus, The History of Virginia, found four causes for 220 Bacon’s Rebellion was not just about what policy should be pursued towards the

Natives, even if that was its immediate cause. There were other, deeper issues at stake.

Chesapeake residents in both colonies shared economic hardships and anger towards taxes and the structure of government. Marylanders and Virginians both suffered from dependence upon tobacco monoculture, and understood the stultifying effects this the uprising: “...viz., First, The extreme low price of tobacco, and the ill usage of the planters in the exchange of goods for it, which the country, with all their earnest endeavors, could not remedy. Secondly, The splitting the colony into proprieties, contrary to the original charters; and the extravagant taxes they were forced to undergo, to relieve themselves from those grants. Thirdly, The heavy restraints and burdens laid upon their trade by act of Parliament in England. Fourthly, The disturbance given by the Indians.” (p. 61) Beverly detailed the causes, a narrative of the uprising, and its aftermath in the following pages. Beverly blamed the Indian troubles as the immediate cause of the violence, but identified Natives instigated by the Dutch to attack into Virginia as the root cause, seeming to implicate the Iroquois, and not the Susquehannocks, although he geographically located the Natives as from the North of the bay, the former homeland of the Susquehannocks. See Robert Beverly. The History of Virginia in Four Parts, Second Edition, 1722 (Richmond, VA. H.K. Ellyson’s Steam Presses Reprint 1855). pp. 60-79 at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32721/32721-h/32721-h.htm. The literature on Bacon’s Rebellion was largely limited to fiction well into the nineteenth century. Bertha Monica Stearns traced the development of the perception of Bacon and how it changed from an ambitious rebel to a leader of a precursor to the American Revolution, discussing over a dozen different poems, plays, romances, and novels centered on the events in Virginia in 1676-77. She begins with Aphra Behn’s play The Widow Ranter, first produced posthumously in 1689, mentions the Annapolis, MD publication of Ebenezer Cooke’s (the author of The Sotweed Factor) 1200 line poem The History of Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia that held Bacon in the highest contempt and even makes fun of his reported burial in a river- making puns about Bacon being cured in brine, and compares him, scornfully, to Cromwell. It was only after the Revolution that Bacon became portrayed in print as a proto-Revolutionary. In 1834 William Alexander Caruthers romance The Cavaliers of Virginia even went so far as to have Bacon survive the Rebellion, after establishing a representative assembly and, Cincinnati-esque retiring to Middle Plantation. The mid-nineteenth century was not completely settled on Bacon as a proto-Patriot however. Published in 1857, St. George Tucker’s Hansford: A Tale of Bacon’s Rebellion the prime character was Hansford, a man who was executed as a rebel by Sir William Berkeley, an execution that the Royal Commissioners determined was illegal, and about whom little else is known. In Tucker’s novel, Bacon was a complicated figure, on the one hand, he was defending the poor against the oppressive Berkeley Government as well as the Indians. But Tucker als made clear that the General was am ambitious demagogue who dreamt of glory and self- aggrandizement. Such nuances were usually lacking, however. 1909’s The Birth of Liberty presents Bacon as a proto-patriot of 1776, the one who first raised the banner of liberty in America. See Bertha Monica Stearns. “The Literary Treatment of Bacon’s rebellion in Virginia” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 52, No.3 (July, 1944) pp. 163-179. See also Aphra Behn. The Widdow Ranter, or the History of Bacon in Virginia, a Tragicomedy, acted by their Majesties Servants (London. James Knapton at the Crown in St. Paul’s Churchyard, 1690); Ebenezer Cooke. The Maryland Muse (Annapolis, MD.: William Parks, 1731) pp. 1-16; William Alexander Caruthers. The Cavaliers of Virginia: or, The Recluse of Jamestown, an Historical Romance of the Old Dominion, 1834 (Ridgewood, NJ: Gregg Press, Reprint 1968); St George Tucker. Hansford: A Tale of Bacon’s Rebellion (Richmond, VA: G. M. West, 1857); Jane Haden Lane. The Birth of Liberty: A Story of Bacon’s Rebellion (Richmond, VA: Hermitage Press, 1909). In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, non- fictional accounts also carried the celebratory Bacon-as-a-proto-Patriot theme. See, for example, John R. 221 reliance on a single staple had on their economy. Overproduction had led to falling tobacco prices in the 1660s and 1670s, when prices were at or just below the penny-per- pound threshold. A hurricane in 1667, a Dutch attack and capture of much of 1673’s tobacco fleet, and a drought in 1675, all of which severely reduced the crop exported had not solved the problem of glutted tobacco markets, and crushingly low tobacco prices.

Musick. A Century Too Soon; a Story of Bacon's Rebellion (New York: Funk and Wagnall, 1893); see also R. F. Nelson. America's First Nationalist : Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., Who Rebelled Against Conditions in Virginia a Century Before the Revolution, Made His men Swear to Fight Against English Troops (Washington, D.C.: National Republic, 1930). This attitude reached its apex in 1940 with Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker’s Torchbearer of the Revolution, in which he argued that the rebellion was really about whether the government would be controlled by the people, or “whether there was to be a degraded peasantry held under the heel of the mother country.” See Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker. Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon's Rebellion and its Leader (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1940). Initially favorably reviewed by such academic giants as Wesley Frank Craven and Perry Miller, who enthused that “... the student of New England antiquities can spend no more profitable hour that one in reading Professor Wertenbaker’s short and lively account of Bacon’s Rebellion.” See Perry Miller. “Review of Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion and its Leader, by Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker” in The New England Quarterly. Vol. 14, No. 2 (June, 1941) pp.412-413 and Wesley Frank Craven. “Review of Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion and its Leader, by Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker” in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 65, No. 4 (October, 1941), pp. 487-488. Craven identified scholarship as being divided between those who, like Wertenbaker, saw the uprising as a proto revolution, and, reflecting the primacy of Wertenbaker’s position, simply said the second group regarded the evidence of this as inconclusive. Wertenbaker’s interpretation was fast eroding, however. In 1957, using a host of previously unused manuscripts found in England, Wilcomb E. Washburn presented the events of 1675 and 1676 as largely sparked by conflict with Natives along the frontier, explaining the turn against Berkeley as the result of his refusal to attack, kill, and dispossess innocent Indians along with those guilty of attacks. It was his attempted restraint of freedmen’s desired racist policy that brought many Virginians into revolt. By beginning with 1675 Washburn missed long-standing grievances in the colony, and ultimately was not able to answer what caused the Rebellion, although he did put a strong nail in the coffin of the older Bacon-as-a-proto-Patriot paradigm, see: Wilcomb E. Washburn. The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957). Washburn’s study reflected the emergence of a new understanding of the centrality of race and racism in American history, and in 1975 Edmund Morgan placed the Rebellion at the crossroads of that topic by using it to explain the emergence of Black chattel slavery in the South. Morgan agreed that the root causes of the rebellion were fundamentally racist, but also reflective of the incredible financial stresses on, and relative political impotence of, freedmen. For Virginians looking to expand production and profits by expanding their labor supply, it was feared that continuing to import more servants from England would only lead to another uprising. What the colonial elites needed was a workforce that was easily identifiable in case of rebellion, under a coercive control, and perpetually so. Black chattel slavery filled the need. See Edmund S. Morgan. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975 (reprint, 1995)) pp. 250-315. In 1984, Steven Saunders Webb returned to the old idea that the Rebellion was a proto-revolution. Webb argued that it, along with the other calamitous events of 1675-76, would lead Charles II to end the ad hoc arrangement of his empire, and effectively bring the North American colonies under much firmer imperial control, in a way turning Wertenbaker’s thesis upside down. The Rebellion was not, for Webb, the beginning of independence, but rather the end of it. Steven 222 In the Chesapeake, standards of living remained crushingly low for the small planters as their incomes continuously fell, especially in the years of unexpected disaster. On top of this, more recent arrivals found ever less opportunity than the earlier colonists as the rich soils and easy shipping of plantations in the tidewater were closed to them, leaving the more distant and less fertile soils of the piedmont for the more recently arrived, making

Saunders Webb. 1676: the End of American Independence (New York: Knopf, 1984) pp. 3-163. Webb’s thesis has been met with some skepticism. In his review, Wilcomb E. Washburn strongly took Webb to task, declaring that his interpretations were unsupported by the evidence, and charged that Webb was essentially ignorant of the extant literature on the topic, leading him to make fundamental errors in understanding. He called Webb’s interpretation a rehashing of Wertenbaker’s thesis that he himself had systematically refuted over twenty-five years earlier. See Wilcomb. E. Washburn. “Review of 1676: The End of American Independence, by Stephen Saunders Webb.” Pacific Historical Review Vol. 54, No. 2 (May, 1985) pp.209-211. Webb does discuss events in Maryland, but only in brief, and as will be argued below, fundamentally misunderstands the dynamics playing out in Baltimore’s Province. In 1992, Susan Westbury added gender to the mix, noting how central women were in the primary sources. The very young Lady Berkeley was resoundingly criticized at the time as causing her elderly husband’s behavior during the rebellion and especially in his reaction—executing rebels and seizing plantations, and holding together the powerful Green Spring Faction in her husband’s absence, thwarting the Royal government at every step she could. On the rebel’s side, it is clear that women played a central role in getting their husbands to be involved. See Susan Westbury. “Women in Bacon’s Rebellion.” in Southern Women : Histories and Identities. Virginia Bernhard, et al., eds. (Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1992) pp. 30-46. Most recently, Brent Tarter has argued that Bacon’s Rebellion swept up so many Virginians who were not under any real threat from the Indians whose attacks were its proximate cause because it was actually about ‘county grievances,’ namely, high taxes and the expense of the assembly meeting too often. The Burgesses were paid and supported by county levies, the counties wanted the assembly to meet less often, no more than once every two years, the county courts also complained about the imposition of unusual taxes, such as that to build the useless fort at Point Comfort, to build the public buildings in Jamestown, and to fight the Northern Neck grant. The Counties hoped to alleviate the financial burden they had to impose on each county’s taxpayers. See Brent Tarter. “Bacon's Rebellion, the Grievances of the People, and the Political Culture of Seventeenth-Century Virginia.” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography. Vol. 119 Issue 1 (2011) p1-41. Also published in 2011, James D. Rice’s Tales from a Revolution offers one of the most detailed narratives of the events in Virginia, 1675- 77. See James D. Rice. Tales from a Revolution: Bacon’s Rebellion and the Transformation of Early America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). For the original Maryland records of Truman’s expedition see “Lower House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., (Baltimore: 1883-present.) Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp. 462-463 (hereafter Archives 2:462-463), “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5” Archives 2: 475-477, 481- 483, 485-486. Interestingly, Allerton’s father had been the focus of a symbolic Susquehannock raid into Manhattan in 1655. The Dutch militia was absent, attacking New Sweden when the Susquehannock entered New Amsterdam and paraded proudly, breaking into a few houses and demonstrating that the town was at their mercy. The attacks were not random, and Isaac Allerton, an Indian trader, had his house and warehouse broken into and was insulted publicly by the raiders. Cynthia Van Zandt argues that this humiliation was part of the reason that Isaac’s son led Virginian forces against the Susquehannock fort twenty years later, noting that in seventeenth century European culture, sons were expected to avenge the wrongs done to their fathers. See Cynthia Van Zandt. Brothers Among Nations: The Pursuit of 223 it harder and harder for them to simply meet their basic needs from their exports, let alone begin some property accumulation. Up to the 1660s, the Chesapeake had been a place where those servants and poor freemen who successfully completed their indentures and/or survived seasoning and could aspire to some wealth and even hope for some public office. As the 1660s and 1670s wore on, however, opportunity for such advancement in property, wealth, and status seriously eroded. All of these problems were exacerbated by the high taxes that were complained about in both colonies of the region. Both Virginians and Marylanders were faced with levies for running the counties, for the defense of the colony against Native attack, a two-shilling per hogshead export duty, and the expensive charges to support elected representatives when they sat in the assembly. Virginians also chafed under additional heavy duties to build useless defenses against the Dutch and to pay for Berkeley’s efforts to reclaim the Northern

Neck proprietary grant. These other longer-term antagonisms came bursting to the surface and turned Indian war into civil war in Virginia.249

Intercultural Alliances in Early America, 1580-1660 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008) pp. 3-4

249 For the development of the economy of the Chesapeake, see Russell R. Menard, P. M. G. Harris, and Lois Green Carr. “Opportunity and Inequality: The Distribution of Wealth on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1638-1705.” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 69, No. 2, (Summer, 1974) pp. 169-184. See also, Carville Earle. The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System: All Hallow's Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783 (Chicago: Department of Geography, University of Chicago, 1975). In addition to arguing that the seemingly wasteful and lazy Chesapeake system of husbandry was in fact a rational response to a place where land was cheap, and abundant, and labor was expensive and rare, Earle discovered that during periods of depressed prices as was seen in the Restoration era, smaller planters were unable to grow their estates, while the larger, more diversified planters made their greatest advances through reduction of purchases, greater capital investment in agriculture, and advancing loans to their smaller neighbors. See also Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980). Lois Green Carr, Russell R. Menard. “Land Labor and Economies of Scale in Early Maryland: Some Limits to Growth in the Chesapeake System of Husbandry.” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 2 (June, 1989) pp. 407-418. Although immigrants to the Chesapeake lived material lives much poorer than their contemporaries in England, if they survived they had opportunities not available to them in the metropole, opportunity to own land and achieve a measure of economic independence, but “By the end of the century, the rising price of land and labor was bringing 224 The proximate cause of Virginia’s 1676 revolt—the siege of the Susquehannock fort that had sparked their launching of a mourning war—had taken place in Maryland, and the government of Maryland had little history of stability in times of violence and uncertainty when there were competing claims to legitimacy. The same deeper tensions that were at the heart of Virginia’s troubles were also tensions in Maryland. It would have been perfectly understandable had Maryland seen an ambitious opponent to the

Calvert regime take the opportunity to overthrow them once again in late 1676, as there had been in the 1640s and 1650s; all the ingredients that sparked a catastrophic uprising in Virginia were also present in famously unstable Maryland. Instead of following

Virginia into chaos, however, the new merchant-planter elites in Maryland were able to successfully navigate the province through the Rebellion, swiftly suppressing a brief insurrection that did appear, and working to make certain that the most disaffected elites

—the Gerard family—did not see an opportunity to provide the people with a leader. an end to opportunity for the poor... progress from the bottom, or near bottom to achievement of economic independence was becoming a thing of the past.” Lois Green Carr. “Emigration and the Standard of Living: The Seventeenth Century Chesapeake. The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 52, No. 2 (June, 1992) pp. 271-291 (quote on p.285) For more on the material life of Marylanders, see Gloria Main. Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982). After 1650, Maryland “... was a relatively open community of farmers, a good small man’s country in which poor men could aspire to own land. By 1660, most free adult males in Maryland... worked their own small plantations. Men who did not own land, if they based their judgment on the experience of neighboring planters, could expect to acquire farms soon.” But the “Age of the Yeoman Planter” would not last long; by 1680 opportunity for smaller planters was rapidly disappearing. Lois Green Carr, Lorena S. Walsh, Russell R. Menard. Robert Cole's World: Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996) (Quote on p.15; see especially pp. 152-166); James Horn. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth-Century Chesapeake (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1996) pp. 251-328. For Virginia’s additional taxes and duties, and the ordered building of the useless Fort Comfort see: Edmund S. Morgan. American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia (New York: W. W. Norton, 1975 (1995 paperback edition)) pp. 235-250. For Berkeley’s Indian policies, see ibid 253-256. For tobacco price trends in the colonial period, see Charles Wetherell "’Boom and Bust’ in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 15, No. 2, (Autumn, 1984) pp.185-210, figs. 1 & 2 p. 189. See also Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland's Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980) pp. 225-227. For the price of tobacco before 1660, see Russell R. Menard “A Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 1618-1660” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 84, No. 4 (October, 1976), pp. 401-41 225 Indeed, Governor Notley worked diligently to use his patronage powers to wed them tightly to him and his administration. After the suppression of Bacon’s Rebellion, they worked to address many of the outstanding issues that had been at the root of unrest in the entire Chesapeake, and Maryland in particular. In 1678 the Governor and Council called an assembly that passed a series of reforms long desired. As it turned out, when the crisis in the Chesapeake hit the merchant-planter elites were in charge, led by

Governor Thomas Notley. Under his capable leadership, they brought Maryland safely through the greatest crisis Calvert’s government had faced since 1660, and addressed the many real concerns of Maryland’s poorer sorts.

Dealing with the Indian Problem

It seems likely that Speaker Notley was not privy to Governor Charles Calvert’s machinations in regards to his hoped-for conquest of Delaware. The Lower House over which he had presided was certainly not in any case. In February, 1674/5, the

Susquehannocks arrived in St. Mary’s, having abandoned their northern home fleeing attacks form the Iroquois as well as clearing the way for Maryland to wage war against the Lenape—the pretext for the Calvert’s conquest of the Dutch settlements in Delaware

—without risking accidental attacks on the feared Susquehannock, as had been agreed at

Mattapany in 1674. Officially, they came to ask permission of Governor Charles

Calvert and Council to settle somewhere in the southern reaches of the province, again, as per the Mattapany agreement. By this time, however, the Dutch had been driven from

Delaware, which was once again under Andros’ protection. There would be no more attacks by Maryland forces, no conquest that would have secured Baltimore’s claim to the northeastern portion of the Delmarva Peninsula. The Susquehannock had been 226 forced to move by the Governor, and in 1674 Charles Calvert and his council had convinced the Lower House to fund their hoped-for expedition against the Dutch, by telling the Delegates of rumors of Susquehannocks attacks that had originated in

Delaware—meaning the Lenape, a tribe tributary to the Susquehannocks. The Thomas

Notley-led Lower House authorized the raising of funds for the proposed counter- attacks. Now, Governor Charles Calvert and the Council had to figure out a way to get those same Delegates whom they had convinced to authorize funds for a war against the

Susquehannocks for attacking outlying settlements, to agree to resettle them much nearer. So, even though diplomacy was a prerogative of the Proprietor’s, exercised by his Governor and Council, in this case the Council not only asked for the advice of the

Lower House, led again by Speaker Thomas Notley, but agreed to be bound by whatever the Delegates decided. Not surprisingly, the House expressed concerns that the

Susquehannocks were merely feigning peaceful intentions and would use these arrangements to spy on the strengths of Maryland and perhaps even to turn the other peaceful natives like Maryland’s oldest allies, the Piscataway Confederacy, against the province. The Delegates were not convinced of the Susquehannocks’ claims to be themselves victims of Iroquois raids, and were concerned that the two nations may not have been at war at all and that they may even have been allied. On the other hand, they also feared that if the two were in fact enemies, Maryland’s aiding the Susquehannocks might anger the Iroquois and cause them to launch war on the province themselves. The

Delegates were also keenly aware that keeping the peace with the powerful

Susquehannocks was something to be desired. The Delegates, therefore, divided the baby as best they could. They authorized the Council to settle the Susquehannocks 227 above the falls of the Potomac in an abandoned Piscataway fort. Not wanting the

Indians to tarry too long in their midst and become a public burden, the Delegates also advised the Council to tell the refugees to depart for the grant immediately, noting that if they did so, there would be time for them to clear the ground and get a corn crop planted, hopefully avoiding any necessity for Maryland to feed them. It was unspoken that the quick removal of the Susquehannocks would also limit the potential for them attacking settlers. The Council ordered that the Susquehannock immediately settle above the falls of the Potomac, provided they took care not to settle too close to English settlements on either side of the river, i.e., to avoid Virginian settlements as well as

Maryland’s. The Council warned the Susquehannocks that they would be forced to settle there by force if necessary. This settlement was the one that became the site of the

Massacre that opened the violence that would become Bacon’s Rebellion in Virginia.250

By mid-1675, Maryland’s Governor and Council had seemingly deferred to the opinions of the Delegates regarding Indian policy for two consecutive sessions of the Assembly.

With the death of Cecil, Lord Baltimore, Charles Calvert, now Proprietor in his own right, ordered new elections for a May 1676 Assembly, called in part for a comprehensive review of the laws now that he was Lord Baltimore. There was, however, other business to attend to first. After the Delegates assembled, they immediately began the process of investigating and eventually impeaching Thomas

Truman for his murderous actions at the Susquehannock fort. The Council was eager to demonstrate to the natives that such acts would be addressed by them, and that the

250 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5” Archives 2: 428-430, “Lower House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5” Archives 2:450-451, 462-463 228 Indians did not need to take matters into their own hands. After taking testimony from several witnesses, Truman was impeached by the House, and convicted by the Council.

The Lower House then authorized the payment of forty-five pounds of powder, one- hundred fifty pounds of shot, one-hundred barrels of corn, and one hundred and fifty matchcoates to the Piscataway, Pamunkey, Chapticoe, Mattawoman, and Nanjemoy allies who had helped Marylanders fight the Susquehannock following the siege, which may help explain why the Susquehannock fled south and west into Virginia, and spared

Maryland their attacks in January. In mid-1676, Marylanders feared their native neighbors, and not entirely without cause. They knew of the Susquehannock causing no little mischief in Virginia, and Metacom’s forces devastating New England. There were troubling hints that these Indian wars might emerge in Maryland, too. As the Delegates were gathering testimony for Truman’s impeachment, they also considered a petition about George Watts and John Dickenson’s children who had been kidnapped and were being held by a Delaware tribe on the Murderkill. The Council had once again asked the

Lower House what they thought should be done regarding the Watts and Dickenson children, the Delegates agreed with the Council’s assessment that the time was not right to demand their return through the Nanticoke, whom they feared would interpret the request as indicating Maryland suspected them of the kidnapping. And so, a newly elected assembly, with fifty-percent merchant-planter membership, once again sat in the center of the making of Maryland’s Indian policy. Peace with most Natives in Maryland was kept.251

251 An Act for the Raysing a present supply for his Excettcy the Capt Generall to defray the Charges of making Peace with the Cynegoe Indians and making warr with the Susquehannes Indians and their Confederates if accation requires” Archives 2: 462-63, Upper House Journal, Assembly Prooceedings, May-June, 1676.” Archives 475-477, 481-483, 485-486. See also Francis Jennings. “Glory, Death and 229 Having secured his province against the Indians and clarified precisely which laws remained in effect Charles, Lord Baltimore prepared to leave Maryland for England in order to settle his father’s estate. Before he left, he named his nine-year old

Maryland-born son, Cecil Calvert, as Governor. He left actual power, however, in the hands of his stepson-in-law, Deputy Lieutenant Governor Jesse Wharton. He also elevated Speaker Thomas Notley, old Indian-trader and diplomat Henry Coursey, and his newest step-son-in-law, Benjamin Rozer to the council. All three of the new councilors were merchant-planters. With the death of Wharton in late July, Thomas

Notley became Deputy Lieutenant Governor.252

Governor Notley: Keeping the Peace

Governor Notley first had to weather the storm of late summer and early autumn,

1676, the height of Bacon’s successes in Virginia. Virtually immediately after assuming the Governorship, he needed to secure the province from violence perpetrated by both

Indians and disgruntled settlers. In early August he and the Council rearranged

Maryland’s forces already in arms. An additional “Two files of foote” were raised, and ordered to guard and defend Lord Baltimore’s house at Mattapany, joined by six horse.

On August 4, 1676, new Governor Notley wrote Lord Baltimore advising him of the situation as it then stood. Certain that the Susquehannock had been responsible for attacks in Virginia, Notley was pleased, if cautious about a report from the north of the

Bay that they wished for peace. The Governor was reluctant to negotiate a peace

Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (February, 1968) pp. 15-53. 252 See the entries for Coursey, Henry; Notley, Thomas; Rozer, Benjamin; and Wharton, Jesse in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 2 Vols. Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp. 236, 616,707, 880-881 230 without consulting Virginia. He decided to pursue peace negotiations with the

Susquehannock on his own, anyway, because there was no functioning government in

Virginia to contact. Notley did, however, send a letter to Virginia, apprising whoever may have been in charge that Maryland would include Virginia in the negotiations. Two days later the Notley sent a second letter to Baltimore, begging him to send more arms and ammunition for the colony’s magazine, as well as sending merchants with shot and powder so the householders of Maryland could buy enough to defend themselves against any native attack as well. But the Governor also feared Bacon would attempt to cross into Maryland, under pretext of fighting Maryland’s old allies, the Piscataway. On

August 17th, Notley and the Council met at Notley Hall and again redistributed and raised more forces. The force at Mattapany was doubled, fifty more men were called to duty, and thirty-five men were moved to the Cliffs of Calvert County—the home of anti-

Calvert Protestants including the former Governor-rebel Josias Fendall—in order to prevent any potential home-grown rebellion. The Governor and Council then met with the leaders of the Piscataway Confederacy and the Mattawoman, both friendly to

Maryland, a relationship Notley was keen on keeping. They warned the Indians that

Bacon’s forces might attack them without provocation, but that Maryland did not approve of any such attacks, and would not oppose any Native actions to defend themselves against murderous Virginians. They advised the tribes that they should not cross the Potomac, officially so that they would not provoke the Virginians, and probably also a warning to not involve themselves in the war there. The two

“Emperors” agreed to allow Maryland to include them in the diplomacy with the

231 Susquehannocks. These efforts at keeping the peace with all the Natives in Maryland worked, no war started.253

Of course, as Sir William Berkeley attested, the Natives were not the only source of potential violence. Notley later called his first few months in office “dangerous & rebellious tymes” and reported to Lord Baltimore that in August, 1676, Marylanders had never been “more repleat with Malignancy and Frenzy....” To Notley, the fundamental issue that was at the heart of the discontent in Maryland was neither Indian war nor fears of Indian attacks. As he explained to Baltimore, his best efforts to preserve the peace with the Indians in 1676 and 1677 had been and continued to be successful, and he hoped that that situation would continue. Rather, the grumbling in Maryland was the result of the same problem that had underlain Bacon’s Rebellion: high taxes in 1674 and

1675, which in Maryland were levied to prepare for an expedition against the Natives in

Delaware. The Governor wrote “God grant us to enjoy peace with them all [i.e., the

Natives], for this last publicke leavy being 297 p pole and the great leavy the yeare before, hath given occasion for malignant spiritts to mutter...”254 If war were to break out with the natives, the Governor and Council would have to defend the colony, and

253 Thomas Notley. “Letter from the Governor and Council of Maryland to Charles, Lord Baltimore, 4 August, 1676” Archives 15: 120-121; Thomas Notley. “Letter from the Governor and Council of Maryland to Charles, Lord Baltimore, 6 August, 1676” Archives 15: 123-124; “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, August, 1676” Archives 15: 120-127. 254 The first quote is from the Council’s proclamation declaring Pate and Davis rebels, under sentence of death, See “Proclamation of Condemnation of Davis, Giles, Haselham, and Pate, Sept. 4, 1676” Archives 15:127-130. The second quote is from the letter detailing Notley’s assessment of the uprising, and containing his putting down of the Affair at the Cliffs, see Thomas Notley “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Charles, Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/77, January 22, 1676/77” in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Volume 10: 1677-1680 W. Noel Sainsbury and J. W. Fortescue Eds. (London: Her Majesty’s Stationers Office, 1896). pp. 7-8, the letter is also in Archives 5:153 232 then raise taxes again to pay for it, potentially sparking rebellion. The “malignant spiritts,” however, did not just mutter.

In August, a group of men at the Cliffs in Calvert County refused to pay the 1676 levy to pay for the defense of the Province—the third such special levy assessed in as many years. This refusal rapidly grew into a natal insurrection led by William Daveys,

John Pate, William Gent, and Giles Hasleham. None of these men seem to have had significant status; other than these events, they are virtually absent from the historical record. This group “contrived a certaine Seditious paper tending to the utter Subversion of his Lopps Rule & Govermt the destruction of the peace of the good people of this province.”255 On September 3, 1676, these men attempted to publish the paper that denied the legal constitution of the Assembly, complaining about Charles, Lord

Baltimore only calling two delegates of the four elected in each county, et al., accusing this as a tactic to deny voice to the Calvert’s opposition in the Assembly. They and sixty other men gathered at the house of Thomas Barbary and threatened mutiny if the

Governor and Council did not grant concessions. Notley and the Council refused to negotiate anything and ordered the men to retire to their own houses offering all of them free pardon. If the men dispersed peaceably, Notley even promised to bring up their petitions for consideration at the next assembly, and to advocate them before Charles,

Lord Baltimore himself. Even Daveys, identified as the principal ringleader, was promised a fair and free trial before the Provincial Court and would not be automatically condemned. Perhaps buoyed by the concurrent successes of Bacon, the men instead

255 “Proclamation of Condemnation of Davis, Giles, Haselham, and Pate, Sept. 4, 1676” Archives 15:127- 130. 233 marched out of Barbary’s plantation “with drummes beateing & Collours flying in despight and defiance of his Lopps Govrment and to the Terror of all the good people of this Province.” Faced with what could be the spark of Maryland’s own rebellion, the

Governor and Council immediately proclaimed Daveys, Gent, Hasleham, and Pate guilty of mutiny and sedition and sentenced them to death. All of their followers were pardoned, as long as they immediately put down their arms and went peaceably home.

The militia was called out by Notley, who was probably relieved at having stationing an additional thirty-five men there a month earlier, and the insurrectionists melted away.

Daveys and Pate were pursued into Delaware where they were captured and promptly executed. Notley could not afford to let potential Baconite demagogues to be put through a trial, especially in early September, 1676 when Bacon’s Rebellion was approaching its apogee. Nor could he alienate a large swath of the population by condemning ordinary planters. So, he did not and the “Affair at the Cliffs” was successfully put down.256

Co-opting the Gerard Clan

Notley also believed that it was the lack of a rebel leadership helped kept the peace in Maryland in 1676, commenting in his January, 1676/77 letter to Lord Baltimore that potential rebels in Maryland “wanted but a monstrous head to their monstrous body....”257 For all their effort, poor planters Daveys, Pate, Haselham, and Gent lacked 256 See “Proclamation of Condemnation of Davis, Giles, Haselham, and Pate, Sept. 4, 1676” Archives 15:127-130. See also Governor Thomas Notley and Council of Maryland. “A Remonstrance of the true State of the Province & of the causes & reasons of the publique Taxes, December 12, 1676” Archives 15:137-40. See also: David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632- 1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 118-120. Jordan thinks that Notley’s swift action in pardoning the men, but executing the leaders without a trial was what kept it from expanding into a wider rebellion. (p.120) 257 “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Charles, Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/77” in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Volume 10: 1677-1680 W. Noel Sainsbury and 234 the gravitas to attract a wide following. Just as in Virginia, the real potential threat came from disgruntled Maryland elites. The men who would in 1688 be that “monstrous head” and form the Protestant Association that overthrew Charles Calvert—John Coode,

Nehemiah Blakiston, Kenelm Cheseldyne and John Addison—were all already in

Maryland in 1676. Furthermore, Coode, Blakiston, and Cheseldyne were brothers-in- law, all married to daughters of Thomas Gerard, the Catholic instigator behind Fendall’s

Rebellion. This group of men would come to embody anti-proprietary resistance in the

1680s. In 1676, however, the Gerard clan had a deep connection to Governor Thomas

Notley.258

Thomas Gerard was an early migrant to the Calvert’s province, establishing his family at St. Clement’s in the early 1640s. Although his wife and children were all

Protestants, Gerard was a Catholic, barred in England from holding the offices that a wealthy gentleman would otherwise expect to fill, perhaps explaining his migration.

One of the largest landowners in Maryland, he sat in the Lower House of the assembly in four sessions from 1638/9 to 1642, served on the council from 1643-49, and 1651-58.

He was removed from his seat 1658-59 “for maligning other councilors,” but was returned in 1659-60, his wealth and status were too great for him to not to be on the

Council. Shortly after his reinstatement, he egged on the treasonous Governor Fendall in his attempts to create Maryland as a kind of republic, an attempted constitutional J. W. Fortescue Eds. (London: Her Majesty’s Stationers Office, 1896) pp. 7-8, the Letter is also in Archives 5:152-154 (quote is on p. 153) 258 There had been similar tax-protesting “mutinies” in Virginia in 1673-1675. They were limited to minor taxpayers in Surrey and New Kent Counties, failed to attract a higher-status local leader and collapsed quickly. See Brent Tarter. “Bacon's Rebellion, the Grievances of the People, and the Political Culture of Seventeenth-Century Virginia.” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography. Vol. 119, No. 1 (2011), pp 16-19. See the entries for John Addison, Nehemiah Blakiston, Kenelm Cheseldyne, and John Coode in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp. 100, 135, 217, 233-234 235 revolution that would have made the Proprietor unable to control the introduction or stop the passage of legislation. His was an active and leading role in the attempted coup, and

Cecil, Lord Baltimore would permanently bar him from voting or holding any elected or appointive office in the colony after 1660. After that, the Gerard family had a long history of strident opposition to the Calverts, culminating in the Revolution of 1688-

1689.259

Notley’s connection to the Gerard family went as far back as his own earliest days in the Province, when he became Thomas Gerard’s attorney when Gerard’s wife’s brother, Marmaduke Snow, attempted to take the ownership of St. Clement's manor in what was “the most important suit involving land” in seventeenth century Maryland.

For Gerard, the choice of Notley as his attorney was natural: the future Governor was one of the largest tenants on Gerard’s St. Clement’s Manor, and was an educated, wealthy, already established independent merchant, familiar with the practice of law.

With barely a year in the province in April, 1662 Thomas Notley stepped into a presumably hostile Calvert-controlled court for the first time as the attorney of the

Gerard patriarch. For the next four years, Notley would wind the case through the court system of Maryland, from the Court of Chancery, where he lost, to the Provincial Court, the highest court in the Province, where he won and restored the Gerards to their full

259 For the most comprehensive examination of the Gerard Family, see Edwin W. Beitzell. “Thomas Gerard and his Sons-in-Law” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 46, No. 3 (Summer, 1951) pp. 189-206. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 57-59; and John D. Krugler. English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004) pp. 218- 220 236 rights.260 Few attorneys get cases with such difficult circumstances, and it was a testament to Notley’s political acumen and legal skill that he was completely successful.

Having died in 1673, Thomas Gerard could not provide the “monstrous head” in

1676. Nehemiah Blakiston was young, and although he had married into the prominent

Gerard clan in 1669, he was a distinctly minor figure in the family, and would not see any public office until the revolution of 1689. Kenelm Cheseldyne, already a prominent

260 Gerard “had some twenty years earlier been closely associated in various trading and land ventures with Abel Snow, of Snow Hill Manor, St. Mary's County, the brother of Marmaduke. It is said that after the death of Abel Snow, Gerard on behalf of his wife had laid claim to Abel's lands, and that Marmaduke had come over to Maryland to assert his rights in them, and that there was bad blood between them. About 1661 Marmaduke Snow had brought suit in the Provincial Court against Gerard for old debts due his brother Abel, which he had acquired by assignments. See “Snow v Gerrard” Archives 41: 530-534, 542- 550, et al.. Matters came to a head when Snow at the October 6, 1664, session of the court obtained a judgment against Gerard for one thousand pounds sterling. Execution upon Gerard's personal property only yielded about three hundred pounds, so the court at its March I, 1665, meeting ordered the sheriff to have his lands appraised and sold, unless Gerard paid the balance of the judgment against him. Gerard by a writ of error took the case before the General Assembly through his attorneys Thomas Notley and John Morecroft see “Snow V Gerrard” Archives 41: 269, 401, 415-416, 555-558. The case was heard on appeal by the Upper House, at the April-May, 1666, session, the order of the Provincial Court to execute upon the lands of Gerard was reversed, and Snow was ordered to yield possession of St. Clement's Manor to Gerard” See Marmaduke Snow. “Petition to the Upper House” Archives 2:11 Thomas Gerard. “Petition for a Writ of Error” Archives 2:11-12; “Decision of Upper House in Snow v Gerrard” Archives 2: 59-60 See “Letter of Transmittal” Archives 49: preface 22. In the records of this case, Thomas Notley’s expertise as a lawyer comes through clearly. He was erudite and knowledgeable in the intricacies of the Common Law, as his efforts in September of 1664 attest. On September 20th, Notley and Morecroft countered three legal errors raised by Snow in his heretofore successful bid for control of the Manor; in all three cases, The future Governor argued with a clear understanding of precedent and Common Law theory, strongly hinting that he had some legal training. In all three questions the Justices of the Provincial Court (the Governor and members of the Council), accepted Notley’s arguments, decided the point in Gerard’s favor, and ordered the dismissal of the case. Although it would take another nineteen months for Gerard to regain his possession, this decision was what was executed in April of 1666. See “Snow v Gerrard” Archives 1:525-530; 2:33, 59-60; Archives 49:555-60, 573-77. Not surprisingly, Gerard relied upon his tenant in many legal matters throughout the early 1660s. In 1662, Gerard had Notley witness the deed passing 1000 acres of St. Clement’s Manor to Robert Slye, as a wedding gift to the man who had married the eldest Gerard daughter. In September of 1663 Gerard registered “Thomas Nottley mercht” in the Provincial Court as his attorney in all cases whatsoever was in turn witnessed by Robert Slye—Gerard’s son-in-law. Slye, it will be recalled, was the Speaker of the House in the first assembly attended by Notley, and, along with Notley, would be one of the principals charged with negotiating the stint with Virginia and the Carolinas in 1665. Thomas Gerard. “Letter of Attorney to Thomas Notley, September 5, 1663.” Archives 49: 74. For the indenture recording the transfer to Slye, see Thomas Gerard. “Transfer of Bushwood To Robert Slye, January 24, 1663” Archives 49:575-577. This was not the only Gerard land transfer witnessed by Notley. For example in June 1663, Notley witnessed the sale of 200 acres of Basford Manor by Gerard to John Goldsmith. In May, 1665, he witnessed the sale of an additional 100 acres to Goldsmith on Basford Manor, see Thomas Gerard. “Lease on Basford Manor to John Goldsmith, January 24, 1662/3” Archives 49:573-574 237 attorney in the Province in 1676, was not yet part of the clan; he married into the Gerard family in 1677. Cheseldyne served in the assembly throughout the crisis, including the

1678 session led by Governor Thomas Notley. Although both brothers-in-law would be prominent in the 1688-1689 revolution, it would be John Coode who was the primary driving force of the opposition to the Calvert’s rule in the 1680s and the Revolution in

1688-1689. John Coode arrived in the province in 1672, settled in St. Clement’s and very shortly thereafter married Susanna (Gerard) Slye, the widow of Robert Slye, the former Speaker.261

Coode filled the role of a revolutionary demagogue in 1688-1689, but not in

1676. His short time in Maryland was not a bar to his ambitions: Notley had been elected a Delegate to two assemblies and had risen to the Speakership by his fourth year in the bay. Bacon himself had been in the bay for less than two years when he became leader of the rebellious forces. Furthermore, Coode was well aware of the problems with natives in the backcountry. In September 1675, Coode had served in Maryland’s forces sent to the Susquehanna fort. There Coode and two other men were ordered to inspect the ruins of an attacked settler’s house. Here he gained first hand knowledge, if he did not already have it, of the violence of the Indians against the poor planters of the backcountry. Stifled ambition, discontent with the government, and anger over the attacks made on English settlers by natives had led Bacon into rebellion in Virginia.

Like Bacon, Coode was ambitious and deeply antipathetic towards Indians. But, unlike

261 See Nehemiah Blakiston in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0418; Kenelm Cheseldyne, Sr. in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0769; John Coode, Sr. in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0893. For a comprehensive treatise on John Coode, see David W. Jordan. “John Coode, Perennial Rebel.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 70, No. 1 (Spring, 1970) pp. 1-28 238 Bacon, in 1675 he had not yet entered the politics of his adopted home, and had no following. Coode was not yet an officer and his participation in the events at Truman’s siege of the Susquehannock was at a low enough level that he was never called to give testimony either against or for Truman. Coode had not yet begun his journey on the road to power. That would begin in the summer of 1676 with Coode’s election as a

Delegate for St. Mary’s County, joining Thomas Notley by filling the seat previously held by John Morecroft. There he immediately stood out; as a former Anglican priest, he was one of the most highly educated men in the assembly.262

Coode and Notley had been neighbors in St. Clement’s Hundred since Coode’s

1674 marriage to Robert Slye’s widow, who possessed a widow’s right to one thousand acres of the Manor. The former Anglican priest must have made quite an impression on the future Deputy Governor, for it did not take long for Governor Notley to advance the freshman Delegate. As Speaker, Notley had been chosen by the Lower House to sit on the committee that decided the public levy for the defense of the province. As governor,

262 Coode’s participation in Truman’s massacre is recorded in the deposition taken of Capt. John Allen, one of the commissioned officers in the expedition. “Testimony of John Allen before the Council, May 20, 1676.” Archives 2:482-483. That Coode was at the least concerned about Indian attacks can be seen in his co-sponsoring a “bill entituled an Act for the Security and defence of this Province” in the May, 1676 assembly, in the middle of the Lower House’s investigation of Truman, and just before the Council brought a bill prohibiting arms sales to natives, see “Bills sent to the Upper House, May 1676” Archives 2: 481. The bill was passed into law. It was directed at all Indians indiscriminately, ordering that all militia officers to be allowed to raise such troops and train them as they saw fit. It also enumerated the pay for the officers of the militia, and ordered that all charges incurred in an Indian war or domestic insurrection be assessed on all “persons and estates” of the province. See “Act Providing for the Security and Defence of this Province.” Archives 2: 557-560. Coode may have stood out for other reasons as well. “A proclamation for his arrest in 1698 described Coode as deformed and club-footed with a "face resembling that of a baboon or monkey." By repeated testimony, he was defiant, quick to anger, impious, argumentative, boastful, theatrical, and given to a weakness for alcohol which further enforced all of his other characteristics” See David W. Jordan. “John Coode, Perennial Rebel.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 70, No. 1 (Spring, 1975) pp. 1-27 (quote from pp. 2-3), also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 92, note 60. See also entry for John Coode in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094, pp. 233-234. 239 however, his sitting on the committee violated the agreement that the Lower House be in charge of the assessment. Accordingly, on August 1, 1676 he ordered that a new writ issue to Mr. John Coode to serve in his stead. This was the second recorded action taken by Notley after he was sworn in as governor; the first was to order the committee to meet at John Grigg’s house. Coode’s rise in the public eye had begun, and it was Calvert loyalist Thomas Notley who first advanced him. 263

In he late summer of 1676 as Bacon’s power in Virginia approached its crescendo Maryland’s government sent John Coode as a member of the Lower House to

Virginia on a mission to meet with Bacon to ascertain the causes and course of the rebellion. Coode was thus present when Bacon discussed the construction of a pan-

Chesapeake confederation with Maryland, Virginia, and Northern Carolina. Historians like Stephen Saunders Webb have taken this as proof of Coode’s being in league with the Baconite rebellion. Certainly this was precisely the charge that Charles Calvert made in his letter to the Earl of Angelsey in 1681, after Coode and Fendall were uncovered discussing the overthrow of the Calverts. But the accusations of Baltimore in

1681, in a letter to a powerful English statesman justifying Calvert’s harsh treatment of

Fendall and Coode after they were found out to be the source of rumors of a grand

Catholic-Indian-French conspiracy to murder Maryland’s Protestants, do not stand up when looked at in the context of 1676. While it was true that Coode and Bacon discussed Bacon’s grandiose plans, Coode did so as a representative of the Maryland government, and he consistently pointed out the folly of Bacon’s plans, warning that the young rebel could not hope to win independence against British forces who were sure to

263 See Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Appointment of Receivers and Collectors” Archives 15:119. 240 come to Virginia. As Coode departed, he advised that Bacon “must fly, or hang.”

Coode would testify about these meetings on January 30, 1676/7 before Governor

Berkeley. Webb concluded that:

Regrettably, the most important evidence regarding these debates is also the most suspect. In January 1676/7, John Coode or Good of Maryland detailed the conversations he had held with Nathaniel Bacon “on or about” 2 September, 1676. Coode knew Berkeley would hang him if he did not confirm the worst that could be alleged of the Baconians—that is, that they intended “taking the whole country wholly out of his Majesty’s hands into their own.’ Deputy Governor Notley would hang Coode if he did not deny the existence in Maryland of the Revolution he authenticated in Virginia. Coode made the right answers...

With such pressure on him, Webb denied the validity of Coode’s testimony, and implied that Coode was the leader of a nascent Baconite uprising in Maryland that was contemplating the violent overthrow of the Notley’s loyalist government in Maryland.

The only problem for Webb’s desire to dismiss the testimony, as he admits, was that

Coode’s testimony was “supported by the events of the fall and winter of 1676...” and that the deposition “fairly describes his discussion with Bacon.” The threat of hanging by Notley was imagined by Webb; Coode was no rebel in 1676, in fact he was, thanks to the Governor, precisely the opposite.264

While Coode was certainly ambitious, Notley satisfied his desire for power and prestige. The Governor made certain Coode was no Baconite in 1676. In October

Notley named the former priest a militia Captain, and gave Coode the command of the

264 See Nathaniel Bacon and John Coode. “A Dialogue between the Rebel Bacon and John Goode [? Coode?] as it was presented to Governor Sir William Berkeley” Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1677-1680 Vol. 10 no. 27 (London: Her Majesty’s Stationers Office, 1896) p. 12. See also Stephen Saunders Webb. 1676: The End of American Independence (New York: Alfred E Knopf, 1984) pp. 79-81. Webb only looked at the deposition and a single letter from Notley that never once mentioned Coode to reach these conclusions. Coode’s commission from the assembly to go into Virginia and discover what Bacon was doing can be found in “Upper House Journal, May-June, 1676.” Archives 2:484 where Coode was authorized to press “Sloope Boate and hands and other necessaries Whatsoever in order to his ready and expedicious Voyage To and retorne from Virginia.” 241 Loyal Charles, Baltimore’s “Yacht or Vessell compleately manned Equipped and armed for warr.” Captain Coode was charged by the Governor and Council with the naval defense of the province, ordered to patrol the Potomac River and prevent the upheaval in

Virginia from spoiling Maryland’s hard-won and hard-kept peace. Notley ordered that if Coode should

meete with any Ship, Sloope, boate or other Vessell... which you shall discover to be Enemys to his Lsp and his Governmt of this Province, you are to take, apprehend, & possess, and to sink fire or otherwise destroy all such Shipps Sloopes boates or other vessells as aforesaid....

Thirteen years later, Coode recalled this service, writing that he had cruised the river for

“three long winter months" defending Maryland against "the rebellious outrages in

Virginia,” odd phrasing for a supposed rebel. In April 1677 Notley named Coode a

Justice of the Peace for St. Mary’s County and Coroner of the County in 1678. It cannot be said for certain if Notley saw Coode as a potential threat, but he was quite familiar with the man, who, by most accounts, was a most unpleasant and contrary person.

Coode was precisely the type of person who in Virginia had little avenue for their ambition, the problem that Notley identified as the underlying reason for Bacon’s uprising. In Maryland, Notley made certain that Coode was an active and advancing member of the established government. Notley also made certain to advance the career of Coode’s stepson, twenty-one year old Gerard Slye in 1676-78. Young Slye had been named Militia Captain in November of 1675, Justice of the Peace in St. Mary’s County in May of 1676, and Notley would name the young man to the powerful and lucrative post of Sheriff of St. Mary’s County in April, 1677.265

265 Coode and Fendall’s 1681 conspiracy is discussed in David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p.123. See also 242 John Addison, another leader of the Protestant Association in 1689, was in no position in 1676 to challenge Notley. He had arrived in 1674, and married in 1676. It was his active role in 1689 that finally started his public career. He certainly was of little concern to Notley in 1676. As a merchant, Addison spent much of his time outside of the province, a fact that was well known to Notley. Walter Hall, Addison’s partner, held land on St. Clement’s manor, immediately adjacent to Notley’s. John Addison, it will be recalled, benefitted from the rather lax hand of Governor Notley in the

Liverpoole Merchant smuggling case. While this took place after the Rebellion, the connection with the Governor predated the 1678 action. Addison’s two partners, Mark

Cordea and Walter Hall both had deep relationships with the Governor that dated to long before the uprising. The three men were also engaged in the Indian trade; general Indian war in Maryland would have proven devastating to their economic ambitions. Notley’s quick and ultimately successful efforts at maintaining the peace with the natives went a long way to wedding Addison, and undoubtedly other fur-traders—it was not required to

James D. Rice. Tales From a Revolution: Bacon’s Rebellion and the Transformation of Early America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) pp. 153-160. For Coode’s career under Notley, see St. Mary’s Men’s Career files: John Coode, Sr. in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0893. See also entry for John Coode in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) pp. 233-234. For a copy of the commission to the command of the Loyal Charles see “Powers Orders and Instructions for Capt John Cood, Commandr of his Lsps Yacht Dated the eighth day of November, Anno Dmi. 1676.” Archives 17:216-218. Coode’s comments about his command of the Loyal Charles can be found in John Coode. “Letter to Sir Nathaniel Bacon, February 8, 1689/90” Archives 8:168 For Gerard Slye’s career under Notley, see Gerard Slye in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3807-001 See also Edwin W. Beitzell. “Thomas Gerard and his Sons-in-Law” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 46, No. 3 (1951) pp. 200-206 The role of the Gerard Family in the 1688-1689 overthrow of the Calverts is discussed in Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974) pp. 54-58. F. E. Sparks in 1896 linked Gerard’s attempted rebellion in 1659 directly with the 1689 success of his sons-in-law. He called the 1688-89 Revolution a Gerard “family struggle.” see Francis Edgar Sparks. The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1896) pp.100-103 243 have a license to trade with the Indians in Maryland—to the proprietary interest in

1676.266

Handling the Complaints

Incorporating disaffected gentry who might lead a rebellion was but one part of the puzzle of maintaining the peace in Maryland. Notley understood the real grievances of Maryland planters, and worked as best he could within the constraints of Baltimore’s prerogative to address the concerns and issues that angered a broader swatch of

Maryland’s population, and which might make them susceptible to revolt. Governor

Notley and the merchant-planter dominated council had made it through the summer of

1676 without rebellion, but tensions remained high. Notley had already built a legislative record friendly to small planter interests. Even so, the concerns of those

Marylanders who were opposed to the Calverts were still legion, and in 1676 they found a voice. The anonymous author, possibly former Governor Josias Fendall, of the

Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye and Petition out of Virginia and Maryland, written in the late autumn of 1676, tried to take advantage of the unrest in the

Chesapeake, and convince the crown to make Maryland a royal colony. It is comprised of a long list of complaints against Baltimore’s rule. Many of these claims were exaggerated. For example, Baltimore did not force an oath to be taken to him that foreswore all other allegiances, making the takers traitors to the king. There had been a loyalty oath to Calvert as Proprietor of Maryland, but it did not abrogate loyalty to the

266 For Addison’s public career, see the Entry for John Addison in in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) p.p. 100. See also John Addison in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-002 The Liverpoole Merchant case was discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. 244 Crown. Some were completely fabricated, including the assertion that the Calverts conspired with the French to drive the Indians to attack New England, causing King

Philip’s War. Similarly, Baltimore’s government did not encourage their Native allies to attack Virginia.267

Other complaints were substantially true, if misrepresented. That the official governor, Caecilus Calvert, was a nine-year old child, was true, but his was only a nominal appointment; the child never sat in the Council, nor was he ever part of its deliberations. The real power was exercised by the Deputy Lieutenant Governors, Jesse

Wharton and his successor, Thomas Notley. The nomination of the pre-teen Caecilus

Calvert to be the executive was more about securing an income to the boy in his father’s absence then a meaningful exercise of power. Possessing his own wealth and the incomes from the co-Receiver Generalship and Deputy Lieutenant Governor, Notley would not have been hurt by paying the child a sizeable commission as official governor.268

Governor Notley barely appeared in the Complaint, which may indicate that the author was aware of his less impeachable service. The only complaint lodged against

267 See Anonymous. “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye and Petition out of Virginia and Maryland” Archives 5:134-152. See pp.136-140 for the oath and fears that it was treason. The claims of the Piscataway being used by Baltimore to attack Virginia are on p.134, and the claims of Maryland- French collusion that had started King Philip’s War in New England are on pp.147-8. Fears of an Catholic-Indian-French conspiracy to destroy the protestants of Maryland was a constant fear, and a chief complaint against the Calverts in 1688, and was one of the rumors spread by Coode and Fendall in 1681. David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p.123. See also James D. Rice. Tales From a Revolution: Bacon’s Rebellion and the Transformation of Early America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012) pp. 153- 160. Calvert’s careful building of alliances and maintaining peace with the tribes of the region may have fueled speculation about collusion. Calvert’s use of militias to attack Protestant Dutch settlements in Delaware in 1674 instead of Natives did not help alleviate these fears. See Jennings, Francis. “Glory, Death and Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (February, 1968) pp. 15-53 268 “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye...” Archives 5:137 245 Governor Notley was that he had been the leader of the drive to grant the two shillings per hogshead duty as permanent revenue to Charles, third Lord Baltimore. As a reward for this service, the author complained, Notley had been elevated to the council, as had

(merchant-planter) Thomas Taillor who had been speaker in the 1671 Lower House that had granted the duty to his father. These accusations were true, but rewarding loyal clients with more powerful positions was precisely how a patron-client relationship was supposed to work. This was in a petition to the King, to whom such rewards for loyal service were not problematic, and the author dropped the point nearly as quickly as he made it.269

The half-hearted attack on Notley was merely the opening salvo in the author’s attempted indictment of membership in the powerful Council. The angry author charged that it was dominated by Calvert family members and nearly the entire council was

Catholic, with only a token Protestant or two. This too was an exaggeration. By August of 1676, Baltimore’s stepson-in-law Jesse Wharton was dead; Charles Calvert was in

England, and the child Caecilus never actively served on the Council, leaving eight active members. Three members of this council were new: Henry Coursey, Thomas

Notley, and Benjamin Rozer had all been added just before Calvert left for England. 270

Coursey and Rozer were both Protestants, and only Rozer, stepson-in-law to Lord

Baltimore, was a family appointment. Of the other five active members, two, Samuel

Chew and Thomas Tailor were neither related to the Proprietary or Catholic. In fact, as

Bacon’s Rebellion raged, five of the eight members were Protestant, only half were

269 “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye...” Archives 5:137 270 “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye...” Archives 5:137 246 related to the Calverts, and two of them only by marriage into Charles’ stepfamily.

Catholics did not dominate the council, and the Calverts did not have a majority, although they could have included Caecilus if his vote was needed to ensure they got their way, but this was never necessary. Baltimore put on the council people tied to him in some significant way; he needed the assurance of absolute loyalty, and he got it by naming family and known proprietary stalwarts to the Council. It is true that the body did not have a broad membership, and it was unfortunate that one of the protestant members (Samuel Chew) died in March 1676/7. By then, however, the most pressing crisis had passed. The Council saw itself as an aristocratic body, and assumed the haughty posture of aristocrats, and expected the same deference to itself as would be granted to a member of the House of Lords, or even the Privy Council in England. After all, it was the Governor and Council that operated the provincial government on a day- to-day basis. The problem facing Maryland’s aristocracy was they were so, in a word, common. In America, old attitudes of deference to social betters did not really fit the situation. The leading elite in Maryland, comprised in great part by the merchant- planters discussed herein, would not have been considered in Britain as elites, but rather as pretentious, rank upstarts. The theoretical tripartite division of power in society in

England that led to the Whig balanced constitution of three parts of government simply did not hold in Maryland. Although in terms of its power and exceedingly limited membership the council appeared aristocratic, its members were only slightly larger fish in a fairly small pond. Had they been in the context of England, none would have been anything more a prosperous member of the middling sort, would not have been all that distinctive, and certainly would not have been pretenders to the House of Lords or Privy 247 Council. In England, at least the House of Lords was not (usually) the patsy of the king, and its membership was far broader and much, much less dependent upon the will of the

Executive, great wealth and long tradition made it so. Not in Maryland.271

The author of the Complaint used Daveys’ and Pate’s executions over the “Affair at the Cliffs” in an attempt to implicate the Calvert Government with the orgy of revenge that hit Virginia with Berkeley’s return, and blamed Calvert’s government for

Berkeley’s executing more men then Charles did Regicides. The author charged that

“Thus have they prevayled with the Virginians to hange their best comon wealths men out of the way by advysing Sir Will Barkly to doe as thy did with Davis, which they say kept Maryland in Awe from a raysinge.” Notley himself admitted that the swift execution of the two pretended rebels had stopped the rebellion in its tracks, and that as a result ever since “God be thanked wee now enjoy peace among ourselves....” There was a significant substantive difference between Notley’s executions and Virginia’s.

271 Notley was concerned that Berkeley would not be able to prevent the violence in Virginia from re- occurring, even though all the major rebels in Virginia had surrendered. He wrote: “There must be an alteration though not of the Government yet in the Government, new men must be put in power, the old ones will never agree with the common people, and if that be not done, his Majtie in my opinion will never find a well setled Government in that Colony.” see Thomas Notley. “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/77” in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Volume 10: 1677-1680. W. Noel Sainsbury and J. W. Fortescue Eds. (London: Her Majesty’s Stationers Office, 1896) pp. 7-8; the Letter is also in Archives 5:154. The Council of 1676 was expanded shortly before Charles, Lord Baltimore left for England in June, after the May session had closed. The make-up of Notley’s Council is discussed in Chapter Four; see especially Fig. 4.2. See also “Proprietary Assembly of 1676-1682” in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) p., p. 27 and the individual entries for the members. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp.70. For Charles Calvert’s concerns about elites not being significantly distinguished from the mass of the population, see p. 70, on the make up of the Council, see p.114-117. Cecil, Lord Baltimore in his “Three Comissions and Instruccons for his Excellency & Instruccons for his Excellency and Councill, 1671” ordered that the Council propose “some Convenient way of and for the making of some visible distinction and Distinctions betweene you our Leivetennant Generall our Chancelor Principall Secretary, Generall Officers Councellors Judges & Justices and the Rest of the people of our said Province Either by the wearing of habbits Meddalls or otherwise.” Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “Three Comissions and Instruccons for his Excellency & Instruccons for his Excellency and Councill, 1671” Archives 15: 16. 248 Notley’s condemnation and execution came at the height of open rebellion against the oldest and largest royal colony, and were the possible beginning of a similar uprising in

Maryland. At worst, Maryland provided an example, not instruction. Berkeley’s came not out of a necessity to forestall rebellion, but out of a desire to punish and seize accused rebels’ lands and wealth. Berkeley needed no push to decide to hang rebels.272

These above attacks were not the most troubling to the Governor and Council; they were primarily designed to raise concerns back in England. As Notley himself had identified, the real source of discontent in Maryland lay with three complaints: the use of the income of the two-shilling duty, excessive taxation, and the conduct of Indian diplomacy and war. The author of the Complaint was airing the real concerns of the opposition, and made strong attacks on all three. Notley and the Council had to respond carefully and effectively, and they did.273

One of the strongest and most vigorous attacks made by the author of the

Complaint was on the disposition of the income derived from the permanent two shilling duty granted to the Proprietor. Per the 1671 law, half of the income thus derived was to have been earmarked for the providing of public magazines in each county, with guns and ammunition to be used to defend the settlers from attack. It was troubling to the

Complaint’s author that in 1675 and 1676 the country’s military supplies had proved lacking, and the militias called out to defend the Province had to press arms,

272 “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye...” Archives 5:143, 147; Thomas Notley. “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/77” in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Volume 10: 1677-1680. W. Noel Sainsbury and J. W. Fortescue Eds. (London: Her Majesty’s Stationers Office, 1896) pp. 7-8; also in Thomas Notley. “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/77” Archives 5:153 273 The Complaint was a list of legitimate local grievances and largely designed to play to an English audience, see: David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 120. 249 ammunition, victuals, horse tackle, etc. in order to carry out their charge to defend the colonists. The author of the Complaint blamed the shortfall on corruption and concluded that “sutch are the instruments, with which my Lord Baltemore worked, and converts the comon good to his privat ends, under the cloak of Assemblys and Assent of the freemen within the Province.” In other words, the Calverts and the grandees were embezzling from the public incomes, enriching themselves and impoverishing the province who was then were forced to pay additional taxes to defend themselves.274

Notley and the Council publically defended against this charge. In December,

1676 the Governor and Council issued A Remonstrance of the true State of the Province

& of the causes & reasons of the publique Taxes. They never denied that the 1675-76 tax burden was high, but dismissed the charge that taxes were arbitrary. Governor and

Council pointed out with a lawyer’s precision that changing the manner of taxation was not something that even the proprietor could change. Taxes, duties, and levies for the common defense were not collected by the proprietor unless they had been approved of by the Assembly. Only the Assembly could alter them; the Governor’s hands were tied by the representatives and their vote. Nevertheless, Notley promised that

If the Wisdome of future Assembly shall thinke fitt to alter the way of paymt of the Publique Taxes hitherto continued in this Province in Vir-ginia & indeed in all the Governmts in the West Indies Wee dare undertake for his Lordshipp that he shall consent to itt.

Which was not the same as offering immediate relief, but considering the long established right of Englishmen to be taxed but with the consent of their assembly, and

274 See “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye...” Archives 5:149, 141, 136 250 the promise that the Proprietor would not veto any changes to tax collection, was as far as he could go. 275

Notley and the Council did attempt to explain the taxes. They pointed out that the necessity of voting the admittedly heavy levy in 1675 had been the necessity of launching the expedition against the Indians near Delaware. Furthermore, the request for funds had only come after considerable efforts to maintain the peace had been taken by the government. They argued that complaints about the levies made little sense, as they were necessary for the defense of the very people who were protesting. The

Governor and Council asked rhetorically: “What reason then have the People to repine att their being protected? unlesse they value not their owne lives...” In any case, the levy was paid by each and every member of the government, and as the Councilors and

Governor all held large numbers of slaves and servants, they had paid more heavily then virtually anyone else in the province. As to the charges that they were enriching themselves at the expense of the people, they challenged the assembly to examine and audit their accounts. As it turned out, during the 1678 session of the assembly the accounts were examined by a committee of Delegates and no malfeasance was discovered. The author of the Complaint’s accusation that the Government had failed to provide the guns and ammunition for the defense of the country did not hold up. In

February, 1675 the Lower House had asked the Governor to inform them how many

275 “Remonstrance... “ Archives 15:139 As it turned out, the next assembly did not see fit to alter the taxes, and Notley continued to rely upon the special delegation to determine the defense levy as was required in the 2s/hhd duty agreement. See Bacon, Thomas. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. (Baltimore: 1883-present). Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland pp. 65-66. For Notley’s calling of the levy commission see “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, June 19, 1678.” Archives 15:178 251 arms and how much ammunition he had already purchased, if war came. Charles

Calvert replied that he had arms for two hundred men, and ammunition for “many more.” That there were large numbers of governmentally supplied guns and other military provisions was shown in the 1678 accounting. The problem was that in 1675-

76, the threats to the colony were too widespread and numerous to be supplied by the weapons already purchased. Thus, when word came of Indian attacks on the Eastern

Shore while the bulk of the public arms were deep in the piedmont at the

Susquehannock fort on the Potomac, the local militia had no choice but to press military equipment.276

The seizure of these weapons and stores were also of deep concern to the

Complaint petitioner because he feared that the seized goods would not be returned. He charged that the government would contrive to keep the arms in a ploy to disarm good loyal Protestants, making them more vulnerable to the feared Catholic-native conspiracy that was also a constant of the document. In any case, guns, ammunition, horses, saddles, etc., were expensive, and their seizure was in effect a special tax on those who could least afford it. Keenly aware of charge of corruption and fiscal mismanagement,

276 “Remonstrance...” Archives 15:137-40. The 1678 assembly requested and examined the accounts and muster rolls of the 1677 Expedition against the Nanticoke (Eastern Shore) see “Lower House Journal, October, 1678” Archives 7:16. The Lower House asked for and was given a list of all arms and ammunition purchased by the Proprietor for the defense of the colony. The list survives in the “Lower House Journal, October, 1678” Archives 7:29-30. This charge was based on the fact that in 1675 and 1676 the military resources available after four years of the duty’s collection did prove inadequate for the expedition against the Susquehannock and defending the colony from the violence that engulfed the entire province. See “Upper House Journal, February 15, 1674/5” Archives 2:423. Later that assembly, the Lower House requested that the Calvert Government place thirty guns and ammunition in magazines in each county. “Upper House Journal, February 17, 1674/5” Archives 2: 427. Notley at one point despaired at getting the poor to “understand the just reason of a publick charge, nor will they ever believe that the expenses for their own preservation, although never so apparent.” See Thomas Notley. “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Charles, Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/7” in Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, America and West Indies, Volume 10: 1677-1680. W. Noel Sainsbury and J. W. Fortescue Eds. (London: Her Majesty’s Stationers Office, 1896) pp. 7-8, also in Archives 5:153 252 in the late summer of 1678 Governor Notley ordered that all goods that could be verified as having been duly paid for out of the levy were to be secured by the county courts for public use in the future. Any supplies, arms, or ammunition that could be documented as not having been purchased were to be immediately returned by the county courts to their original owners. A record of the accounting and disposition of the provisions was then to be forwarded to the Governor. A year later in the assembly, Notley’s proclamation was passed into law and the Lower House proposed that two press-masters be appointed by each county court to oversee future seizures for public use in the Act for the Ordering and Regulating the Militia of this Province. After 1678, no one other than the two officials, who were not appointed by the Proprietor, could cause the pressing of any arms, ammunition, or other military provision for the public use, putting such seizures in the hands of the counties, and out of the Calverts’ seeming control.277 And so the Governor, Council, and Assembly successfully defused this charge.

Governor Notley and the Council may not have been able to modify the levy without Proprietary and Assembly approval, but they could offer relief to taxpayers by addressing some problems with how they were collected. In October of 1677 the

Governor and Council ordered that every Sheriff first ascertain the number of taxables before every levy, and then submit an accurate number to the Council, reminding them to exempting those under sixteen, insolvent, indigent, without estates or those unable to work, eliminating the collecting of taxes from dead men’s estates or families. The problem was that lazy Sheriffs would report a number of the taxables in the county—

277 See the “Proclamation for the calling in of all such Gunns & other Armes, provisions &ca” Archives 15:211-2. “Act for the Ordering & regulateing the Militia of this Prouince & for the better Security and defence thereof” Archives 7:53-60 the creation of the Press-Master office can be found in article seven on p.57 253 without actually taking a census—to St. Mary’s City where they were used to determine the amount of the levy each sheriff had to collect from their county. That tax would then be collected. By not taking an accurate census, many taxables who were deceased or had left the colony remained on the rolls. Dead or otherwise absent workers were not liable for the tax and the government had to issue a great number of rebates, undoubtedly an accounting nightmare for the Provincial officials. While the monies would be refunded, they still had to be collected. A family assessed at five adult male workers would have to pay for five, even if only three adult males were still there. For a people living so close the financial edge as many Marylanders were in the mid-1670s this was an onerous imposition.278 Although not a lowering of the tax, it certainly made it easier to pay.

A year later, the issue of sheriff’s collections was still an issue. Sheriffs were collecting legitimate dues, but were adding illegal fees, and extorting additional payments for the execution of writs beyond the fee allowed by law. The Governor and

Council could not eliminate the fees, the office of sheriff was expensive and time- consuming. It could take over a year before a sheriff saw any profit for his troubles.

Fees were needed to keep this vital officer operating. Sheriffs and their duties put them in the most contact with the populace, and their greed put the whole Calvert edifice in jeopardy. On October 17, 1678, Notley and the Council acted again to relieve the economic pressures on Marylanders and issued the Proclamation against the grand absurdities & abuses committed by the severall Sheriffes. In it, they publicly denied authorizing any of the excessive fees, and invited anyone to bring any complaint about

278 Governor Thomas Notley. “Proclamation att the laying of the Public Levy” Archives 15:156 254 any public official's abuses to the Council. They also warned sheriffs that taking excessive or double fees for the execution of various writs was forbidden, reminding them that their fee for the execution of a writ was limited to twenty pounds of tobacco only. In order to prevent problems in the future, they ordered that the Proclamation as well as a legal sheriffs’ fee schedule were to be published and posted on the county courthouses' doors for all to see.279

The author of the Complaint also charged that Maryland failed to protect its people against the Seneca. Where the author of the Complaint was bloodthirsty and genocidal towards other Indians, he was fearful of the power of the Iroquois Nation. He charged angrily that Maryland had failed to follow the good policy of the governor of

New York, Sir Edmund Andros, and join him in his councils to secure peace with the mighty tribe in Albany.280 As governor, Notley kept a careful eye on reports of Indian attacks and, contrary to the charges made in The Complaint, always moved quickly and decisively to counter native attacks and threats, whether from local or distant nations. In

January, 1676/7, he reported to Lord Baltimore rumors of threats and attacks made against settlements in Baltimore and Cecil Counties by the Seneca and Susquehannocks both. Notley, as he had done four months earlier, did not hesitate to act. He and the

Council ordered the Counties to prepare for war and instructed the militia Captains in

Baltimore County, both Delegates in the Lower House, to assemble their forces and to prepare to negotiate the continuation of peace with the Indians. The Governor hoped that a peace could be worked out, especially with the Seneca, because that would

279 Thomas Notley. “Proclamation against the grand absurdities & abuses committed by the severall Sheriffes” Archives 15:201-3 280 See “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye...” Archives 5:135 255 “occasion our security from the Delaware or Masquas [Mohawk].”281 After this demonstration of force, in the Spring of 1677, the Governor and Council dispatched fellow Councilor Henry Coursey, an accomplished Indian diplomat, to Albany to negotiate peace with the Seneca. Coursey was under orders to discuss negotiation strategy with Governor Andros and to take whatever advice he had as how to approach the Seneca. Maryland’s ambassador was also charged to negotiate peace with the

Iroquois in the name of the Piscataway and other tribes in Maryland as well. The

Governor and Council feared that if the Seneca continued to war upon the tribes who were currently at peace with Maryland, that settlers would be caught up in violence and possibly spark a war with the Iroquois. On a hopeful note, Notley encouraged Coursey to get the Seneca to agree to open trade with Maryland, but if not, that would not be a bar to a treaty of peace. For any supplies needed by the embassy, arrangements had already been made. Coursey was to contact merchant Jacob Leisler, who would advance him whatever was needed. This may have been arranged by Notley’s neighbor, fellow merchant Mark Cordea, who had been engaged in trade with Leisler.282

As the Governor had promised in his January letter to Charles, Lord Baltimore,

Coursey’s instructions emphasized that he was to always include Virginia by name in the terms of peace. While it was true that Virginia, still reeling from the Rebellion, was in scant shape to send an embassy of her own, this was also to protect Maryland.

Calvert’s province lay between the Iroquois and Virginia and might prove to be the

281 Thomas Notley. “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/77” Archives 5:152-3. The Captains were John Stansby and merchant-physician George Wells; see the entries for John Stansby and George Wells in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) pp. 769, 876-7. 282 On Cordea’s trade relationship with Leisler see Chapter 3 herein. “Commission to Henry Coursey as Ambassador to the Northward Indians, April 30, 1677” Archives 5: 243-46 256 battlefield if they came to war. At worst, it might draw in Marylanders into the fight, as had disastrously happened at the Susquehannock fort. As the author of the Complaint constantly charged that Indian attacks were either the result of collusion between them and Maryland Catholics, or were the result of the mismanagement of the prosecution of

Indian war or poor diplomacy, it would not look good to the common folk of Maryland if the Government of Maryland, in order to preserve their peace with the Seneca, allowed them to pass unmolested through Maryland in order to attack Virginians. It could be assumed that they would attack the northern raiders in sympathy with

Virginians, sparking war for Maryland. In June, 1677, Notley sent a letter to the new

Governor of Virginia, Herbert Jeffries, explaining to him what actions Maryland had taken in his Colony’s name. Although the negotiations were for all intents and purposes completed, Notley deferentially asked if the King’s new government wished to continue with the peace negotiations Maryland had begun in their name. He explained to the new

Governor that to treat with the Indians required the giving of presents, writing “So that in case you desire to be included in the peace now to be made at ffort Albany with the

Susqucesahaimohs [Susquehanna] Cicinigos [Seneca] and other Northern Indians I desire to know what you will insist upon, and what presents you will think fit for us to make in yor behalf...” subtly guiding him to the decision Notley wanted all along, and trying to get Jeffries to commit to paying for part of the gifts. It was with considerable relief in October when Notley announced the successful completion of the negotiations, and the existence of a peace treaty between the Iroquois, Maryland and Virginia. In the tension with the Piscataway in the summer of 1678, Notley sent another embassy to the

257 Seneca to be certain that the terms of the previous year’s peace still stood between them.283

In 1678 Governor Notley’s hard won and kept peace with the natives looked as if it might be failing, and that war with the Indians might be coming. In March, 1677/8 the

Governor and Council ordered the militias to make a show of force before five different tribes in response to the kidnapping of some English children, and to attempt to secure the natives who were known to have murdered a settler family. The military display was the big stick to the soft talk of diplomacy, and it worked. War did not break out between

Maryland and the five tribes; peace was successfully concluded by the end of March.

Nevertheless, these carefully orchestrated military expeditions and diplomatic missions only lowered tensions, they did not eliminate them. Throughout the summer, complaints about “daily” Indian raids on livestock, and disputes over land filtered in. In early

August, 1678, the Governor and Council again received news of the murder of an entire family, but this may have been in retaliation for an earlier settler attack on the Indians.

Worryingly, the murderer seemed to be a Piscataway, a tribe long allied with Maryland.

Notley sent thirty militia up the Potomac and thence up Piscataway creek to demand the leaders of the tribe meet with him and the Council to discuss the problem. The militia

283 See “Complaint from Heaven and Hue and Crye...” Archives 5:134-35. See “Commission to Henry Coursey as Ambassador to the Northward Indians, April 30, 1677” Archives 5:246; Henry Coursey. “Letter to Governor Thomas Notley May 22, 1677” Archives 5:246-7; Notley explained: If noe trade be aimed as there will be little more to insert but the Common tearmes of inviolable peace and Amity, between them, the Lord Prop" of this Province: and all his Majties Subjects in those parts, as well in Virginia as in Maryland, for we include not them we shall suffer as much in their passage through our Country, as in our reputation for having abandoned our Brethren and fellow Subjects....” Thomas Notley “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Henry Coursey June 2, 1677” Archives 5:249; See Thomas Notley. “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to the Honorable Governor of Virginia, June 22, 1677” Archives 5:250-251. “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, August 19, 1678” Archives 15:183. The treaty was announced by Notley October 5, 1677 see “Proclamation of a Treaty of Peace between Maryland, Virginia, and New York with Several Nations of Indians.” Archives 15:157 258 commander was ordered to remind the Emperor of the treaties of friendship and alliance between them and Maryland, to caution that murders had been committed on both sides, and that it was necessary for “our common preservation” for both to confirm peace. The meeting took place, and alarmingly, the native leaders denied knowing anything about the murders or the accused murderers, whom were seen leaving the farm, and who were well known to the local Marylanders. Governor Notley reminded them that they were treaty bound to deliver murderers up for trial. The leaders continued to plead ignorance and had not agreed to cooperate, the potential for war seemed to loom. Immediately after the Piscataway left the Council, it was decided that an assembly was needed to deal with this new crisis.284

Notley’s Assembly

284 See Thomas Notley “Governor’s Commission to William Burgess March 18, 1677/8” Archives 15:141- 8. For the ordering of the readiness of the militia see Governor Thomas Notley. “Governor’s Orders to Militia Commanders” Archives 15:197-198. For the complete original record see “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1676-1678” Archives 15:179, 180-1, 185-88, 188-9, 189-90. Augustin Heerman complained about livestock stealing and land encroachment in a letter to the Council in June. See Augustin Heerman. “Letter to the Chancellor, June 1678.” Archives 15:175-176. As it turned out, Notley’s demonstration of determination and force ultimately paid off. On January 8, 1678/9 the Piscataway came and renewed their peace, and on Jan 31, they delivered two of the three accused murderers, who were immediately shot. Whatever criticisms might be launched at Notley’s Indian policy, that he refused to act to defend the Province was not one of them. See the record of Notley’s enacting of Indian policy in the “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1678-1679” Archives 15:212-3, 217-23 From England Charles, Lord Baltimore prorogued the Assembly for 1677 until at least May, 1678. Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Prorogation of the Assembly, April 17. 1677” Archives 15:148. In November, 1677, discovering that settling his affaires in England would keep him at least past May, 1678, Baltimore sent a letter authorizing Governor Notley to continue to prorogue the Assembly, or to call it. If the Assembly met, Notley was given permission to assent to and put into effect whatever laws he saw fit. Baltimore, however, reserved the right to veto any of them as he saw fit. Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Extension of Prorogation of the Assembly, November 8, 1677” Archives 15:157-158. See Thomas Notley. “Proclamation Calling a Session of the Assembly by the Governor and Council, August 28, 1678” Archives 15:189-190. Jordan argued that Notley was reluctant to call a session as he “realized that a meeting of the legislature in Virginia had afforded Bacon the opportunity to rouse his supporters against Berkeley.” David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 119-121. Notley and the Council called the assembly on August 27, 1678. 259 For the 1676 session of the 1676-1682 Assembly, writs of election had issued to return four Delegates for each county plus two for St. Mary’s City as had been the norm in Maryland throughout the Restoration period. Sending four delegates for each county was an onerous financial imposition on the counties, who paid for all the charges of their chosen Delegates sent to the session. Smaller, newer counties like Kent, Talbot,

Baltimore, Somerset and Dorchester, had routinely sent only one or two delegates, consistently explaining that to elect and send four was too expensive for their small populations. But in May of 1676, for the first time ever, each county elected four men; but Charles only summoned two from each county to St. Mary’s City. This was not unheard of in the Chesapeake. Citing “severall inconveniences” in 1669 Virginia’s

Burgesses officially reduced to two the number of representatives allowed in each county in order to cut down on the counties’ expenses. The author of the Complaint, however, did not see this as a graciously conceded cost-saving measure, but rather as part of a concerted effort by Baltimore to reduce the legislature to meaninglessness and produce a tame, compliant, and non-representative assembly. Not surprisingly he also implied that this offense was the usual state of affairs in the Province, when in fact it had only happened once in the Summer of 1676. The author of the Complaint was also upset by the 1670 imposition of property qualifications for suffrage. This was something that

Notley and the Council could not do anything about, qualifications for the franchise were a prerogative right granted by the Charter to the Proprietor. Even so, the Governor and Council promised in the Remonstrance of Autumn 1676, that they promised to

“propound the case of the indigent ffreeman to his Lordpp att his returne, & to offer him such reasons & motives as may incline him to permitt the next Election to be made by 260 the Votes of all the ffreemen indifferently,” echoing their earlier promise made to the mutineers at the Cliffs in September, 1676 to champion their position in the next assembly.285

Unlike the issues with the limitation of the franchise, the complaint about not calling all delegates elected was something that the Governor and Council could do something about. Lord Baltimore had ordered that no session of the assembly be called until after his return. Through 1677 and most of 1678 Notley had done his best to comply with Charles’ wishes. In the face of continuing Indian troubles in 1677 and potential war in 1678, Notley felt he had no choice but to call a session in October of

1678. First, he ordered the holding of elections to replace the four elected members who

285 See the “Complaint from Heaven and Hue and Crye...” Archives 4:137-8. As in Virginia at the same time, the author of the Complaint continued, complaining that the assemblies were a financial burden on the counties, costing “one two or more hundred thousand pounds of tobacco for it.” The problem of affording delegates was a constant problem for the counties in Restoration Maryland. In 1662, Kent and Baltimore Counties only sent two delegates, Charles and Talbot could only afford one, the 1663-64 Assembly Kent and Charles Counties sent two members, Talbot again sent only one, in 1666, Kent, Baltimore, and Talbot Counties sent two members, in 1669, Kent and newly created Somerset County sent two members and the new Dorchester county could send only one. In the 1671-74 Assembly Kent sent two members. Somerset elected four members but only sent two men, Dorchester sent two men, but elected a third for the final session. See Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds. A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) pp. 25- 26. In 1645 Virginia limited each county to send only four burgesses, Warren M. Billings. A Little Parliament: The Virginia General assembly in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond: Library of Virginia, 2004) p. 33 In 1669 the Assembly limited each county to two burgesses, see William Waller Hening. The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, From the First Session of the Legislature in1619 (Richmond, VA: Samuel Pleasants, printer to the Commonwealth, 1810) pp. 272-273. See also Warren M. Billings. Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of Colonial Virginia. (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2004) pp. 182 (Note 18), 240. The Royal Commissioners sent to investigate the causes of Bacon’s Rebellion noted the anger of the Counties at Berkeley’s annual calling of the Assembly, as this posed a large financial burden on the taxpayers. They recommended that the Crown in the future only summon an assembly every other year and that Burgesses’ expenses accounts be reduced. See Brent Tarter. “Bacon's Rebellion, the Grievances of the People, and the Political Culture of Seventeenth-Century Virginia.” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography. Vol. 119 No. 1 (2011) p. 11. Samuel Wiseman. Samuel Wiseman's Book of Record. Michael L. Oberg, Ed. (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005) pp. 60, 90-93, 130. It is worthy of note that Thomas Notley and John Coode, for St. Mary’s County were among those summoned by name in the special writ issued by Charles, Lord Baltimore making it even less likely that Coode was a nascent Baconite in 1676. For the complaint about the franchise and the Council’s response, see: “Complaint from Heaven and Hue and Crye...” Archives 5:149; “Remonstrance...” Archives 15:137-140. 261 had died since 1676, not just those few who had been called to the first session. Despite the fact that a sitting Assembly was a major expense for the counties, and would only add to the levy for the defense of the Province against the natives, Notley’s writs summoned all delegates elected, and reversed the policy followed by the proprietor in the first session. The summoning of all delegates elected in each county would continue for the rest of the life of this assembly, even in the last three sessions presided over by

Lord Baltimore who resumed the Governorship upon Notley’s death in 1679. The expense of supporting an assembly was so great and concerns over excessive taxes so high, that the 1678 session of the Assembly actually passed a law allowing the Governor to issue an annual levy of up to 50,000 pounds of tobacco without calling an assembly to approve the tax; it was cheaper to do this than to pay for a session.286

By October of 1678, Deputy Lieutenant Governor Thomas Notley had skillfully navigated Baltimore’s Maryland through the greatest uprising the Chesapeake had ever seen. The deep economic, social, and political connections the merchant-planter class had forged over the previous fifteen years both within the Province and overseas proved crucial in providing Notley with support and leadership at the critical moment. This enabled him to bridge the chasm that often stood between the proprietary and the people.

From June of 1676 through April of 1679, Maryland had a governor that both the

Calverts and their most strident opposition could have some confidence in. This fact is

286 Charles County, “obstinately” elected former rebel Josias Fendall to replace John Allen, who, although elected, had not been called to the 1676 session. After warning the electors that Fendall was ineligible to sit in the Lower House for his rebellion in 1660, Notley and the council ordered another election, see: “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, August 29, 1678” Archives 15:192. For the 1678 permission to the Governor to issue a levy of up to 50,000 pounds of tobacco without calling an assembly, see Article 12 of the “Act for the Ordering & regulateing the Militia of this Prouince & for the better Security and defence thereof.” Archives 7:60 262 born out in the results of that session, which inauspiciously began with an alleged attempt to poison some of the legislators. Things quickly took on a more positive tenor.

Notley and the Council applauded the unanimous choice of Anglican merchant-planter

Philemon Lloyd as the new Speaker. The Delegates immediately began to bring up old grievances and demands for reform dating back to the 1660s. As the former Speaker,

Governor Notley was well aware of the genuine need for reform, and how deeply the delegates, half of whom were merchant-planters, felt about the issues. The Governor allowed the debates and gave the merchant-planter dominated House great leeway in its deliberations. He understood George, Lord Baltimore’s maxim: “The conquering way sometimes is yielding.” Coode and Cheseldyne both took on important leadership roles in the Lower House in 1678, serving on the committee that drafted the new militia law and the comprehensive new law restricting the proprietor’s powers in determining voting procedures, giving control the Lower House control over their own membership.

They also sat on the conference committees that hammered out the details of the final drafts of all the new laws with the Council. In addition to these, a law against profaning the Sabbath was passed, as was a law licensing and regulating ordinaries. The accounts of the public expenditures of the two-shilling duty and the militia musters and war expenses of 1676-78 were all audited in detail—which had been major grievances in the

1676 Complaint from Heaven. Notley’s careful stewardship of the public militia resources was confirmed. Another law obligated the proprietor to purchase more arms for the public defense, ordered them to be distributed among the counties instead of in a central armory, and reiterated the necessity of Lower House approval for any levies required to pay for war. In other legislation they increased the jurisdiction of county 263 courts. The Lower House inspected the new State House erected by Capt. John Quigley and refused to authorize the final payment of 20,000 pounds of tobacco, finding it was not satisfactory as there was no paved floor, and the chimneys were lacking. The

Delegates asked for three or four acres immediately adjacent to the State House’s 100 acre lot for their own use, perhaps to erect an Ordinary for themselves, to save costs or to help ensure their independence of the Council. Whatever their reason, the issue came up frequently in their deliberations and the Council refused to give them an adequate response. Finally, on October 30, Christopher Rousby came into the House and informed his fellow Delegates that he had been drinking with the Governor the night before, and that Notley had offered the Lower House the gift of his one acre plot in St.

Mary’s City for their use. While the Calvert family bloc had been able to stall the issue in the Council, Notley would not allow them to threaten his hard-maintained peace, nor to thwart the desire of the Lower House for greater independence and cheaper public charges for their lodgings in the Capital. “The representatives could regard with pride the fact that they had achieved in this session the satisfactory resolution of so many of the concerns and grievances they had long harbored.”287

Notley had held Maryland for the Calverts in the darkest days of 1676, putting down a natal rebellion, furiously waging war and negotiating peace with the Indians.

That peace was constantly threatened in 1677-78, but Notley’s careful negotiations and well-timed shows of force awed the Natives, and forced them to turn over those who had

287 For the records of Notley’s 1678 Assembly, see “Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October-November, 1678” Archives 7:1-105. George, Lord Baltimore’s maxim can be found in John D. Krugler. “The Calvert Family, Catholicism, and Court Politics in Early Seventeenth-Century England.” The Historian, Vol. 43, No. 3, (May, 1981) p. 382. See also David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp.121-122 264 attacked the settlers, keeping the tentative peace between the settlers and natives.

Astutely assessing the situation in Virginia, Notley made certain that any peace made included the Old Dominion, who now had a new Governor who had no experience in negotiations with Indians. He knew that peace for Maryland hinged on peace in

Virginia as well.

He addressed some of the long-held concerns over the legal and political system, effectively suspending the Court of Chancery by refusing to allow Philip Calvert to issue any writs out of it. By proclamation he addressed the constant complaints made against the extortious practices of Sheriffs. Understanding the electorate’s anger over only having half their elected representatives called in 1676, he reversed Charles’ previous policy and restored the Lower House to its full compliment. All of these reforms would be taken up in the 1678 session of the Assembly, expanded by it, passed through both houses, and signed by Governor Notley into law. At the end of the assembly, a thankful

Lower House

as a Token of their love Respect and Esteeme for his honor to prsent him wth somewhat that might be acceptable to his honor... we humbly desire his honor to accept of 20000l of Tob: out of the pu leavy this prsent yeare, and desire the concurrence of the upp how vote.

A surprised Notley accepted the gift, declaring, that as “it came unlooked for, and since I am apt to beleeve it came from [you c]ordially, and out of a true Respect unto my pson, I shall put a H[igh val]ue upon the guift.” Notley furthermore asked that his “humble thankes I pray let be Recorded in yor J[ournal I] shall ever love & serve you to my power,” signing the note “Yor Reall frend and Servant Thomas Notley.”288 This was

288 See “Gift to Governor Thomas Notley, Lower House Journal, November 12, 1678” Archives 7:47-48 265 only the second and last such unsolicited gift to a Governor voted by the Lower House in the seventeenth century. It reflected a genuine gratitude towards the merchant- planter Governor from the merchant-planter led Lower House. At long last, merchant- planter delegates could do more than pass legislation, only to watch it get vetoed. One of their own was governor who shared their concerns, and enacted the reforms. Notley was so popular that when Charles, Lord Baltimore returned to his province in December of 1678, Notley was allowed to keep his position as Deputy Lieutenant Governor and served until his death in early April, 1679. As it turned out, his expert leadership would be sorely missed over the next decade.

266 Epilogue

Even after his December 1678 return to Maryland, Charles, Lord Baltimore had allowed Notley to continue executing the powers of Governor. Unfortunately, although he was only in his mid-forties, Notley’s successful tenure was in its final months. In the insalubrious atmosphere of the Chesapeake health was never something to be taken for granted, as Governor Jesse Wharton, Councilor John Bateman, and countless others who suddenly took sick and died relatively young could testify. By the end of March, 1678/9

Notley fell grievously ill. On April 2, 1679, “although sick in Body yet of good perfect and sound memory,”289 he composed his last will and testament. The next day William

Digges and Nicholas Sewall proved it: Deputy Lieutenant Governor Thomas Notley was dead. As long as Notley was alive and in office, his policies and reforms that had pulled

Maryland through the crisis were secure. For two and a half years, the merchant-planter governor, along with the merchant-planter dominated Council cooperated with the merchant-planter dominated assembly, earning the respect and even gratitude of the often contrary body. But, in the decade after Notley’s death, the policies and attitudes

289 Notley, Thomas “Last Will and Testament.” Wills: Maryland State Archives MSA film SR 4404-3 Liber 10, F 7 “Charles Calvert was vigorously pursuing theories and practices increasingly unacceptable ‘ in this age’ to most colonists. Such attitudes and procedures were endangering his authority within the colony and affecting his standing in England where opponents of the Calverts’ ‘Monarchical Government’ were always scheming to overthrow the charter...” David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Democracy in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) p. 130. Dr. Jordan also characterized Charles Calvert’s rule as that of an “absolute sovereign proprietor.” p. 136.

267 he had implemented to keep Maryland a peaceful place were systematically reversed by

Charles, Lord Baltimore. Where Notley had forged alliances with old enemies, reduced the tensions that perpetually beset the colony by addressing and resolving old complaints, frequently centered on the perceived abuse of the proprietary prerogative, from 1679-1688 Baltimore zealously held to his absolutist interpretation of his prerogatives, and in so doing continually antagonized and alienated the Delegates, reopening the very complaints that Notley’s efforts had seemingly put to rest. When the next crisis hit in 1688, few Marylanders trusted Baltimore’s government, and that time an absolutist Governor sent from England who had no Maryland ties could not hold the province for the Calverts.290

Baltimore did not understand that Notley’s policies that did limit the prerogative of the Proprietary were deeply desired by most Marylanders. He only saw that Notley’s policies placed constraints upon his God-given charter rights as proprietor. Even though those policies had helped to reduce the political tensions in the colony, Baltimore resented them. But, in late 1678 and early 1679, Charles Calvert would do little to dial them back, as he had planned to return to England in the summer of 1679. Keeping the popular and capable governor in charge was better than removing him and replacing him with someone else and begin the process of reclaiming the prerogative rights, a process certain to re-open political conflict that Baltimore did not want to take place in his

290 John D. Krugler placed the blame for the rising tensions in Maryland 1679-1689 firmly at the feet of Charles Calvert. With the loss of Notley, “As proprietor, Charles alone had the opportunity to stem the tide. Instead of reaching out, he retrenched. He left those in opposition little choice but to take up arms against a government closed to all but a few proprietary cronies.” John D. Krugler. English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004) p.243

268 absence. But Notley’s death upset everything; there was no clear replacement. Most of the Councilors left were Calvert family members, who would be absolutely loyal to

Charles Calvert’s agenda, this very fact meant that they would not have any effectiveness as leaders. The Assembly would not trust them, seeing them as powerless puppets. The unrelated Protestant merchant-planter Samuel Chew was dead, and he did not like Henry Coursey. In July, 1679 Baltimore wrote his sister that Notley’s death

“had caused such an alteration of affaires with me that I canot possibly quitt the province this shipping [season].” Charles decided to take the powers of the office himself and rule as proprietor in residence. He started to reverse Notley’s policies immediately.

Within two weeks of Notley’s death, Baltimore removed Gerard Slye and his stepfather

John Coode from the patronage posts they had enjoyed thanks to Notley’s patronage, along with Justinian and Thomas Gerard from the County Justiceships they had held.

Charles was not willing to keep the grandchildren of an old rebel or the ambitious but contrary Coode in his patronage. Notley had kept these potential enemies close, plying them with powerful and desired offices, using their ambition to weld the potential leaders of an effective and threatening opposition to himself, and by extension to the

Calverts. But with this Baltimore alienated and angered the entire Gerard family. The ambitious and contrary Coode immediately began looking for another way to claim the power he felt was his due.291

291 As it will be recalled, the fear that the Gerards could form the nucleus to an effective rebel leadership was not unfounded, Thomas Gerard had led the 1659 attempt at overthrowing Cecil Lord Baltimore in the somewhat misnamed Fendall’s Rebellion. See Chapter 6 above. See also: Charles, Lord Baltimore. Letter to Elizabeth Calvert, July 10, 1679. In The Calvert Papers, Number 1, Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication No. 28. (Baltimore, 1889) p. 311. David W. Jordan. “John Coode: Perennial Rebel.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 70, No. 1 (Spring, 1975) pp. 8-9. Jordan considers two possible explanations for Baltimore’s alienation of the Gerard family. One, Charles may have been extending patronage to Coode, Slye, Thomas, and Justinian Gerard in a “calculated effort” to repair the family’s

269 By December of 1679, Coode’s plantation had become known as a place where the Calverts’ rule could be openly challenged, and where opponents to the proprietary could gather. In that month Dr. James Barre was brought before the Council charged with spreading a rumor of the Council planning to join forces with natives to murder

Protestants while a guest in Coode’s home. Coode and his brother-in-law, Nehemiah

Blackiston were called in before the council to testify. They admitted that the doctor had said those things, but explained that Barre had been drunk and rambling. Dr. Barre was held over for trial at the next session of the Provincial Court. Although the members of the Gerard family escaped any threat of prosecution, it could not have escaped Charles’ notice that Barre had spent over a week in the homes of Coode, Gerard

Slye, and one of the Gerard brothers before his seditious outburst. The homes of the

Gerard family had become havens for those who were opposed to the Calverts. By 1681

John Coode had fallen in with Josias Fendall and the other irreconcilables at the Cliffs.

The two men saw a kindred spirit in each other. They had each initially enjoyed

Calvert’s patronage, and both had lost it. In the supposed privacy of their homes, the two bitter men, along with other opponents of the Calverts, once again began to speculate about recent Indian attacks and spread fears and rumors of Catholic collusion with them—the same story that underlay each political disturbance in Maryland from the mid 1660s and would form one of the chief charges of the Protestant Association in relationship with the Calverts. When that failed to have its desired results he abandoned them. Or, Jordan posits, by 1679 John Coode’s contrary, oppositional, and disruptive personality had come out, and “rendered the others the victims of his rebellious behavior.” I do not agree with either interpretation. Considering that much of the Gerard sons-in-law’s advancement had been at the hand of Thomas Notley, and that within two weeks of his death they lost their positions it seems most likely that Baltimore resented the Deputy Governor’s advancement of the wealthy Gerards, and removed them as soon as he could. Rapprochement with the Gerard clan was Notley’s policy, not Charles’.

270 1689. This time Coode did not avoid prosecution. He and Fendall were arrested on charges of mutinous and seditious speech. As a result Baltimore attempted to remove

Coode from his Delegate’s seat trying to get the other Delegates to impeach their fellow member. Despite his and the Council’s best efforts, the Lower House successfully resisted his efforts to remove one of the most highly-educated and vocal opponents to

Charles Calvert’s policies. Coode was acquitted of the charges by the Jury, despite the strong evidence against him. In the end, the Proprietor and Council had to be satisfied by warning Coode to be careful with whom he associated. Coode thanked them for the court’s leniency, noting that there had been just cause for the proceedings. Fendall, however, was convicted and finally left Maryland, moving to North Carolina, only briefly returning to Maryland in 1684. With Fendall’s departure, Coode and the Gerard clan now became the leaders of the opposition to the proprietary, and unlike Fendall, they were not barred from election to the Lower House. Kenelm Cheseldyne, for example, would be elected as a Delegate, and was Speaker of the House in 1688. His nephew, Coode’s stepson, merchant Gerard Slye left Maryland in 1681, taking up residence in London. Once there, he would begin a campaign of attacking Baltimore’s government, writing Whitehall anti-proprietary explanations of events in Maryland, and testifying against Calvert’s actions and policies. Over the next seven years the Gerard family honed their opposition, building contacts and their coalition awaiting an opportunity to strike. In the matter of a just a few months Baltimore had reversed

271 Notley’s successful courting of the most contentious elite family in Maryland. In 1688-

89 those men would provide the leadership that overthrew the proprietary.292

Charles, third Lord Baltimore, unlike his grandfather George and father Cecil was not a skilled politician. Having antagonized the Lower House in a failed effort to impeach Coode and remove him as a Delegate, Baltimore now decided to announce his veto of some of the laws passed in Thomas Notley’s reform-assembly of 1678—a move certain to infuriate the Delegates even without the impeachment fight. He vacated the law that had given the Lower House control over elections, as well as those addressing the disposition of the defense of the colony that had placed arms in the counties, commanded additional state arms to be purchased, and had provided for an accounting

292 David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New Yok: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 93, 123. See also David W. Jordan “John Coode: Perennial Rebel” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Spring 1975) pp 9-14. “The Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, August-September, 1681” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., (Baltimore: 1883-present.) Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.112, 113, 115, 116, 119, 136, 137, 139 (hereafter cited as Archives 7: 112, 113, 115, 116, 119, 136, 137, 139) The charge of Indian-Catholic collusion against Protestants was a main complaint in the “Complaint from Heaven” in 1676. See Anonymous. “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue and Crye and a Petition out of Virginia and Maryland.” Archives 5: 134-135, and was one of the charges leveled by the Protestant Association to justify their overthrow of Calvert’s government. See Protestant Association. “The Declaration of the Reason and Motive for the Prest Appearing in Arms of His Majtys Protestant Subjects in the Province of Maryland” Archives 8:101- 108. The persistent native attacks gave great currency to the rumors in the frontier county of Baltimore. See Charles G. Steffen. From Gentlemen to Townsmen: The Gentry of Baltimore County, Maryland, 1660-1776 (Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1993). It is unclear how serious Coode and Fendall’s 1681 discussions were towards rebellion, but observers in Virginia though discontent in Maryland was strong, and for his part, Baltimore had assured his critics in London that Fendall and Coode were proto-Baconites, justifying his vigorous prosecution and attempted impeachment. Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974) pp 32-33. Charles Calvert’s removal of Coode, Slye and the Gerard brothers from the patronage extended to them by Notley was an expression of a policy that extended back into the 1640s. Every time the Calverts came back into power—after Ingle, the Parliamentary Commission, Fendall/Gerard’s 1659 ‘rebellion’—they would ban the losers from public office. Denied a public vent, these men and their families became the core of a vocal and vigorous opposition, leading to much of the instability that plagued Maryland up to 1689. See David W. Jordan. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979) pp. 249-250.

272 of defense levy expenditures, as well as the law limiting clerk’s fees—all of which had addressed long-standing complaints. The Delegates were stunned and angry at the sudden loss of deeply desired reforms that had been negotiated with Notley and the

Council, not to mention the long delayed veto of laws that had been in effect for nearly three years—the very issue that had led to the contentious 1669 session. On top of all this, Charles refused to issue writs authorizing election of new Delegates to fill empty seats, leaving thirteen vacancies. This was too much, the Delegates refused to act on any bill or other businesses until by elections were held to fill the vacancies. This was not how Charles expected his assemblies to act. To his absolutist mind, the Delegates were there to approval of his measures, not fight him over what were clearly his prerogatives. Charles held that it was his prerogative to call elections or not, it was certainly not the place for Delegates. Finally, in order to get things moving, Charles agreed to order the elections to fill the vacancies, but was careful to make clear that this was no precedent, he would do this only for this session, in the future he alone would decide if and when to hold elections. In contrast, when Thomas Notley called his session three years earlier, he not only called all delegates elected, but also sent writs of election to fill all vacancies before the delegates met ensuring full representation for each county as a matter of course. Notley thereby neatly diffused these tensions before they could manifest. As a long-time member and frequent Speaker of the House, Notley knew how important this was to the Delegates. He understood that issuing the writs was small concession to make. His small concessions ensured that the 1678 House members arrived without a complaint about membership, and established a more positive tone at

273 the outset of the 1678 assembly. In 1681, however, Baltimore’s stubborn insistence became a crisis, alienating what little trust the Delegates may have had in him, completely shutting down the business of the assembly. The Delegates refused to do any business until the newly elected members arrived in St. Mary’s, confirming that the elections had actually taken place. Not only was the business of the province on hold, but for two weeks the Delegates’ anger over the attempted impeachment of John Coode and the vetoes festered.293

To the members of the Lower House, Baltimore’s actions were an alarming demonstration of his absolutist pretensions, his use or abuse of an arbitrary and unchecked power, and threatened the whole slate of reform that they, the Council and

Governor had passed in 1678. As soon as they went in session after the arrival of the replacements instead of considering the bills they had been called to debate, they angrily focused on the issue of Charles’ use of his prerogative powers, trying to save the laws of the 1678 assembly. They argued that any act that had been passed by both houses and assented to—whether by the Proprietor himself or his deputy—could not be repealed without consent of both houses. Still, it could not be denied that the proprietor did have the right to veto laws, and so the Delegates also argued that, at the very least, any law that had been allowed to be in effect for two years or more should not be subject to later disallowance—a reasonable compromise. Baltimore was fiercely determined to

293 David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 123-126. Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Disassent to the ‘Act Directing the manner of Electing and summoning Delegates and Representatives to serve in succeeding Assemblies’”Archives 15:378-379, Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Proclamtion of Disassent to all laws passed in the 1678 Assembly, May 9, 1684.” Archives 5: 405-406, Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, August-September, 1681” Archives 7:107-216

274 maintain his prerogative rights, but finally did promise that as long as he was personally resident in Maryland that he would announce such vetoes at the end of any session, and within eighteen months if overseas. This only quieted the Delegates somewhat, they continued to focus on defending the rights and privileges of the House rather than vote levies for the defense of the Colony. Fed up, Baltimore adjourned the assembly for six weeks, in order to diffuse some of the tensions. Baltimore hoped that this cooling off period would get the Delegates to focus on voting the needed funds to pay soldiers and maintain prisoners already taken in a recent expedition, and to forget about their anger.294

Instead, six weeks later, the re-convened Lower House went on the offensive.

By accident or design, the Act for Reviving Laws of 1678 that had renewed the temporary laws of the province had included the 1676 Act that had enumerated the permanent laws of the province. Some Delegates argued that this had made the Act and all of the ‘permanent’ laws it listed in fact temporary. As that 1676 Act had not been renewed in the previous session of the assembly, these Delegates now argued that all of the ‘permanent’ laws were no longer in force. This sparked yet another round of fierce debate, the Council demanded the issue be resolved immediately, some Delegates wanted to wait until the next session, threatening to throw much of the legal code of

Maryland into doubt in the interim—exactly the same as the long-delayed veto did.

Two could play at this game. In the end, after an extra day in session, the permanent

294 ibid.

275 status of the laws in question was confirmed. Unlike 1678, at the end of this session no gift of appreciation was made to Governor-Proprietor.295

It is not surprising that in 1682 Baltimore decided to order new elections to replace the 1676-1681 Assembly. He was determined to have a more tractable House this time and he returned to his policy first enacted in 1676, only issuing writs of attendance to twenty-two men, two per county, plus two more from St. Mary’s City— another reversal of Notley policy. By only calling half of the delegates chosen in the counties, Baltimore was able to exclude many of the most vigorous opponents to the

Calverts from the previous assembly, including the Gerard sons-in-law, John Coode, and

Kenelm Cheseldyne. Despite this, Baltimore soon discovered that he had alienated the electors of Maryland, finding few friends among the Lower House even among this hand-picked membership. The newly elected Delegates did discuss the issue of defense, but only briefly; the Delegates quickly demanded the restoration of the Lower House’s control over elections as the 1678 act vetoed in 1681 had given them, and demanded a return to the policy followed by Thomas Notley of calling of all four Delegates elected per county. Once again, this brought the Assembly to stalemate, and little got done.

After three contentious weeks, it only passed the necessary revival act and approved the public levy, maintaining the status quo antebellum, producing nothing new but rancor.

The healthy and productive relationship with the assembly that Notley had nurtured was now all but gone. Where Notley had a contingent of merchant-planters in the Assembly whose demands he knew and understood as a fellow merchant-planter and long-time

Delegate, Baltimore had little support. In the 1683 session, things did not much 295 ibid. “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, November 1-12, 1681” Archives 7: 228-238

276 improve; only five relatively minor bills were passed after lengthy arguments about the veto of the election law and demands for its reinstitution once again dominated the session’s debates.296

In 1684 Baltimore decided that he needed to leave Maryland for England in order to more effectively fight Penn’s grant that encroached on Maryland’s northern border as well as to defend his proprietorship before the Lords of Trade who had began to question him in part as a result of Gerard Slye’s anti-proprietary letter-writing campaign. He did not want to leave any excuse for the holding of the legislature while he was overseas, not wanting to risk a slate of concessions made in his absence as had happened in Notley’s Assembly of 1678. Once again Charles antagonized the Delegates even before he they met by insisting on his prerogative right to only call two of the four delegates elected from each county.

When the summoned Delegates arrived, Baltimore submitted to them a transcription of all the laws passed for the Lower House to go through and review and revise them as they felt necessary. Just as he had done before he left in 1676, Lord

Baltimore was putting his political house in order, and for the next twenty-six days, the

Lower House determined which laws were in force, and eliminated those that duplicated or contradicted others. They agreed that most laws should remain in effect, and a few should be repealed as unnecessary. All in all, things looked relatively positive; this was

296 ibid. Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Proclamation ffor dissolveing this present Assembly and Declareing the Speedy Calling of a New One, July 10, 1681” Archives 17: 109-10; “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October, November, 1682.” Archives 7:331-401. “Lower House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October, November, 1682.” Archives 7:403-444. “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October, November, 1683.” Archives 7:445-520. “Lower House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October, November, 1683.” Archives 7:521-620

277 the most productive the Assembly had been since 1678. There were some problems, however. The Delegates proposed a change to the permanent 1649 Act that required oaths of loyalty to the Proprietor, adding a “Salvo of allegiance to his Majesties [sic].”

For some time there had been apprehension that such oaths seemed to replace fealty to the Crown, even leading the author of the Complaint Before Heaven in 1676 to charge that this oath was “within the compass of treason.” The oath had heretofore rarely been administered, but Baltimore was concerned about the reticence of the Delegates to swear loyalty to him, and refused to allow a change in the wording. Ominously, at the close of the assembly he announced that in the future, the special oath of fidelity to the Proprietor would be required of all future legislators before they would be allowed to take their seats.297

The Delegates also resumed debating the issue of the use of English law and precedent in Maryland Courts when there was no corresponding local legislation that had been addressed by the 1678 Act Touching Judicature. That act had tried to eliminate the prerogative of Justices of Maryland courts from deciding for themselves which laws of England did or did not apply—directly undermining the power of the

Governor and Council who also sat as the Justices of the Provincial Court and Court of

Chancery. As a lawyer, Notley understood the need for clarity and constancy in the application of law, and that arbitrary and thus potentially inconsistent applications of law and precedent made pursuing legal recourse at best unpredictable. Trade despises uncertainty, and not surprisingly, the merchant-planters who dominated Maryland

297 David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 127-129. Archives 13:1-126. Anonymous. “Complaint from Heaven with a Hue and Crye and a Petition out of Virginia and Maryland.” Archives 5: 138-139.

278 Government in 1678 attempted to solve the problem, “but uncertainty still prevailed.”

The 1684 assembly now tried to conclusively eliminate judicial discretion in applying

English law and precedent by Maryland judges. Baltimore and the Council demurred, refusing to accept the new act only if it ensconced their ability to decide which laws of

England applied and when, essentially rolling back the 1678 limitation. Not surprisingly, no act passed.298

While this failure undoubtedly disappointed the Delegates, it was of little concern to Baltimore. He knew that he would get back the Justices’ discretion to decide the role of English law, whether the Delegates voted for it or not. Baltimore was determined to reclaim all the ground conceded by Notley before he left for England: the last day of the Assembly he announced his veto of all laws passed by the 1678 assembly that he had not already personally confirmed. Baltimore’s letter that ended the session itself ended with a condescending lesson on manners to the several members of the

Lower House who refused to remove their hats in his presence, writing that “he hoped their will be more modesty and better manners hereafter used, for that indeed his Lopp. would not any longer endure the same.” With that, he prorogued the Assembly and prepared to sail for England.299

In this absence, Charles Calvert was determined to not have a repeat of Notley’s more independent and reform minded governorship. He had learned what an intelligent, experienced legislator or politician who had been a long-time resident of the province could do in his absence. Although Notley had been able to use his prestige, his

298 ibid. 299 The complete list of the Acts passed under Notley can be found in “Session Laws, Assembly Proceedings, October-November, 1678” Archives 7: 51-105

279 generally more-positive relationship and the greater popular trust he had to enable him to act quickly and decisively when needed, he also used these qualities to allow popular reforms to pass and give patronage to persons Charles Calvert disliked. This time,

Baltimore left no single person to execute the office of Governor, instead leaving the official title and salary to his minor son, Benedict Leonard Calvert, but gave the powers of the office to the Council as a whole. Five, all Calvert relatives, were given special authority as “Secretaries” and “Joint Commissioners”. The remaining Councilors, all

Protestant, lacked such prominence and special authority As these men died over the next four years, only Catholics would replace them. Baltimore had been determined to make certain that the executive would be utterly compliant to his wishes. This time, no governor with an independent power-base and a mind for reform would threaten his prerogatives. At first, it looked like the arrangement might work. When Josias Fendall returned to Maryland from North Carolina, the Deputy Lieutenant Governor and Council acted quickly and issued a warrant for his immediate arrest, but the wily old opponent eluded capture. Issuing the warrant was one of their few successes. In their next major test, they proved too weak and ineffective, and even worse, they confirmed some of the fears the locals had about the Calverts’ government.300

Before 1678 the collector of the King’s Customs in Maryland, Christopher

Rousby had had a relatively positive relationship with the Calvert government. As was discussed in Chapter Two above, around the time of the Liverpoole Merchant case came before the Provincial Court his relationship with Baltimore’s government broke down,

300 David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 129-130

280 perhaps because of the outcome of that condemnation and sale of the ship back to the accused smugglers. Eventually, Rousby appealed to London accusing the Calverts of interfering with him doing the King’s work. Gerard Slye, continuing his family’s anti-

Calvert campaign, gave testimony on Rousby’s behalf against the Calverts before the

Lords of Trade in the early 1680s. By 1684, there was considerable outright animosity between the Proprietary family and the zealous imperial official. In November 1684,

Councilor George Talbot, a Calvert cousin, murdered Rousby on board a royal naval vessel. The murderer successfully fled Maryland into Virginia. The Councilors either purposefully hesitated in order to allow Talbot to flee to avoid prosecution, or were so ineffective and weak they could not make a decision quickly enough to order the capture of Talbot and bring him to justice. Their failure to act allowed speculation about Calvert motives to run rampant and unchecked. Talbot’s successful flight seemed to confirm the old suspicions about the Proprietary family’s anti-Royal leanings, as well as their supposed desire to kill good, loyal-to-England Protestants. That Talbot was arrested, tried and convicted in Virginia was some comfort to the opposition, but there was considerable resentment at Talbot’s eventual pardon by the King. Whether Rousby’s murder was a spur of the moment drunken argument went wrong, or a calculated attempt to eliminate a problematic imperial official, Rousby’s replacement was no better.

Nehemiah Blackiston, uncle of Gerard Syle and brother-in-law to Kenelm Cheseldyne and John Coode was named the next Collector of the King’s Customs. It was clear that

“a powerful opposition was slowly emerging in the Lower Eastern Shore Counties.”301

301 ibid, pp. 130-131. David W. Jordan. “John Coode, Perennial Rebel.” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 70, No. 1 (Spring, 1975) pp.13-14

281 With the death of King Charles in 1685, as per custom, the Councilors dissolved the old legislature and called for elections to an assembly that did not meet until

October, 1686, victim of the unsettled political situation in England. Although many of the outspoken opponents of the regime from the previous assembly were not seated,

Gerard son-in-law Kenelm Cheseldyne was chosen as Speaker. Although most of the records from this session do not survive, it must have been quite contentious. Despite meeting for twenty-three days, only six bills were passed, two of which were private bills, and two the routine bills settling the public levy and reviving the temporary laws.

The Assembly had had an inauspicious start: the Delegates refused to take the oath required of them, arguing weakly that the request of the Council for them to take the oath had arrived after they had already begun their business.302

By 1688 even Baltimore realized that governor-as-committee was not working, and decided to re-institute the single governor model. But the whole point of a plural executive was to avoid a governor with an independent local power base, who would be reliably tame and wait for his instructions from Baltimore, and was insulated from public pressures. Therefore a resident Marylander was out of the question. Instead,

Baltimore dispatched Englishman William Joseph, a believer in absolutism, to Maryland to take up the position. Inauspiciously, one of his Joseph’s actions after his October,

1688 arrival was to order the celebration of the birth of James III, a Catholic heir to a

Catholic King, as he had been instructed to do. Joseph had also been instructed to call a session of the assembly. As the official celebrations were being held, St. Mary’s County

302 David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 131-132

282 held a by-election, returning John Coode, the leader of the Gerard clan’s campaign of opposition to the Calverts, as a Delegate for the first time in seven years. As was customary, Deputy Lieutenant Governor Joseph opened the Assembly with a speech.

He opened his speech with an impassioned outlining of absolutist principles, advising the Delegates that the power of God flowed through his appointed monarch James II and from him to Charles, Lord Baltimore, and from Charles thence to them. As this Divine

Right theory suggested, he informed them that their jobs were to assent to whatever laws their lord demanded of them and nothing more. He outlined Baltimore’s demands for an unpopular act to prohibit the export of unprized bulk tobacco, explaining to the

Delegates that opposition to the will of Lord Baltimore was treasonous. Governor

Joseph concluded his remarks warning that before the legislators began to make laws they need be sure to not break any, and ordered the administration of the oath of loyalty to Baltimore, as required by law. This launched yet another difficult, angry, and contentious session. The Delegates immediately and steadfastly refused to take the oath while seated as the Lower House. Finally, Governor Joseph prorogued the Assembly for the weekend; the Delegates then took the oath as private citizens. While several bills were passed in the session that followed, the one act demanded by Baltimore to prohibit the export of bulk tobacco was not one of them. The House would not be dictated to. A frustrated Governor concluded the assembly, scheduling the next session for April, hoping that perhaps the “mind” of the Delegates would be more amenable to Baltimore’s wishes. That hope was in vain; by April, 1689 news had arrived of James II’s

283 replacement by William and Mary. Governor Joseph never called the Assembly to meet again.303

Governor Joseph was hamstrung. As a stranger to Maryland, he possessed none of the connections to the merchant-planter community that Notley enjoyed. He had not spent over a decade serving and leading in the Lower House, earning respect and building relationships. He had no block of like-minded Delegates in the Lower House to support him. The Council was of no assistance either. Five of the six men on the

Council were related by blood or marriage to the Proprietary, and four of them were

Catholic. Merchant-planter Thomas Taillor, the one Councilor who was both unrelated and a Protestant, had been alienated by Baltimore’s removing him from the Presidency of the Council with Joseph’s appointment. Taillor would abandon his Maryland home and relocate to London in the spring of 1689. Where Notley had at least a grudging respect from many Maryland elites, Joseph had alienated virtually everyone in his haughty, demanding, absolutist speech or lecture that had opened the Assembly in 1688.

As an absolutist, Joseph would not act on his own without instructions from Baltimore.

Even if the Governor had wanted to act to quell the grumbling and diffuse the tensions, he had no base to support him. By 1689 Charles Calvert had achieved his goals. He had rolled back Notley’s concessions, reestablishing his prerogatives, had a completely tame

Council and Governor who would obey and execute his every order, but concede nothing to the opposition. Fendall had been driven from the Colony, and the Gerards

303 David W. Jordan. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632-1715 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987) pp. 132-134. “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1687/8- 1689.”Archives 8:40-65, Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, November-December, 1688” Archives 13: 145-227

284 had been excluded from his patronage. The last member of the merchant-planter class that had dominated the Lower House and Council in 1676-82, Thomas Taillor, was essentially powerless. At last Charles, Lord Baltimore had a government that he could trust would not pass any reforms or concede any prerogative rights.304

Baltimore’s success was also key to his downfall. Governor Joseph and the

Council proved unable to act. In April, Virginia declared William and Mary, the

Dominion of New England collapsed and declared the Stadtholder and his wife King and Queen. In June, Leisler proclaimed New York for the joint monarchs. No instructions arrived from Baltimore, and Joseph did nothing, fueling fear and speculation that Calvert’s government was showing its true pro-French Catholic colors. In the climate of England’s looming war with Catholic France, Joseph’s not proclaiming the ascension of William and Mary, it now seemed perfectly reasonable to many common

Marylanders that Catholics in Maryland were possibly colluding with the French-allied natives to massacre Protestants and turn Maryland over to France or the Catholic James

II. The ambitious, wealthy, and thwarted Gerard brothers-in-law were more than willing to stir up trouble, and provide the leadership to focus a populace’s anger and fear.

Finally, in July, Coode and his brothers-in-law, Kenelm Cheseldyne, and Nehemiah

Blackiston gathered a small band of supporters and marched into St. Mary’s, and toppled the government without firing a shot. Ringleader John Coode later boasted that they had launched the rebellion as revenge; some historians of the Gerard family consider the 1689 uprising to be a continuation of the Gerard inspired Fendall’s

Rebellion of 1659. The Protestant force secured the surrender of the Proprietary 304 ibid.

285 Government on August first, there was essentially no resistance. Charles, third Lord

Baltimore had lost the government of Maryland, with neither a bang nor a whimper. As it turned out, Governor Notley’s independent power-base, long experience in the legislature, understanding of the real complaints and concerns of Marylanders and his willingness to lead when leadership was needed, enabled him to move swiftly, keep the peace, and weld those most likely to lead revolution to the Calvert cause. They also enabled him to enact a moderate program of reform. Although in many respects Notley was the indispensible man 1676-1679, it was not just Notley, of course, the merchant- planter community had come to dominate all branches of Maryland’s Provincial government in 1676-1679, and provided their trusted Governor with the support he needed to act. In 1689, those qualities were sorely missed, and the Catholic Calverts fell.305

305 ibid. See also John D. Krugler. English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004) pp. 233-250. For a brief explanation of the 1689 crisis and the detailed statement of the causes of the Gerard-family led Protestant Association see Protestant Association. “The Declaration of the Reason and Motive for the Prest Appearing in Arms of His Majtys Protestant Subjects in the Province of Maryland” Archives 8: 101-108. In a letter sent by the Protestant Associators to Jacob Leisler in January 1689/90 the reasons for the overthrow of the Calvert Government was summed up. For the most part, the letter echoes the complaints of the Declaration but placed more emphasis on the charges of maladministration of justice and corruption in the legal system. “Furthermore, in his catalogue of ills the feeling seems to predominate that, while it was unfortunate that the government was costly and its offices were monopolized by members of the Calvert family, yet its greatest sin was that it was inefficient and corrupt, and, therefore, gave the taxpayers inadequate return for their money.” The precipitating causes of the uprising were identified as Governor Jospeh’s tactlessness, the failure to proclaim William & Mary, and fears of an attack by Indians and Catholics. “Upon the rumors of plot and attack and the resulting mass hysteria he appears to have laid the greatest stress.” Beverly McAnear. “Maryiland’s Grievances Wiy the Have Taken Op Arms.” The Journal of Southern History Vol. 8, No.3 (August, 1942) pp. 394-395. For a more detailed discussion of the events in 1689 across England’s North American colonies, see David S. Lovejoy. The Glorious Revolution in America (New York: Harper and Row, 1972). For an exploration of the role the persistent rumor of Indian-Catholic collusion played in the instability of the Maryland Polity, see: Michael Graham. “Popish Plots: Protestant Fears in Early Colonial Maryland, 1676-1689” The Catholic Historical Review Vol. 79, No. 2 (April, 1993) pp. 197-216. Graham details the rising tensions of the 1680s, and covers the events of the overthrow in greater detail than David W. Jordan on pp. 200-207. He argued that ““England’s particular national genius, its very way of life, was symbolized by the trinity of Parliament, Protestantism, and property.” Charles’ interference with the summoning of all elected delegates and Joseph’s absolutist theories espoused in his speech to the

286 As for the merchant-planters that had largely arrived post-1660 who had shown such innovation and ambition in their trade, who had built the connections within and without Maryland that Governor Notley relied upon, and who seemed poised in 1676-

1679 to form the nucleus of permanent elite class: they faded away. In Maryland, there was no stable elite class until after 1700. Thanks to the high death rates, the ruling class was undergoing constant change. The elites of 1686 were not the same of 1676, who were not the same as those of 1666. Thomas Notley died suddenly in 1679. His close friend and fellow merchant-planter Benjamin Rozer, also elevated to the Council in

1676, died suddenly in 1681. Councilor Samuel Chew did not make it to 1678, Mark

Cordea was dead by 1684. Only after 1690 did a native Creole elite class emerge from estate consolidation and inheritance—Creoles were more acclimated to the disease climate and enjoyed far lower death rates that had made it difficult for earlier elite to be able to pass on their patrimony and consolidate their power. From the late seventeenth

Delegates in 1688 violated the first member of the trinity, the open preferment of Catholics, the second, and the demand for a law against the export of bulk tobacco—the main export of smaller planters—was an attack on the final. Charles, Lord Baltimore was, Graham conceded, a tyrant, albeit a fairly petty one. The 1689 crisis had at its heart the fears over Catholic-Indian-French alliance, long feared in the colony, but with England at last at war with France, this took on new salience, by 1688 Baltimore had achieved his goal, of an absolutely obedient government—one that would not and could not act independently of his wishes as Notley had done in 1678. The failure to Proclaim William and Mary, indeed the deafening silence from the Governor and Council seemed only to confirm the worst fears that Catholics were a fifth column. See Graham, pp. 213-215 The history of Maryland’s overthrow of the Calverts in 1689 is detailed in Lois Green Carr and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689-1692 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974). Carr and Jordan concluded that the 1689 overthrow came at the hands of ambitious Protestants who had not been favored with office holding and political appointments they considered commiserate with their socio-economic status, and who resented the preferment shown to Calvert family members and Catholics. These men were able to successfully play off common fears in an effort to increase their own power; see pp. 220-223. On Coode’s declaring the motive behind the rebellion was revenge, see p. 246. Edwin W. Beitzell cited Francis Edward Sparks’ theory that the events of 1689 were the merely the culmination of the 1659 legislative uprising. Francis Edgar Sparks. Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689 Johns Hopkins University Studies XIV (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1896) p. 501. Edwin W. Beitzell. “Thomas Gerard and his Sons-in-Law” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 46, No. 3 (1951) p. 205

287 and early eighteenth centuries, larger and larger planters dominated the Chesapeake, leaving trade to British-based trading houses and their factors. A new group of wealthy elites would begin to diversify their economic practices into trade in the mid-eighteenth century, but they were planters who became merchants, and planting was always their prime enterprise. This class would enjoy greater stability and success, having a much larger population to sell to both in Maryland and overseas for other crops. Where

Restoration-era merchant-planters tried desperately to break the grip of the noxious weed and ship grains, the mid-eighteenth century planter-merchants were able to successfully shift production in some areas to grain and pork to export to the Sugar

Islands to feed the large number of slaves there. In the end, Restoration-era Maryland was simply too sparsely populated, too diseased, and overseas markets were too immature to support the merchant-planters’ efforts. The efforts of the Restoration-era merchant-planters were right on target, they were just seventy years too soon.306

306 The rise of the post-Glorious Revolution elite class is traced in Trevor Burnard. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776 (New York: Routledge, 2002). Burnard noted that the political fortunes of the planter-merchants was assisted by their willingness to extend credit to poorer planters, a practice that worked to “cement deferential ties between the wealthy and poor” (pp. 94-95). See also Paul G. E. Clemens. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980). See also David W. Jordan. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Tad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, eds. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979) pp. 243-273.

288 Bibliography

All 850 Volumes of The Archives of Maryland are available online at http://aomol.net/html/index.html

The Archives include A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789 as Volume 426, available online at http://aomol.net/000001/000426/html/index.html)

The Archives include a copy of Thomas Bacon. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes. (Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765) as Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland, available online at http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000075/html/am75np--1.html

The St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files are available online at http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/html/

The St. Mary’s Women’s Career Files are available online at http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4000/sc4040/html/

Unless otherwise noted, the works published before 1800 are from Early English Books Online, available at http://eebo.chadwyck.com/home

“Abington v Paggett” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, p.149

“Abington v. Paggett” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp.117-118

“Act Concerning Leavying Warr Within this Province, 1650” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, pp.302-303

289 “Act ffor Reuiuinge Certaine Lawes wthin this Province” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, p.537

“Act for Encourageing the Importacon of Negros and Slaves into this Province” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, p.272

“Act for Encouragement of makeing Linnen & Woollen cloath within this Province” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 13: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, April 1684-June 1692, pp.220, 222

“Act for Paymt of Money Debts with Tobacco, 1669” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.220-221

“Act for Reviving of Certain Lawes within this Province.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.215-216

“Act for the Encouragement of Trade” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.143-4

“Act for the Ordering & regulateing the Militia of this Prouince & for the better Security and defence thereof” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.53-60

“Act for the preservation of the Seuerall Harbours within this Province” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, pp.533-4

“Act for the Rayseing and Prouideing a Support for his Lordship the Lord and Proprietary of this Prouince dureing his natureall life and likewise a Supply towards the defraying the Publick Charges of Gouernment” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.284-286 290 “Act for the Raysing a present supply for his Excettcy the Capt Generall to defray the Charges of making Peace with the Cynegoe Indians and making warr with the Susquehannes Indians and their Confederates if accation requires” Archives 2:462-465Upper House Journal, Februaury 1674/5” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.485-86.

“Act for the Recording an Indented Deed of Bargain and Sale being the Counter part or Duplicate of an Originall Deed of Bargain & Sale from Mary Bateman and Henry Scarborough to Richard Perry, 1727” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 38: Acts of the General Assembly hitherto unpublished 1694-1698, 1711-1729, p.413

“Act for the Releife of Jacb Leisler of Newyorke Merchant” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, p.255

“Act for the Setling the Rates & Prizes in Mony of all Wynes Liquors and Other Comodities Sould by Retayle within this Province, 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.295-298.

“Act Limiting the Times of Servants” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, p.80

“Act Providing for the Security and Defence of this Province.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.557-560

“Act Providing what shalbee good Evidence vppon Bills Bonds and Specialtyes Comeing out of England And other ptes” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, pp.502-3

291 “Acte Concerning the Setting vp of a Mint within this Province of Maryland” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, pp.414-415.

“Acte for Encouragemt of Soweing English Grayne” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, p.445

“Acte for Lymiting Servants Tymes, 1664” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, pp.409-410

“Addison & Cordea v Rousby” in the in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 69: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1679-1680/1, pp.172-179

“Addison v Cordea” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 69: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1679-1680/1 :162-3

Addison, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0021

Addison, John. in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 p. 100

Addison, Thomas and John Addison. “Contract between Thomas Addison and John Addison” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700, pp. 61-2

Allen, John. “Testimony before the Council, May 20, 1676.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp. 482-483

Alpert, Jonathan L. “The Origin of Slavery in the United States-The Maryland Precedent” The American Journal of Legal History. Vol. 14, No. 3 (July, 1970), pp. 189-221

292 Alsop, George. “A Character of the Province, of Maryland, 1666” in Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684, Clayton Colman Hall, Ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910. pp. 335-388

“Amendments to the Act for Settleing the Rates & Prices of Wines &ca in Mony” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp. 267-8.

Anderson, Virginia DeJohn. “King Philip's Herds: Indians, Colonists, and the Problem of Livestock in Early New England.” The William and Mary Quarterly. Third Series, Vol. 51, No. 4 (October, 1994), pp. 601-624

Angelis, Angelo T.. “’By Consent of the People’: Riot and Regulation in Seventeenth Century Virginia.” Colonial Chesapeake: New Perspectives. Debra Myers and Melanie Perreault, Eds. New York: Lexington Books, 2006 pp. 117-140.

Anonymous. More News from Virginia, Being a True and Full Relation of all Occurrences in that Countrey, Since the Death of Nath. Bacon... London: William Harris, 1677

Anonymous. Strange News out of Virginia, Being a Full and True Account of the Life and Death of Nathaniel Bacon, Esquire... London: William Harris, 1677

Anonymous. Complaint from Heaven with a Hue & Crye and Petition out of Virginia and Maryland. in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, pp.134-152

“Answer of the Lower House to Governor Charles Calvert.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.381-382

“Assembly Proceedings, March - April 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.239-308.

“Aubone & Swaine v Ffarrer” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677, p.205

Backhouse, William. “Letter to John Bateman” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 41: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1658-1662, p.269

293 Bacon, Nathaniel and John Coode. “A Dialogue between the Rebel Bacon and John Goode [?Coode?] as it was presented to Governor Sir William Berkeley” in Great Britain, Public Records Office. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1677-1680 W. Noel Sainsbury and J. W. Fortescue Eds. Vol. 10. No. 27, London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1896 p. 12

Bacon, Thomas. Laws of Maryland at Large with Proper Indexes. Annapolis: Jonas Green, 1765. Reprinted in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 75: Bacon’s Laws of Maryland

“Bailey v Cordea” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, pp.442-4

“Bailey v Cordea” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 67: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1677-1678, pp. 220-221

“Bailey v Lynes” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 67: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1677-1678, p.362

“Bailey v Neale” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, pp.412-424

“Bailey v Staplefort” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp. 38-40

“Bailey v Staplefort” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.498-500

“Bailey v Staplefort” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, p.339

Bailey, John. “The Petition of John Bailey, 5 April, 1666” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp. 36-38

Bailyn, Bernard. The New England Merchants in the Seventeenth Century. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1955

294 Bailyn, Bernard. Voyagers to the West: A Passage in the Peopling of America on the Eve of the Revolution. New York: Vintage, 1988

“Bateman v Anderson” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 41: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1658-1662, p. 381

“Bateman v Bagby and Mills” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 41: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1658-1662, p. 345

“Bateman v Chew” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court 1663-1666, p. 316.

“Bateman v Lawrence” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 41: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1658-1662, p. 488

“Bateman v Patrickson, et al.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, p. 329

Bateman, John in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, p. 117

Bateman, John. “Letter of Attorney to Henry Coursey” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 41: The Proceedings of the Provincial Court 1658-62, p.345.

Bateman, John. “Last Will and Testament” Wills. Maryland State Archives MSA Film SR 4396, Liber 1, F 192

Becker, Marshall Joseph. “Matchcoates: Cultural Consevatism and Change in One Aspect of Native American Clothing.” Ethnohistory. Vol. 52, No. 4 (Autumn, 2005) pp. 727-787

Behn, Aphra. The Widdow Ranter, or the History of Bacon in Virginia, a Tragicomedy, acted by their Majesties Servants. London: James Knapton at the Crown in St. Paul’s Churchyard, 1690

Beitzell, Edwin W.. “Thomas Gerard and his Sons-in-Law” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 46, No. 3 (Summer, 1951) pp. 189-206

295 Bennett, Judith. Ale, Beer, And Brewsters in England: Women’s Work in a Changing World 1300-1600. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

Bergstrom, Peter V.. Markets and Merchants: Economic Diversification in Colonial Virginia, 1700-1775. New York: Garland Publishing, 1983

Beverly, Robert. The History and Present State of Virginia in Four Parts The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill; 1974; (Reprint of 1705 Edition) p.293.

Beverly, Robert. The History of Virginia in Four Parts, Second Edition, 1722. Richmond, VA. H.K. Ellyson’s Steam Presses Reprint 1855. pp. 60-79 at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32721/32721-h/32721-h.htm.

Beverly, Robert. The History and Present State of Virginia, in Four Parts. London, Printed for R. Parker, at the Unicorn, under the Plazzas of the Royal Exchange; 1705

Billings, Warren M.. “Sir William Berkeley and the Diversification of the Virginia Economy.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 104, No. 4, (Autumn, 1996) pp. 433-454

Billings, Warren M.. “The Growth of Political Institutions in Virginia, 1634 to 1676.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April, 1974), pp. 225-242

Billings, Warren M.. A Little Parliament: The Virginia Assembly in the Seventeenth Century. Richmond: The Library of Virginia, 2004

Billings, Warren M.. Sir William Berkeley and the Forging of Colonial Virginia. New Orleans: Louisiana State University Press, 2010

“Bills sent to the Upper House, May 1676” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, p. 481

Blakiston, Nehemiah in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635- 1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 p. 135

Blakiston, Nehemiah in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0418

“Blomfeild v Woodbery” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1667, p.155

296 Bond, Carrol T.. “’Introduction to Legal Procedure’ in Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679,” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, pp.xxii-xxxi

Boydston, Jeanne. “The Woman who Wasn’t There: Women's Market Labor and the Transition to Capitalism in the United States.” Journal of the Early Republic Vol. 16, No. 2 (Summer 1996) pp.183-206

Briggs, Dennis Edward. Malts and Malting London: Blackie Academic and Professional Publishing, 1998

Browne, William Hand. Maryland: The History of a Palatinate. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1887

Brugger, Robert J.. Maryland: A Middle Temperament, 1634-1980. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.

Bullock, William. Virginia Impartially Examined London: Printed by John Hammond, 1649

Burdett, John. “Testimony before the Council of Maryland” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland 1671-1681, pp.227-230

Burnard, Trevor. Creole Gentlemen: The Maryland Elite, 1691-1776. New York: Routledge, 2002

Burnard, Trevor. “A Tangled Cousinry? Associational Networks of the Maryland Elite, 1691-1776.” The Journal of Southern History, 61:1 (February, 1995) pp. 17-44

Calvert, Cecil, Lord Baltimore “Instructions orders and authorityes to be observed and Executed by our most deare sonne Charles Calvert Esqr our Leivetenant and Cheif Governor, and by our Councell of our Province of Maryland.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 p.16.

Calvert, Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “A Comon to the leiutennt Genll to declare his lops disassent to severall acts of Assembly heretofore passed by both howses” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.157-58

297 Calvert, Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “Granting of lands to Build Watermills, per an act of the Assembly, 1669” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679 pp.91-94

Calvert, Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “Three Comissions and Instruccons for his Excellency & Instruccons for his Excellency and Councill, 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 p.16

Calvert, Cecil, Lord Baltimore. “Disassent to Cessation of Tobacco Planting” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 3 Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1636-1667, pp.561-562

Calvert, Charles in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 p. 187

Calvert, Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Appointment of Receivers and Collectors” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 p.119

Calvert, Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Disassent to the ‘Act Directing the manner of Electing and summoning Delegates and Representatives to serve in succeeding Assemblies’” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.378-379

Calvert, Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Extension of Prorogation of the Assembly, November 8, 1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.157-158

Calvert, Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Letter to Elizabeth Calvert, July 10, 1679” in The Calvert Papers, Number 1, Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication No. 28. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1889 p. 311

Calvert, Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Proclamation of Disassent to all Laws Passed in the 1678 Assembly, May 9, 1684.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, pp.405-406

298 Calvert, Charles, Lord Baltimore. “Prorogation of the Assembly, April 17. 1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681, p.148

Calvert, Charles. “Instructions to John Bloomfield” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, pp. 50-52

Calvert, Charles. “Letter from Governor Charles Calvert to Cecil, Lord Baltimore, 26 April, 1672” in The Calvert Papers No. 1 Maryland Historical Society Fund Publication No. 28. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1889 pp. 264-265

Calvert, Charles. “Letters of Attorney to Thomas Notley” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp. 443- 444

Calvert, Philip. “Mayor’s Certification of the Election of Delegates from St. Mary’s City. October 2, 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, p.393

“Carew v Cordea” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, pp.648-649

Carr, Lois Green and David W. Jordan. Maryland’s Revolution of Government, 1689- 1692. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974

Carr, Lois Green and Lorena S. Walsh “The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland” The William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, Vol. 34, No. 4, (October, 1977), pp. 542-571

Carr, Lois Green, Russell R. Menard, and Lorena S. Walsh. Robert Cole’s World : Agriculture and Society in Early Maryland. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1991

Carr, Lois Green, Russell R. Menard. “Land Labor and Economies of Scale in Early Maryland: Some Limits to Growth in the Chesapeake System of Husbandry.” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 2 (June, 1989), pp. 407-418

Carr, Lois Green. “County Government in Maryland, 1689-1709” Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 1968

299 Carr, Lois Green. “Diversification in the Colonial Chesapeake: Somerset County, Maryland, in Comparative Perspective.” in Colonial Chesapeake Society. Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1988, pp. 342-382

Carr, Lois Green. “Emigration and the Standard of Living: The Seventeenth Century Chesapeake. The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 52, No. 2 (June, 1992) pp. 271-291

Carr, Lois Green. “Sources of Stability and Upheaval in Seventeenth-Century Maryland.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 79, No. 1 (March, 1984) pp.44- 70.

Carroll, Charles in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0715-01

Carroll, Charles. “Petition of Charles Carroll to the Council of Maryland” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 20: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1693-97, pp. 251-25

Carroll, Kenneth L.. “The Honorable Thomas Taillor: A Tale of Two Wives.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol.85, No. 4 (December, 1990). pp. 379-394

Caruthers, William Alexander. The Cavaliers of Virginia: or, The Recluse of Jamestown, an Historical Romance of the Old Dominion, 1834. Ridgewood, NJ: Gregg Press, (Reprint 1968)

Carvile, Robert and Garrett VanSweringen. “Affadavits of Mr. Robert Carvile, and Mr. VanSweringen.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8 pp. 334-342.

“Charles County Expenditures, 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, pp.347-8

“Charles County Expenditures, 1672” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.431

“Charter of St. Mary’s City, 1667” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, p.64

300 “Charter of St. Mary’s City, 1668” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, pp. 567-569

“Charter of St. Mary’s City, 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, pp.383-394

“Charter of the Liverpool Merchant, 6 June, 1678” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700,p. 59

Cheseldyne, Kenelm in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635- 1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 p. 217

Cheseldyne, Kenelm Sr. in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0769

Claiborne, J. Herbert. “William Claiborne of Kent Island” The William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series, Vol. 1, No. 2 (April, 1921) pp. 73-99

Clark, Allen C. “Origin of the Federal City” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., Vol. 35/36, (1935), pp. 1-97

Clark, Peter. The English Alehouse: a Social History, 1200-1830. New York: Longman, 1983

Clemens, Paul G. E.. The Atlantic Economy and Colonial Maryland’s Eastern Shore: From Tobacco to Grain. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980

“Codore v Roe: Receipt of Payment of Judgment, May 1678” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 67: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1677-1678, pp.419-420

Cole, Thomas, and Stephen Rogers. “Letter of Attorney to Thomas Notley” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p.560

“Commission to Henry Coursey as Ambassador to the Northward Indians, April 30, 1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, pp.243-246

301 “Consideration of the General Assembly of the Excessive rates of the Several Liquors had of the Ordinary Keepers.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, p.44

Coode, John in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 pp. 233-234

Coode, John Sr. in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0893.

Coode, John. “Letter to Sir Nathaniel Bacon, February 8, 1689/90” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 8: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland 1687/8-1693, p.168

Cooke, Ebenezer. The Maryland Muse. Annapolis, MD.: William Parks, 1731

Coombs, John C.. “Building the Machine: The Development of Slavery and Slave Society in Early Colonial Virginia.” Ph.D. Dissertation, College of William and Mary, 2004.

“Cordea v Bailey’ in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, pp.477-478

“Cordea v Carew” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677,p.262-264

“Cordea v Nuthall in the Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670 in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp. 529-31

“Cordea v Rousby” in the in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 69: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1679-1680/1,p.172

“Cordea v. Atwood” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, p.286

302 Cordea, Hester in the St. Mary’s Women’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc4040-0365

Cordea, Mark “Last Will and Testament.” Wills. Maryland State Archives, MSA film SR 4400 Liber 4, F162

Cordea, Mark in St Mary’s County Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, ed. at the Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-0943

Cordea, Mark. “Letter of Attorney to Hester Cordea, 16 July, 1680” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700, p. 211.

Cordea, Mark. “Transfer of St. Markes Place to Henry Darnall, 7 March, 1686” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676- 1700, p.405

Cordea, Mark. “Letter of Attorney to Walter Hall 2 June, 1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700, p.28

Coursey, Henry in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 p. 236

Coursey, Henry. “Letter to Governor Thomas Notley May 22, 1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, pp.246-247

Craven, Wesley Frank. “Review of Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion and its Leader, by Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker” in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 65, No. 4 (October, 1941), pp. 487-488

Darnall, Henry in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 pp.250-251

Dauphine, Durand of. A Huguenot Exile in Virginia, or Voyages of a Frenchman Exiled for his Religion With a Description of Virginia and Maryland From the Hague Edition of 1687, with an introduction and notes by Gilbert Chinard New York: The Press of the Pioneers, 1934

303 Davis, James. “Baking for the Common Good: A Reassessment of the Assize of Bread in Medieval England.” The Economic History Review New Series, Vol. 57, No. 3 (August, 2004) pp.465-502

Davis, Ralph. “Merchant Shipping in the Economy of the Late Seventeenth Century.” The Economic History Review. New Series Vol. 9, No.1 (1956) pp. 59-73

Davis, Ralph. The Rise of the English Shipping Industry in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century Newton Abbot, Devon: David Clark Ltd, 1962

Day, Alan F. “Lawyers in Colonial Maryland, 1660-1715” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 17, No. 2 (April, 1973), pp. 145-165 de Vries, Jan. “The Dutch Atlantic Economies” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed. (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999) pp. 1-29

“Decision of Upper House in Snow v Gerard” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.59-60

“Deed between John Nuttall and Mark Cordea” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 53: Proceedings of the County Court of Charles County, 1658-1666, pp.1-3

Dennis, Samuel K., J. Hall Pleasants, and John M. Vincent. “Letter of Transmittal” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, pp.ix-xxi

“Dent v Squire, Administrator of the Estate of John Morecroft” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675,p. 222

Denton, Daniel. A Brief Description of New-York, Formerly Called New-Netherlands. London: Printed for John Hancock, 1670

Digges, William in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, pp. 271-272

304 Douglass, John E.. “Between Pettifoggers and Professionals: Pleaders and Practitioners and the Beginnings of the Legal Profession in Maryland, 1634-1731.” The American Journal of Legal History Vol. 39 No. 3 (July, 1995) pp. 359-384

Dunn, Richard S.. Sugar and Slaves; the Rise of the Planter Class in the English West Indies, 1624-1713. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1972

Earle, Carvile. The Evolution of a Tidewater Settlement System : All Hallow's Parish, Maryland, 1650-1783. Chicago: University of Chicago, Dept. of Geography, 1975

Earle, Carville, "Environment, Disease, and Mortality in Early Virginia," in Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds., The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society and Politics. Chapel Hill: Universityof North Carolina Press, 1979 pp.96-125.

“Eaton v Quigley” in the in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 69: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1679-1680/1,pp. 33-5

Eldridge, Larry D.. “Before Zenger: Truth and Seditious Speech in Colonial America, 1607-1700” The American Journal of Legal History Vol. 39, No. 3, (July, 1995) pp. 337-358

“Errors inter Causa Snowe v Gerrard” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, p. 3

Everstine, Carl N.. “Maryland’s Toleration Act: An Appraisal.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 79, No. 2 (Summer, 1984) pp. 99-116

Fausz, J. Frederick. “Present at the ‘Creation’: The Chesapeake World That Greeted the Maryland Colonists.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 79, No. 1 (Spring 1984) pp. 7-20

Ffendall, Josias. “A Proclamation by the Lieutenant Governor, 26 February, 1658/9” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 41: The Proceedings of the Provincial Court 1658-62 p. 233

Fidler George. “Sale of Lansley to Mark Cordea and John Worthington, 1 February, 1676/7” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700, p. 8

305 Francis Jennings. “Glory, Death and Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (February, 1968) pp. 15-53.

Games, Alison. “Beyond the Atlantic: English Globetrotters and Transoceanic Connections.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 63, No. 4 (October, 2006), pp. 675-692

Gardner, Jr., John H.. “The Beginnings of the Presbyterian Church in the Southern Colonies.” Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society, Vol. 34, No. 1 (March, 1956), pp. 36-52

Gardyner, George. A Description of the New World. London: Printed for Robert Leybourn, 1651

Gerard, Thomas. “Lease on Basford Manor to John Goldsmith, January 24, 1662/3” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.573-574

Gerard, Thomas. “Letter of Attorney to Thomas Notley, September 5, 1663.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, p.74

Gerard, Thomas. “Petition for a Writ of Error” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.11-12.

Gerard, Thomas. “Petition of Thomas Gerard 11 April, 1666” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676,pp. 11, 13

Gerard, Thomas. “Petition of Thomas Gerard, 2 January, 1665/6” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.555-556, 559

Gerard, Thomas. “Transfer of Bushwood to Robert Slye, January 24, 1662/3” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.575-577

306 Gerrard, Thomas. “Transfer of Mannahowicke Neck on St. Clement’s Manor to Thomas Notley” 49 in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp. 131-135

“Gift to Governor Thomas Notley, Lower House Journal, November 12, 1678” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.47-48

Gilbert, Geoffrey N.. “Baltimore's Flour Trade to the Caribbean, 1750-1815” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 37, No. 1, (March, 1977) pp. 249-251

Graham, Michael. “Popish Plots: Protestant Fears in Early Colonial Maryland, 1676- 1689” The Catholic Historical Review Vol. 79, No. 2, (April, 1993) pp.197-216

Hale, Nathaniel C.. Virginia Venturer: William Claiborne, 1600-1677. Richmond, VA: Dietz Press, 1951

Hall, Clayton Colman. The Lords Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate: Six Lectures on Maryland Colonial History (Baltimore: J. Murphy, 1902)

Hall, Walter in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, p. 389

Hancock, David. “Self-Organized Complexity and the emergence of an Atlantic Market Economy, 1651-1815: The Case of Madeira” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, Ed.. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999

Hatfield, April Lee. “Dutch and New Netherland Merchants in the Seventeenth Century English Chesapeake.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999, pp. 205-228

Heerman, Augustin. “Letter to the Chancellor, June 1678.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681, pp.175-176

Heldman, Donald P.. “Fort Toulouse of the Alabamas and the Eighteenth-Century Indian Trade.” World Archaeology Vol. 5 No.2 (October, 1973) pp. 163-169

307 Hening, William Waller. The Statutes at Large: Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, From the First Session of the Legislature in 1619. Richmond, VA: Samuel Pleasants, printer to the Commonwealth, 1810

Horn, James. “Servant Emigration to the Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo-American Society. Tad W. Tate and David L Ammerman, eds. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979, pp. 51-95

Horn, James. Adapting to a New World: English Society in the Seventeenth Century Chesapeake. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994

Horwitz, Henry and Patrick Polden “Continuity or Change in the Court of Chancery in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries?” Journal of British Studies, Vol. 35, No. 1 (January, 1996), pp. 24-57

“Hudson v Anderson” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.12-13, 33

“Hudson v Anderson” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.246, 321-323, 402, 456-457, 486, 489.

“Impeachment of John Morecroft” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.165- 173

“Introduction to the Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp. xiii-lxii

“Inventory and Account of the Estate of Mark Cordea” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 67-5 Liber 25, Fs 53 and 406

“Inventory of the Estate of Alexander Roche.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 3, Fs 85-89.

“Inventory of the Estate of Benjamin Rozer” in the Charles County Records, Inventories. Maryland State Archives MSA film CR 39590-1, Liber 1677-1717 pp. 16-24

308 “Inventory of the Estate of John Bateman” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp. 45-51

“Inventory of the Estate of John Holley.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 1, Fs 459-460

“Inventory of the Estate of John Morecroft.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 1, Fs 29-33, 557-562

“Inventory of the Estate of Thomas Notley.” Inventories and Accounts: Maryland State Archives MSA film 62-A Liber 6, Fs 575-596

“Inventory of the Estate of William Dillon” Inventories and Accounts. Maryland State Archives MSA film Roll 62-A Liber 1, Fs 297-314

James Anderson. “Petition of James Anderson” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 69: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1679-1680/1, pp.122-123.

“Jenifer v Jolly” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.296-297, 317.

Jennings, Francis. “Glory, Death and Transfiguration: The Susquehannock Indians in the Seventeenth Century” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society Vol. 112, No. 1 (February, 1968) pp. 15-53

Johnson, Richard R.. John Nelson, Merchant Adventurer: A Life Between Empires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991

Johnson, Whittington B.. “The Origin and Nature of African Slavery in Seventeenth Century Maryland” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Fall, 1973) pp. 236-245

Jolly, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-2322.

Jonas, Manfred. “The Claiborne-Calvert Controversy: An Episode in the Colonization of North America” Jahrbuch für Amerikastudien. Bd. 11 (1966) pp. 241-250

Jordan, David W.. “John Coode, Perennial Rebel.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 70, No. 1 (Spring, 1970) pp. 1-28

309 Jordan, David W.. “Maryland’s Privy Council, 1637-1715.” in Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland. Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, pp. 65-87

Jordan, David W.. “Political Stability and the Emergence of a Native Elite in Maryland.” in The Chesapeake in the Seventeenth Century: Essays on Anglo- American Society. Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, eds. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1979 pp. 243-273

Jordan, David W.. Foundations of Representative Government in Maryland, 1632- 1715. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987

Jordan, Louis. John Hull, the Mint, and the Economics of Massachusetts Coinage. London: University Press of New England, 2002

Kammen, Michael G.. “Maryland in 1699: A Letter from the Rev. Hugh Jones” The Journal of Southern History Vol. 29 No. 3, (August, 1963) pp. 362-372

Kammen, Michael G.. “The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689.” Maryland Historical Magazine Vol. 55, No. 4 (December, 1960) pp. 293-333

Kamoie, Laura Croghan. “Planters’ Exchange Patters in the Colonial Chesapeake: Toward Defining a Regional Domestic Economy.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, ed., Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999, pp. 323-343

Kierner, Cynthia A.. Traders and Gentlefolk: The Livingstons of New York, 1675-1790. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1992

King, Julia Ann An Intrasite Spatial Analysis of the Van Sweringen Site, St. Mary's City Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Pennsylvania, 1990

Krugler, John D. “The Calvert Vision: A New Model for Church-State Relations.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 99, No. 3 (Fall, 2004) pp. 269-286

Krugler, John D.. “The Calvert Family, Catholicism, and Court Politics in Early Seventeenth-Century England.” The Historian, Vol. 43, No. 3, (May, 1981) pp. 378-392.

Krugler, John D.. English and Catholic: The Lords Baltimore in the Seventeenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008

Kulikoff, Allan. Tobacco and Slaves: The Development of Southern Cultures in the Chesapeake, 1680-1800. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1986

310 Land, Aubrey C.. “The Tobacco Staple and the Planter’s Problems: Technology, Labor, and Crops.” Agricultural History 43:1 (January, 1969) pp. 69-82

Land, Aubrey C.. Colonial Maryland: A History. Millwood, NY: KTO Press, 1981

Lane, Jane Haden. The Birth of Liberty: A Story of Bacon’s Rebellion. Richmond, VA: Hermitage Press, 1909

Lathroum, Barbara. “St. Clements Manor, 1659-1672” Honor’s Thesis, Oberlin College, 1969

Lawrence, Sir Thomas. “Bond to Francis Nicholson” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 20: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1693-97, p.255

Lederer, John. The Discoveries of John Lederer in Three Several Marches from Virginia to the West Coast of Carolina. Inne-Gate in Holborn: Printed by JC for Samuel Hyrick, 1672

“Leisler v Cordea” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 69: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1679-1680/1, pp.19-23

“Lewis v Ridgely” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, p. 21

“Lindsey v. Spriggs” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p.374

“Llewellyn, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-2640-1

Lobban, Michael. “Preparing for Fusion: Reforming the Nineteenth-Century Court of Chancery, Part I” Law and History Review, Vol. 22, No. 2, (Summer, 2004) pp.389-427

“Long v Story” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, pp.45-50, 408

Long, John. “Letter of Attorney to Timothy Wright” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p.535

311 Long, John. “The Humble Petition of John Long of the City of London” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.459-46l

“Lord Proprietary v Cordea and Addison” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 68: Provincial Court Proceedings 1678/9, pp.131-132.

Lovejoy, David S. The Glorious Revolution in America. New York; Harper and Row, 1972

“Lower House Journal Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.437-458

“Lower House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp. 437-463

“Lower House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October-November, 1678” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.1-51

“Lower House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October-November, 1682.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.403-444.

“Lower House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October-November, 1683.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.521-620

Main, Gloria. Tobacco Colony: Life in Early Maryland, 1650-1720. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982

Manning, Thomas in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635- 1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 pp. 571-572

312 “Margarite Perry v Estate of John Bateman” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.319-321

Martinez, Jr., Albert J. “The Palatinate Clause of the Maryland Charter, 1632-1776: From Independent Jurisdiction to Independence” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 50, No. 3 (July 2008-2010), pp. 305-325

Mathew, Thomas. “The Beginning, Progress and Conclusion of Bacons Rebellion in Virginia in the Years 1675 and 1676. (1705)” in Charles M. Andrews, ed., Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. New York: Charles Scribner’s’ Sons, 1915 pp. 15-41

Matson, Cathy D.. Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998

Matthaei, Julie. An Economic History of Women in America: Women’s Work, the Sexual Division of Labor, and the Development of Capitalism. New York: Schocken Books, 1982

McAnear, Beverly. “Maryiland’s Grievances Wiy the Have Taken Op Arms” The Journal of Southern History Vol. 8, No.3 (August, 1942) pp. 392-409

McCusker John J.. Money and Exchange in Europe and America, 1600-1775. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978

McCusker, John J. and Russell R. Menard. The Economy of British America, 1607- 1789. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985

McNeil, Priscilla W.. “Rock Creek Hundred: Land Conveyed for the Federal City.” Washington History 3:1 Special Bicentennial Issue, Washington, D.C., 1791- 1991 (Summer, 1991) pp. 35-51

McWilliams, James E.. “The Transition from Capitalism in the Chesapeake Bay Region, 1607-1760, an Interpretative Model.” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 97, No. 2 (Summer, 2002) pp. 135-152

Menard, Russell M., P. M. G. Harris, and Lois Green Carr. “Opportunity and Inequality: the Distribution of Wealth on the Lower Western Shore of Maryland, 1638- 1705” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 69, No. 2, (Summer, 1974) pp. 169- 184

Menard, Russell M.. “From Servants to Slaves: The Transformation of the Chesapeake Labor System.” Southern Studies, Vol. 16, No. 1, (Winter, 1977), pp. 355-390

313 Menard, Russell R.. “British Migration to the Chesapeake Colonies in the Seventeenth Century” in Colonial Chesapeake Society. Lois Green Carr, Philip D. Morgan, and Jean B. Russo, eds. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1988, pp. 99-132

Menard, Russell R.. Sweet Negotiations: Sugar, Slavery, and Plantation Agriculture in Early Barbados. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press, 2006

Menard, Russell R.. "Immigrants and Their Increase: The Process of Population Growth in Early Colonial Maryland," in Aubrey C. Land, Lois Green Carr, and Edward C. Papenfuse, eds., Law, Society, and Politics in Early Maryland. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977, pp. 88-110.

Menard, Russell R.. “A Note on Chesapeake Tobacco Prices, 1618-1660” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 84, No. 4 (October, 1976), pp. 401- 410

Mereness, Newton Dennison. Maryland as a Proprietary Province. New York: Macmillan, 1901

Merrell, James H.. “Cultural Continuity among the Piscataway Indians of Colonial Maryland.” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series. Vol. 36, No. 4 (Oct. 1979) pp. 548-570

Middleton, Arthur Pierce. Tobacco Coast: A Maritime History of Chesapeake Bay in the Colonial Era. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1953 (paperback edition, 1984)

Miller, Henry M. “Baroque Cities in the Wilderness: Archaeology and Urban Development in the Colonial Chesapeake” Historical Archaeology. Vol. 22, No. 2, (1988) pp. 57-73.

Miller, Henry M., Silas D. Hurry, and Timothy B. Riordan. “The Lead Coffins of St. Mary’s City: An Exploration of Life and Death in Early Maryland.” Maryland HIstorical Magazine. Vol. 99, No. 3 (Fall, 2005) pp. 351-373

Miller, Perry. “Review of Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon’s Rebellion and its Leader, by Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker” in The New England Quarterly. Vol. 14, No. 2 (June, 1941) pp.412-413

“Morecroft v Champ” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp.119, 120, 122, 126-127

314 “Morecroft v Hough” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp.240-241.

Morecroft, John in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 603

Morecroft, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-2933.

Morgan, Edmund S. American Slavery, American Freedom: the Ordeal of Virginia. New York, W. W. Norton, 1975

Morton, Richard L.. Colonial Virginia Volume I: Tidewater Period, 1607-1710 . Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1960

Mossman, Philip L.. Money of the American Colonies and Confederation: A Numismatic, Economic and Historical Correlation. New York: The American Numismatic Society, 1993

Musick, John R.. A Century Too Soon; a Story of Bacon's Rebellion. New York: Funk and Wagnall, 1893

N. H. The Complete Tradesman, or the Exact Dealers Daily Companion. London: Printed for John Dunton, 1684

Nash, R. C.. “The Organization of Trade and Finance in the British Atlantic Economy.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, Ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999, pp.95-151

Neale, James in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, p. 609

Nelson, R. F.. America's First Nationalist : Nathaniel Bacon, Jr., Who Rebelled Against Conditions in Virginia a Century Before the Revolution, Made His men Swear to Fight Against English Troops. Washington, D.C.: National Republic, 1930

Nettels, Curtis. “British Policy and Colonial Money Supply” The Economic History Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, (October, 1931) pp. 219-245

Norton, Mary Beth. “The Evolution of White Women's Experience in Early America” The American Historical Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, (June, 1984) pp.593-619.

315 “Notley v Bonner” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677, pp.231-233

“Notley v Cordea, Hall, and Addison” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 68: Provincial Court Proceedings 1678/9, p.206

“Notley v Lee” in the “Proceedings of the County Court of Charles County, 1658-1666” Archives 53:463, 483, 519

“Notley v Lendsey” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 53: Proceedings of the County Court of Charles County, 1658-1666, pp. 464, 483-4, 519.

“Notley v Lomax” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 67: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1677-1678, p.183

“Notley v Roe” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 53: Proceedings of the County Court of Charles County, 1658-1666, pp.540, 542.

“Notley v Semmes” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677, pp.465-467

“Notley v Wahobb” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 67: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1677-1678, p.19-20.

“Notley v Williams” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 68: Provincial Court Proceedings 1678/9, p.32.

“Notley, Governor Thomas and the Council of Maryland. “A Remonstrance of the true State of the Province & of the causes & reasons of the publique Taxes, December 12, 1676.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.137-141

“Notley, Thomas “Governor’s Commission to William Burgess March 18, 1677/8” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.141-8.

316 Notley, Thomas “Last Will and Testament.” Wills: Maryland State Archives MSA film SR 4404-3 Liber 10, F 7

Notley, Thomas “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Charles, Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/77” reproduced in Great Britain, Public Records Office. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1677-1680 W. Noel Sainsbury and J. W. Fortescue Eds. Vol. 10. London: H. M. Stationery Office, 1896, pp. 7-8

Notley, Thomas “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Charles, Lord Baltimore, January 22, 1676/77” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, pp.152-154

Notley, Thomas “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Henry Coursey June 2, 1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, p. 249

Notley, Thomas “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to Henry Coursey June 2, 1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, p.249

Notley, Thomas in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, p.616

Notley, Thomas. “Governor’s Orders to Militia Commanders” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.197-198

Notley, Thomas. “Transfer of Moore’s Lodge to Thomas Hussey” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677, pp.184-185.

Notley, Thomas. “Letter from Governor Thomas Notley to the Honorable Governor of Virginia, June 22, 1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, pp.250-251

Notley, Thomas. “Letter from the Governor and Council of Maryland to Charles, Lord Baltimore, 4 August, 1676” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.120-121

317 Notley, Thomas. “Letter from the Governor and Council of Maryland to Charles, Lord Baltimore, 6 August, 1676” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.123-124

Notley, Thomas. “Proclamation against the grand absurdities & abuses committed by the severall Sheriffes” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.201-3

Notley, Thomas. “Proclamation att the laying of the Public Levy” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.156

Notley, Thomas. “Proclamation Calling a Session of the Assembly by the Governor and Council, August 28, 1678” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.189-190

Nussbaum, Arthur. A History of the Dollar. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957

“Nutthall v Cordea” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, pp.244-245

“Opening of the Assembly, March 27, 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, p.239

“Opening of the Assembly, October 10, 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, p.312.

Owings, Daniel MacClure. “Private Manors: An Edited List.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 33: no. 4 (December, 1938) pp. 307-334

Owings, Daniel MacClure. His Lordship’s Patronage: Offices of Profit in Colonial Maryland. Studies in Maryland History No. 1. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1953

318 Pagan, John R. “Dutch Maritime and Commercial Activity in Mid-Seventeenth-Century Virginia.” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 90, No. 4 (October, 1982), p. 485-501

“Paine v Quigley” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677, p.95

Papenfuse Edward C., et al., Eds. A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985

Pearson, Eustace. Notleys in Early Maryland. Maryland State Archives Genealogical Materials No. 26687 Annapolis: Hall of Records

Pennington, Francis. “Transfer of Smiths Town Lots to William Digges, 5 March, 1692” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700, pp.605-9

Perry, Marguerite. “Letter of Attorney to Thomas Notley and John Gittings, 27 October, 1664” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.291-294

Perry, Richard in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3262

Pestana, Carla Gardina. The English Atlantic in an Age of Revolution, 1640-1661 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2004

Pestana, Carla Gardina. Protestant Empire : Religion and the Making of the British Atlantic World. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009

Phillips, Glenn O.. “Maryland and the Caribbean, 1634-1984: Some Highlights” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 83, No. 3, (Fall, 1988.) pp.199-214

Plantagenet, Beauchamp. A Description of the Province of New Albion and a Direction for Adventurers. London: 1648

Pleasants, J. Hall “The First Century of the Court of Chancery in Maryland” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 51: Proceedings of the Court of Chancery, 1669-1679, p.xxxii-lxi

319 Port Books, Port of London, Controller of the Subsidy of Tunnage and Poundage, Denizen (English) Merchants—Exports: 29 December, 1671—28 December 1672. (Public Records Class E 190/54/1)

Port Books, Port of London, Controller of the Subsidy of Tunnage and Poundage, Denizen (English) Merchants—Exports: 29 December, 1671—28 December 1672. (Public Records Class E 190/55/1)

Porter, Frank W.. “A Century of Accommodation: The Nanticoke Indians in Colonial Maryland.” Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 74, No. 2 (Summer, 1979) pp. 175-192

“Powers Orders and Instructions for Capt John Cood, Commandr of his Lsps Yacht Dated the eighth day of November, Anno Dmi. 1676.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 17: Proceedings of the Council, 1681-1685/86 pp.216- 218

“Powers to Chancellor” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.161-162

Prall, Stuart E.. “Chancery Reform and the Puritan Revolution” The American Journal of Legal History. Vol. 6, No. 1. ( January, 1962) pp. 28-44

“Preface to the Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p.lxvii

“Presentment of Charles Hey” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.131

“Presentment of Dorothy Lybscome” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.504

“Presentment of Edward Solley & Philip Lynes” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.519

“Presentment of Francis Francison” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.188

320 “Presentment of James Greene” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.552

“Presentment of John Green” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674 p.142

“Presentment of John Massey” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.359

“Presentment of John Pattison” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.498

“Presentments of George Chapman and Richard Hunter” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666- 1674, p.358

“Presentments of Samll Hoyle, Matheu Hinch, Ann Trench, and Margarett W[...]”in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.262

Price, Jacob M. and Paul G. E. Clemens. “A Revolution in Scale in Overseas Trade: British Firms in the Chesapeake Trade, 1675-1775” Journal of Economic History, Vol. 47, No. 1 (March, 1987) pp. 1-43

Price, Jacob M. Capital and Credit in British Overseas Trade, 1700-1776. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980

Price, Jacob M.. "What did merchants do? Reflections on British Overseas Trade, 1660- 1790" in The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 49, No. 2 (June, 1989) pp. 267- 284

Price, Jacob. Capital and Credit in the British Overseas Trade: the View from the Chesapeake, 1700-1776. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980

“Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly September 12, 1681” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, p.166

321 “Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1676-1678” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.103-208

“Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1678-1679” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp. 209-250

“Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1687/8-1689.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 8: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland 1687/8-1693, pp.40-65

“Proclamation for the calling in of all such Gunns & other Armes, provisions &ca” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.211-2

“Proclamation of a Treaty of Peace between Maryland, Virginia, and New York with Several Nations of Indians.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.157

“Proclamation of Condemnation of Davis, Giles, Haselham, and Pate, Sept. 4, 1676” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.127-130

“Proprietary Assembly of 1676-1682” in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985) p. 27

Protestant Association of Maryland, 1689. The Declaration of the Reasons and Motives for the Present Appearing in Arms of Their Majesties Protestant Subjects in the Province of Maryland Licens'd, November 28th 1689. St. Maries City, Maryland: printed by William Nuthead. Re-printed in London, and sold by Randal Taylor near Stationers Hall, 1689

Protestant Association. “The Declaration of the Protestant Subjects in Maryland, 1689” in Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. Charles MacLean Andrews, Ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915, pp. 299-314

322 Protestant Association. “The Declaration of the Reason and Motive for the Prest Appearing in Arms of His Majtys Protestant Subjects in the Province of Maryland” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 8: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland 1687/8-1693, pp. 101-108

“Provideing What Shall be Good Evidence to Prove Forreigne Debts” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.209-11

“Public Charges of the Province, 1675” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681 pp.50-54

“Public Charges of the Province, 23 September, 1675” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 15: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1671-1681, pp. 50-54

Quigley, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3430

Quitt, Martin H.. “Immigrant origins of the Virginia Gentry: A Study of Cultural Transmission and Innovation” William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series Vol.45, No. 4 (October, 1988) pp. 629-655

Quitt, Martin H.. Virginia House of Burgesses, 1660-1706: The Social, Educational, and Economic Bases of Political Power. New York: Garland Publishing, 1989

“Re: Bateman” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp. 597-598

Rice, James D.. Tales from a Revolution: Bacon’s Rebellion and the Transformation of Early America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011

Riordan, Timothy B.. The Plundering Time: Maryland and the English Civil War, 1645-46. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 2005

“Roberts v. Quigley” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677, pp.96-98

323 Robinson, W. Stitt. “Conflicting Views on Landholding: Lord Baltimore and the Experiences of Colonial Maryland with Native Americans.” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 83, No. 2 (Summer, 1988), p.85-97

Robothom, George in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635- 1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 pp. 702-3

Rousby, Christopher in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635- 1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 pp. 704-705

Royal Commissioners. “A True Narrative of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, by the Royal Commissioners, 1677.” In Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. Charles McLean Andrews, Ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915 pp.99- 142

Royal Commissioners. “A True Narrative of the Rise, Progresse, and Cessation of the Late Rebellion in Virginia, Most Humbly and Impartially Reported by his Majestyes Commissioners Appointed to Enquire into the Affaires of the Said Colony, 1677” in Charles M. Andrews, ed., Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915, pp.105-139

“Rozer v Spry” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, pp. 543-544

“Rozer v Spry” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677, p.380

Rozer, Benjamin in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, p.707

Rozer, Notley. “Birth Record of Notley Rozer, 1 July, 1673” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 60: Proceedings of the County Courts of Charles County 1666-1674, p.510

Rutman, Darrett B. and Anita H.. "Of Agues and Fevers: Malaria in the Early Chesapeake," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d Ser., Vol. 33, No. 1 (January, 1976) pp.31-60

324 Sale of Musemowaske to Jonathon Squire” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700, p.306

Saloutos, Theodore “Efforts at Crop Control in Seventeenth Century America.” The Journal of Southern History. Vol. 12, No. 1 (February 1946) pp.45-66

Sambrook, Pamela. Country House Brewing in England, 1500-1900. Rio Grande, Ohio: Hambledon Press, 1996

Scarborough, Henry. “Petition of Henry Scarborough” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883- present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p. 336

Schnurmann, Claudia. “Atlantic Trade and American Identities: The Correlations of Supranatural Commerce, Political Opposition, and Colonial Regionalism.” in The Atlantic Economy During the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Peter A. Coclanis, Ed. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1999, pp. 186-204

Schweitzer, Mary McKinney. “Economic Regulation and the Colonial Economy: The Maryland Tobacco Inspection Act of 1747” The Journal of Economic History Vol. 40, No. 3, (September, 1980) pp. 551-569.

Scisco, Louis Dow. “Captain Robert Morris of Ratcliffe Manor” Maryland Historical Magazine. Vol. 38, No. 4 (December, 1943) pp. 331-336

“Session Laws, Assembly Proceedings, October-November, 1678” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.51-105

Sewall, Henry in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 p. 724

Shapiro, Barbara. “Sir Francis Bacon and the Mid-Seventeenth Century Movement for Law Reform” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Oct., 1980), pp. 331-362

Shapiro, Barbara. “Law Reform in Seventeenth Century England” The American Journal of Legal History, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Oct., 1975), pp. 280-312

Slye, Gerard in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3807

325 Slye, Robert in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985 p. 739

Smith, Thomas, Robert Jones, Ellis Thomas, and Lewis Mereddy. “The Petition of of Thomas Smith, Robert Jones, Ellis Thomas, and Lewis Mereddy” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 69: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1679-1680/1, pp.116-117

“Snow v Foxhall” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, p.557

“Snow v Gerard” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 49: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1663-1666, pp.555-60, 573-577

“Snow v Gerard” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 1: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, January 1637/38 – September 1664, pp.525-530; 2:33, 59-60

“Snow v Gerard” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 41: The Proceedings of the Provincial Court 1658-62 pp.269, 401, 415-416, 530-534, 542-550, 555-558

Snow, Marmaduke. “Petition to the Upper House” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, p.11

“Solly v Seed” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675,” p.331.

Sparks, Francis Edgar. The Causes of the Maryland Revolution of 1689. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1896

Sprigg, Thomas. “The Petition of Thomas Sprigg” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p.65

“Stansby v Wells” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p.180.

326 Stansby, John in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, p. 769

Stanwood, Owen. The Empire Reformed: English America in the Age of the Glorious Revolution. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011

Stearns, Bertha Monica. “The Literary Treatment of Bacon’s rebellion in Virginia” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography. Vol. 52, No.3 (July, 1944) pp. 163-179.

Steffen, Charles G.. “The Rise of the Independent Merchant in the Chesapeake: Baltimore County, 1660-1769. The Journal of American History,. Vol. 76, No. 1 (June, 1989) pp. 9-33

Steffen, Charles G.. From Gentlemen to Townsmen: The Gentry of Baltimore County, Maryland, 1660-1776. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Press, 1993

Steiner, Bernard C.. “A List of Those Who Governed Maryland Before it was Made a Royal Province” in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography Vol. 22, No. 1 (1898) pp. 98-101

Steiner, Bernard Christian. Maryland Under the Commonwealth; a Chronicle of the Years 1649-1658. Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science; Series 29, No. 1, 1911. (Reprint; New York: AMS Press, 1971)

Stone, William in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-3997

“Storey v Tilghman” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp.301-303

Stuart, King Charles II. “Letter to Charles, Lord Baltimore, February 8, 1682” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 5: Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1667-1687/8, p.344-346

“Survey of Cerne Abbey Manor” Maryland State Archives Land Patents, Pat 16 fs 440- 444.

“Survey of Notley’s Addition” Maryland State Archives Land Patents, Pat. 17, f 305

“Survey of Thomas Notley’s Town Lot” Maryland State Archives Land Patents, Pat. 17, f 362

327 Sylla, Richard “Monetary Innovation in America” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 42, No. 1: The Tasks of Economic History (March, 1982), pp. 21-30

Tarter, Brent. “Bacon's Rebellion, the Grievances of the People, and the Political Culture of Seventeenth-Century Virginia.” Virginia Magazine of History & Biography. Vol. 119 Issue 1, (January, 2011) pp.1-41

“The Publick Grievances &c, 20 April, 1669” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.168-169

Thompson, George. “Transfer of Duddington Manor, New Troy, and Duddington Pasture to Thomas Notley” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p. 594-96

Thompson, Peter. “William Bullock's ‘Strange Adventure’: A Plan to Transform Seventeenth-Century Virginia” The William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, Vol. 61, No. 1 (January, 2004) pp.107-128

Thornton, Tim. “The Palatinate of Durham and the Maryland Charter” The American Journal of Legal History. Vol. 45, No. 3 (July, 2001) pp. 235-255

Truman, Thomas, John Morecroft, and Thomas Manning. “Report of the Administrators of John Bateman’s Estate” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, pp.50-51

Tucker, St George. Hansford: A Tale of Bacon’s Rebellion. Richmond, VA.: G. M. West, 1857

Ulrich, Laurel. Good Wives : Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750. New York: Knopf, 1982

Unknown. “The History of Bacon’s and Ingram’s Rebellion (1676)” in Charles M. Andrews, ed., Narratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690. New York: Charles Scribner’s’ Sons, 1915, pp. 47-98

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, April - May, 1669” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp. 156-199

328 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, August-September, 1681” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.107-216

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, February 1674/5” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.419-436

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, March — April 1671.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.240-241

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, May - June 1674” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.343-386

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, May-June 1676” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp:471-515

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, November 1-12, 1681” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.228-244

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, November-December, 1688” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 13 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, April 1684-June 1692, pp.145-227

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October 1671” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 2 Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly April 1666 - June 1676, pp.309-321

“Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October, November, 1682.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.-401.

329 “Upper House Journal, Assembly Proceedings, October, November, 1683.” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 7: Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, October 1678-November 1683, pp.445-520.

Van Zandt, Cynthia. Brothers Among Nations: The Pursuit of Intercultural Alliances in Early America, 1580-1660. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008

“Vanswearen (sic) v Quigley” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 69: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1679-1680/1, pp.223-224

“VanSweringen & Quigley v Lochmachling” in the “Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 66: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1675-1677, pp. 224-225

“VanSweringen & Quigley v Carew” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, pp.376-377

“VanSweringen v Bailey” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, pp. 384-386

“VanSweringen v Dayley” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, p.528

“VanSweringen v Quigley” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 65: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1670/71 – 1675, pp.545-547

Vaughn, Alden T.. “The Origins Debate: Slavery and Racism in Seventeenth Century Virginia” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography Vol.97 No. 3 “A Sense of Power: Black Virginians 1619-1989.” (July, 1989) pp. 311-354

Waciega, Lisa Wilson. “A ‘Man of Business’: The Widow of Means in Southeastern Pennsylvania, 1750-1850” William and Mary Quarterly Third Series, Vol. 44, No. 1, (January, 1987) pp. 40-64

Walsh, Lorena S. and Russell R. Menard, "Death in the Chesapeake: Two Life Tables for Men in Early Colonial Maryland," Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 69, No. 3, (Summer, 1974), 211-227

330 Walsh, Lorena S.. “The Development of Local Power Structures: Maryland’s Lower Western Shore in the Early Colonial Period.” Power and Status: Officeholding in Colonial America. Thad W. Tate and David L. Ammerman, Eds. (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1986) pp. 53-71.

Walsh, Lorena S.. Motives of Honor, Pleasure, & Profit: Plantation Management in the Colonial Chesapeake, 1607-1763. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2010

Washburn, Wilcomb E. “Sir William Berkeley’s ‘A History of Our Miseries.’” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 14, No. 3, (July, 1957) pp. 403- 413

Washburn, Wilcomb E.. “Review of 1676: The End of American Independence, by Stephen Saunders Webb.” Pacific Historical Review Vol. 54, No. 2 (May, 1985) pp.209-211

Washburn, Wilcomb E.. The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957

Washburn, Wilcomb E.. The Governor and the Rebel: A History of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957

Waughop, John in the St. Mary’s Men’s Career Files, Lois Green Carr, Ed. Maryland State Archives MSA sc5094-4484

Webb, Steven Saunders. 1676: The End of American Independence. New York: Knopf, 1984

Weeks, James H.. “A Comforting Taste of Home: Beer and Brewing in Seventeenth Century Proprietary Maryland.” MA Thesis, Bowling Green State University, 2001

Weiss, Roger W..“The Colonial Monetary Standard of Massachusetts” The Economic History Review New Series, Vol. 27, No. 4, (November, 1974) pp. 577-592

“Wells v Stansby” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date. William Brown Hand, et al., eds., Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 57: Proceedings of the Provincial Court, 1666-1670, p.180

Wells, George in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, pp. 876-867

Wertenbaker, Thomas Jefferson. Torchbearer of the Revolution: The Story of Bacon's Rebellion and its Leader. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1940

331 Westbury, Susan. “Women in Bacon’s Rebellion.” in Southern Women : Histories and Identities. Virginia Bernhard, et al., eds. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1992, pp. 30-46.

Wetherell, Charles. "’Boom and Bust’ in the Colonial Chesapeake Economy” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History Vol. 15, No. 2, (Autumn, 1984) pp. 185-210

Wharton, Jesse in A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789. 2 Vols. Edward C.Papenfuse, et al., Eds. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979, 1985, pp.880-881

Williams, Roger. George Fox Digg’d out of His Burrows. (Boston: John Foster, 1676)

Windall, Richard. “Indemnity of Mark Cordea and John Addison” in The Archives of Maryland. 850 Volumes to date, William Brown Hand, et al., eds. Baltimore: 1883-present. Volume 717: Provincial Court Land Records, 1676-1700, p.59

Wiseman, Samuel. Samuel Wiseman’s Book of Record, the Official Account of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia. Michael L. Oberg, Ed. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005

Zahedieh, Naula. “Making Mercantilism Work: London Merchants and Atlantic Trade in the Seventeenth Century.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Sixth Series Vol. 9 (1999) pp. 143-158

332