Margaret Brent, lawyer, women's activist, nun, daughter of Richard Brent and Elizabeth Reade, my tenth great aunt... she moved to Maryland with her sister Mary in 1638 and settled land granted them by Lord Baltimore that they called Sisters Freehold, according to...
MARGARET BRENT -- A BRIEF HISTORY
http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/speccol/sc3500/sc3520/002100/002177/html/mbrent2.html
MARGARET BRENT -- A BRIEF HISTORY© Lois Green Carr
Margaret Brent (1601-1671) is most renowned today for requesting a vote in the Maryland Assembly in an age when women, queens excepted, were not allowed direct participation in political life. In company with her sister Mary and two brothers, Giles and Fulke, she arrived in Maryland on November 22, 1638. The two sisters were armed with orders from Lord Baltimore that they were to be granted land on the terms he had offered to the first adventurers of 1634. The Brents were Catholics of noble descent and were distant cousins of the Proprietor. In Maryland they sought religious freedom and economic opportunity. Lord Baltimore, in turn, clearly expected that they would be valuable to his colony.
Lord Baltimore intended Maryland to be both a Catholic refuge and a profitable enterprise. To these ends, he needed Protestant as well as Catholic settlers. But how could Protestants and Catholics live peacably together in Maryand when they could not do so in England? To solve this problem, he promised toleration of all Christian religious practices and political participation to all settlers otherwise qualified without regard to religious preference. The Brents were participating in an experiment extraordinary for the time.
Margaret Brent's career in Maryland was remarkable in many ways, but one of the most striking things about it is that she and her sister never married. Their single status was more unusual than perhaps most people realize because in coming to Maryland they moved to a society in which, at this time, men outnumbered women about six to one. The pressures on them to marry must have been extreme, unless they were protected by vows of celibacy. Whether this explanation is possible is a question that deserves exploration.
All the early investors in Maryland -- Jesuit priests included -- were entrepreneurs, who brought in settlers, developed land, and raised tobacco for an international market. Margaret Brent was no exception. She and her sister, who as unmarried women were legally able to own and manage property, took up land and established a household independent of their brothers. Fulke soon returned to England, but Giles immediately became a colony leader. Margaret was active in importing and selling servants and lending capital to incoming settlers. She appeared for herself in court to collect her debts and in general handled her business affairs as a man would have done and without assistance from her brothers. With Governor Leonard Calvert, she was joint guardian of the daughter of the Piscataway "Emperor" Kittamaquand. Were these achievments all there is to tell, Margaret Brent would attract our attention and admiration for her enterprise under rugged conditions.
It happens that there is much more to tell. Early in 1645, seven years after the Brents' arrival, a Protestant ship captain, Richard Ingle, raided the settlement on the St. Mary's river in the name of the English Parliament, which was carrying on a civil war with Charles I. Ingle took the colony by surprise, burned the Catholic chapel, plundered the homes of Catholic settlers, and returned to England with Giles Brent and the Jesuit priests in chains. Governor Calvert fled to Virginia, and the Calverts came close to losing the colony entirely. Most of the Protestants left to become the first settlers in Virginia's Northern Neck, just across the Potomac river. The population of Maryland, perhaps 500-600 people at Ingle's raid, probably dropped to under 100, fewer than had come on
Ark and
Dove eleven years before. If Maryland was to recover, the province had to start anew.
Leonard Calvert, for reasons that remain mysterious, did not return to his colony until late November or December 1646. Arriving with a small band of soldiers, nearly half of whom were former settlers, he met with little resistance, except on Kent Island. He had paved the way with a promise to pardon all willing to swear fidelity to the Maryland Proprietor. Then, on June 9, 1647, he died. On his death bed he appointed Thomas Green as governor, but made Margaret Brent the executor of his estate, with instructions to "take all and pay all."
There is no doubt that at that moment Margaret Brent's courage and diplomacy were important to Maryland's survival. Without her, the Calverts might have lost their territory to Virginia and the experiment in religious toleration would have ended then and there. The soldiers were clamoring for their pay. There was a shortage of food. New disorders seemed imminent. Leonard Calvert had pledged his whole Maryland estate and that of his brother, the Lord Baltimore, to pay the soldiers, but Leonard's movable assets were insufficient, and under English law, as executor, Margaret could not readily sell his land. She kept pacifying soldiers ready at times to mutiny. Finally, with no time to gain Lord Baltimore's consent, on January 3, 1648, the Provincial Court appointed her as his attorney-in-fact. She was replacing Leonard Calvert, to whomthe Proprietor had given power, jointly with John Lewger, the provincial Secretary, to dispose of his property in emergency without authorization.
At this point, Margaret made the move for which she is most famous today. On January 21, 1648, she appeared before the Assembly to demand two votes, one for herself as a landowner and one as Lord Baltimore's legal representative. The Governor refused and she departed with the statement that she "Protested against all proceedings ... unless she may be present and have vote as aforesaid." It is unlikely that she expected success, but she knew well that the Assembly was unwilling to vote taxes to pay soldiers whom Governor Calvert had promised to pay himself. She may have hoped by her protest to cover herself as she faced the immediate necessity of selling the Proprietor's cattle without his knowledge. That day she began the sale, thereby averting a crisis that might have destroyed the colony and its policy of religious toleration.
As it turned out, her tactic, if it was such, was of no avail. Lord Baltimore was furious at what he saw as confiscation of his property and he was suspicious of Margaret's motives. When Leonard Calvert had been away in England in 1644, she had allowed her brother Giles to marry her ward, the Piscataway "empress" Mary Kittomaquand, and Lord Baltimore evidently feared that Giles would claim Indian lands in her name. By 1650, his wrath had driven all the Brents to remove to the Northern Neck of Virginia, where they brought in dozens of settlers and thereby took up and developed large grants of land. Margaret lived on her plantation, named "Peace," until her death about 1671.
Some modern advocates of women's rights have interpreted Margaret Brent as an early feminist. This she surely was not. Well born, exceptionally able, and entrusted with a heavy responsibility, she undoubtedly felt entitled to participate in making the decisions necessary to rescue the colony; but nothing indicates a belief that women generally should have the vote or that the patriarchal arrangements that deprived married women of independence were wrong.
The Maryland Assembly expressed well the nature of Margaret Brent's achievement. "We do Verily Believe," they wrote Lord Baltimore, "... that [your estate] was better for the Collonys safety at that time in her hands then in any mans else ... for the Soldiers would never have treated any other with ... Civility and respect .... She rather deserved favour and thanks from your Honour for her so much Concurring to the publick safety then to be justly liable to ... bitter invectives." In their view, it was not only courage and diplomacy that enabled her to save the day, but her womanliness, which demanded and received "Civility." The men of her place and time would not give her the vote, but they openly acknowledged that her abilities and civilizing talents were of crucial importance to the "publick safety."
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT MARGARET BRENT
Margaret Brent's career presents many questions that can not be definitively answered. What follows addresses some of those frequently asked and adds some additional comments on problems of interpretation that often arise. It is assumed that any one making use of these notes has a general familiarity with Margaret Brent's story. Appended is a time line of her career in Maryland that helps to establish what is certain about her life and contributions, what can be inferred or provide grounds for a reasonable guess, and what can not be known. Not every reference to Margaret Brent's activities in the courts is included. The result would be unnecessarily repetitious. Anyone who wants to pursue more detail can use the indexes to William Hand Browne, et al., eds.
Archives of Maryland, First Series, 72 vols. (1883-1972), 4 and 10 (the series hereafter is cited as
Archives), which print the Provincial Court proceedings to 1657. Numbered references are to numbered paragraphs of the time line.
Question 1. What was Ingle's Rebellion?
Ingle's Rebellion, 1645-1646, was an offshoot of the Civil War in England made possible in part by conflicts among Maryland leaders and in part by hostility between Catholic and Protestant settlers. The most detailed and best account is to be found in Timothy B. Riordan, "The Plundering Time: Maryland in the English Civil War, 1642-1650," ms. in possession of the author, Historic St. Mary's City, St. Mary's City, Maryland.
Richard Ingle was a Protestant ship captain who had been trading for tobacco in Maryland and Virginia since 1642. In 1644, while Governor Leonard Calvert was in England, Ingle had a falling-out with Acting Governor Giles Brent, who inadvisably arrested him briefly for treason against King Charles I, by then literally at war with Parliament. Ingle escaped trial, but early in the following year, he appeared in the Chesapeake armed with letters of marque from Parliament that allowed him to seize ships or goods belonging to supporters of the king. He may not have left England planning a raid on Maryland, but in Virginia he was told that Leonard Calvert, under a commission from King Charles, was going to seize debts owed to Ingle. At that point, if not before, Ingle began to plan an attack on Maryland, perhaps in collaboration with William Claiborne, who had just made an abortive attempt to reclaim Kent Island. In Virginia Ingle picked up a few men willing to participate in his plans and on February 14, 1645, he surprised the settlement at St. Mary's City. ([2]; [2a]; [3]; [4]; Riordan, chap. 8: 1-22; 9: 14-17, 23-28; 10: 10-23; 11: 6-23, 34-35.)
There are only scraps of information about what happened over the next several months, coming primarily from later law suits brought against or by Ingle in England; scattered depositions taken after proprietary authority was reestablished; and archaeological excavations. Councillor Giles Brent was captured immediately. He was visiting the Dutch ship
Looking Glass anchored in the river. Ingle seized the ship as a prize. Some Protestant settlers joined Ingle's men, and there was considerable disorder for a while, but no actual bloodshed, so far as is known. Governor Calvert managed to collect and arm supporters and create some sort of fortification called St. Thomas's Fort, which was probably located on the properties of the Brents. (Giles Brent's town land property and that of his sisters were referred to in some documents as St. Thomas's Lot.) The rebels fortified Calvert's own house near the original St. Mary's Fort, which was evidently too decayed for use. From these two temporary strongholds, both sides foraged in the community for corn and cattle, and Ingle's men, along with Protestant rebels, looted and sometimes burned the homes of leading Catholics. Ingle even sailed to Kent Island and looted and burned Giles Brent's estate there. (Riordan, Chap. 11: 6-23, 34-35; 12: 1-20; "Richard Ingle in Maryland,"
Maryland Historical Magazine 1 [1906], 125-140.)
Ingle sailed for England in late March or early April of 1645, his vessel packed with plunder. He carried with him as prisoners Giles Brent; John Lewger, the Provincial Secretary; and two Jesuit priests, Father Andrew White and Father Thomas Copley. Undoubtedly, he had hoped to carry Leonard Calvert, too, but had not succeeded in capturing him. Evidently Ingle believed that the identity of his prisoners supplied sufficient proofs that he had found Maryland in the hands of a papist tyranny hostile to Parliament, and he expected vindication for his raid. The plundered goods and
Looking Glass would be forfeit, making his adventure profitable indeed. These expectations proved false, but that is part of another story. (Riordan, Chap. 12: 26-34; 14: 1-31.)
Ingle later claimed to have left Maryland in the hands of a Protestant government, and Riordan argues that the makings, at least, were on hand.
How long after Ingle's departure Leonard Calvert remained in Maryland to lead his supporters is unclear. At some point during the summer of 1645, he appeared in Virginia, where he asked for help from Governor William Berkeley and the Virginia Council. (The evidence comes only from sparse notes taken before the council records were destroyed during the Civil War.) Since Berkeley, who had been in England, did not return to Virginia until June 7, Calvert probably left Maryland after that date. Once he was gone, the rebels took the fort with armed force, but so far as is known, the worst disorders then came to an end. Riordan argues that even during the "time of plunder" a cadre of able Protestant leaders is visible and an organized pattern of anti-proprietary and anti-Catholic activity can be detected. All was not chaos and chance. Some kind of provisional government was established. In the words of the 1649 Assembly, the rebel leaders "assumed the Government ... of ... the Province unto themselves." (Riordan, Chap. 13: 1-31; quote, p. 30.)
Calvert may have hoped to return to St. Thomas's Fort with new men and arms, but whether or not help from Virginia was possible, events had overtaken him for the moment. He made no effort that is known to regain the colony until the middle of 1646. Was he ill? Had he arrived in Virginia with wounds that needed healing? Was he occupied instead in efforts to finance and organize an invasion? No records remain to tell us or to inform us of what was happening in Maryland. A document Calvert signed on September 15, 1645 and witnessed by the rebel leader Nathaniel Pope suggests but does not prove Calvert's presence in Maryland on that date. (5d.) Was he at that point a prisoner? Probably not, but such a meeting is mysterious.
Not until July 30, 1646, does Leonard Calvert finally surface as an actor in Maryland affairs. That day he appointed one Captain Edward Hill of Virginia to be governor of Maryland. But in December, Calvert arrived in the colony with soldiers to subdue it. ([6]; [8]; Riordan, Chap. 15: 2-7.)
There is no certain explanation for this sequence of events and again no record of what was happening. Later documents indicate that under Hill there was a functioning government. Courts heard cases, Hill appointed a sheriff and called for elections to an assembly, which met. Hill seems to have left abruptly but peaceably when Calvert arrived, although he later protested the loss of his office. (Riordan, Chap. 15: 7-9.)
Calvert must always have intended to resume the governorship and may have begun his preparations for return as early as August 5, 1646. On the basis of later documents, this is a likely date for his offering a pardon to all inhabitants of St. Mary's who had been in rebellion, provided that they accepted Lord Baltimore's government. He arrived at St. Mary's, probably in late December, with a force of 28 soldiers, about half of them former inhabitants. It appears that he met with little resistance. He quickly called up the Assembly that had been elected under Hill; he did not try to call elections for a new one. In the presence of this Assembly, six of his soldiers swore that Calvert had told them before leaving Virginia that if he found that the inhabitants of St. Mary's had accepted his pardon the soldiers were to expect no pillage; he would receive the inhabitants in peace and ask only that they aid him in reducing Kent. With these reassurances, and doubtless feeling little appetite for violence, the Assembly sat for four days. It passed several laws, the most important being an act for collecting a custom of 60 pounds of tobacco per hogshead of tobacco exported from Maryland. This revenue was intended to support and pay the soldiers, although Leonard Calvert had to pledge payment from both his own and his brother's estate should the custom prove insufficient. ([8]; [40]; Riordan, Chap. 15: 9-30.)
It was another four months before Calvert had Maryland safely secured. A group of Protestant dissidents fled to Chicacoan, a small settlement across the Potomac river in Virginia, and from there made efforts to raise resistance in Maryland. Problems on Kent Island were even more dangerous. One Peter Knight had seized the Brent properties and led the inhabitants in refusal to accept Lord Baltimore's government. And William Claiborne had returned in a last ditch effort to end Calvert rule by inducing the Islanders to attack St. Mary's. In the end Claiborne failed, and Knight, seeing no hope of help from Virginia, departed for Chicacoan after looting the Brents' estate. When Calvert arrived with his soldiers in early April of 1647 he had little difficulty persuading the few men who by then remained on the island to take the oath of fidelity and accept Lord Baltimore's government. On April 16, he pardoned all on Kent who had taken the oath, and on April 18, he reestablished the local government in the name of Lord Baltimore with the appointment of a commander and justices of a county court. Thus ended what Marylanders called the Time of Troubles and what historians have called Ingle's Rebellion. (Riordan, Chap. 17: 1-10.)
Leonard Calvert achieved success, but Lord Baltimore might have lost his colony just the same had not the second half of the 1640s been a time of boom in the tobacco industry. When Ingle began his raid, there were probably between 500 and 600 inhabitants; when Calvert returned there were probably only about 100. The others had left in search of peaceful rule and opportunities to achieve prosperity without constant threat of violence. Had poor economic prospects caused the population drain to continue, the Calvert colony would have come to an end. Instead, however, once peace appeared to be established, the Maryland population grew rapidly. There would be future challenges to Calvert rule, but no lack of settlers to exploit the land. (Russell R. Menard, "Maryland's 'Time of Troubles': Sources of Political Disorder in Early St. Mary's,"
Maryland Historical Magazine 76 (1981), 137; Riordan, Chap. 17: 4-5.)
Question 2: How many soldiers had Leonard Calvert recruited to recover the colony? What payment did he promise them?
There is no direct mention of how many soldiers Calvert brought with him, but Timothy Riordan has estimated the number at 28, of whom 13 had been living in Maryland before the rebellion. Riordan has calculated, from various payments Margaret made, that the wage owed each soldier was 1500 pounds of tobacco plus three barrels of corn, with more for officers. (Riordan, "The Time of Plunder," chap. 15: 10-12.)
Question 3: When exactly did Leonard Calvert die? Do we know what killed him? Why did he appoint Margaret Brent his executrix?
Leonard Calvert was alive on June 9, 1647 and lived for about six hours after making Margaret Brent his executrix on that day. Presumably he died on June 9, but possibly not until early on June 10. ([10], [11], [13].)
As for the cause of Calvert's death, there is no information. However, he was not sick for long. On June 1, he was presiding in court. (11.) I have sometimes speculated that illness prevented his return to Maryland sooner and weakened him for whatever sickened him that June. One Doctor Waldron was called from Virginia to treat him. (28.)
Why did Calvert select Margaret Brent to be his executor? Why not ask her brother Giles, who had been acting governor in the past? Or, why not Thomas Green, whom Calvert did name governor? As before, one can only speculate. The Calverts and the Brents were cousins, albeit very distant cousins going back eight generations. (Chart showing connections between the Calvert, Arundel, and Brent families, prepared by Aleck Loker, 1998.) This family connection may help account for the special terms on which Margaret and Mary Brent were granted land. The relationship may have counted in Leonard Calvert's choice.
But why Margaret instead of Giles? First of all, Giles probably was not in St. Mary's City when Leonard was dying. After his brief appearance in Maryland in November 1646, he does not turn up in the Maryland records again until June 19, ten days after Calvert had expired. (13.) However, Calvert might not have selected Giles had he been on hand. The Governor had reason to distrust him after his marriage to Mary Kittomaquand. He had not participated in the restoration of Lord Baltimore's government and may have been at Piscataway trying to establish his wife as the inheritor of her deceased father's position. Giles's behavior in the first assembly held after Calvert's death (see below, Question 4) suggests that distrust was an appropriate attitude. (39.) At the same time, Calvert knew Margaret Brent had the necessary ability and courtroom experience to carry out his instructions. He chose to rely on her.
Question 4. Date and reasons for Margaret Brent's appointment as Lord Baltimore's attorney? What were her powers? Who replaced her when she stopped? When did she lose the responsibility?
On January 3, 1647[/8], it was "moved in Court whether or noe Mr Leon: Calvert (remayning his Lps Sole Attorney within this Province before his death, & then dying) the sd Mr Calvert's admistrator [sic] was to be received for his Lps Attorney wthin this province, untill such time as his Lp had made an new substitution, or tht some other remayning uppon the prnt Commisn were arryved into the province. The Governor demanding Mr Brent's opinion uppon the same Quere. Hee answered tht he did conceive tht the administrator ought to be lookd uppon as Attorney both for recovering of rights into the estate, & taking care for the estates preservation: But not further, until his Lp shall substitute some other as afresd." Governor Thomas Green concurred and "it was ordered tht the Administrator of Mr Leon: Calvert aforesd should be received as his Lps Attorney to the intents abovsd." (19.)
This opinion does not say that Margaret had power to pay away anything belonging to the Proprietor without his consent. However, powers that Lord Baltimore had granted to Calvert and John Lewger on November 15, 1646 had included powers to demand and receive his rents, debts, and other dues and "to dispose thereof as I shall from time to time direct, & in default of such directions, according to yor best discretions, for my most advantage, until I shall give further orders therein." (7.) If Leonard Calvert had been granted such powers, then could Margaret as his substitute exercise them? Evidently she was not sure, nor was her brother. She did not sell any of Lord Baltimore's property until circumstances absolutely demanded it.
It is suggestive, furthermore, that Lord Baltimore did not believe that he had given his brother such powers unless exercised with Lewger. The Proprietor was furious with Leonard for promising the soldiers that the Proprietor's own estate would be liable if necessary. He stated in his letter to the Assembly in 1649 that he had not authorized Leonard to act alone and that Lewger had denyed "to us here" that he had given his assent. (39.) (Apparently, Lewger was in the colony at Calvert's arrival, but had left for England before Calvert's death.)
Why did the Provincial Court -- which consisted at the moment of Governor Thomas Green, Giles Brent, and Thomas Gerard -- choose Margaret Brent? One can only offer speculations. She was already handling Leonard Calvert's estate and negotiating with the soldiers well. Diplomatic talents were essential. Leonard Calvert had put his trust in her with the words "Take all & pay all." And of course, the appointment was only until His Lordship could make his own. ([39], [13], [19].) One might have thought that Giles Brent would have wanted and been able to insist on the appointment, but the other men probably did not trust him.
It is known from the Assembly's letter to Lord Baltimore on April 21, 1649, more than a year later, that Lord Baltimore was very angry at the appointment and at the sale of his cattle that began shortly afterwards. He was equally angry with Giles Brent, who, according to letters from Governor Greene and others, had led an anti-proprietary faction in the Assembly that met off and on from January 22 through March 4 1647[/8]. This Assembly had voted to repeal laws passed in the Assembly of December 1646 -- including the act for tobacco custom intended to pay the soldiers -- and had sent the Proprietor a "seditious" "Remonstrance." (39.) What is not known is just when all this news reached Lord Baltimore. In Maryland, Margaret continued to act as the His Lordship's attorney, and Giles continued to sit on the Council through at least December 10, 1648. ([31]; [31a]; [31b]; [33]; [34]; [35].) Thereafter Giles disappeared from the Council and seems to have left the colony. Margaret appeared for the last time as His Lordships attorney at court on February 9, 1648[/9]. (35.) One can suppose that denunciations and orders from Lord Baltimore arrived soon thereafter.
In the meantime, he had established new officers for Maryland. On August 6, 1648, he commissioned Captain William Stone as governor, and replaced John Lewger with Thomas Hatton as secretary. (Both Stone and Hatton were Protestants.) But he seems not yet to have received news of the events of January-March 1647[/8]. In his instructions to Governor Stone and to a new Council, he declared null and voyd all laws passed under Governor Hill but made no mention of the acts and "Remonstrance" of March 1647[/8] that in his letter of August 26, 1649 he angrily denounced. (29, 39). In August 1648, he must have been ignorant of the spring's events.
The new government was not established in Maryland until after March 15, 1648[/9], the day of the last Provincial Court to meet with Greene sitting as governor. On April 2, Governor Stone convened the Assembly, the first that had met since March 4, 1647[/8]. It seems remarkable that seven months had passed from Stone's appointment to his installation in Maryland and that more than a year had elapsed since the events of January-March, 1647[/8]. Communications between Lord Baltimore in England and his settlers in Maryland clearly were often very slow, whether or not there were crises to be settled. Undoubtedly it was very slow communications that kept Margaret Brent active for a year as His Lordship's attorney in fact. ([36], [37].)
Who replaced her? Likely it was Thomas Hatton, the new Provincial secretary, but there is no correspondence or other direct evidence to prove it. Indirect evidence suggests the probability. Letters in the Calvert Papers show that John Lewger had taken care of Lord Baltimore's estate when Lewger was secretary; and he and Leonard Calvert had shared Lord Baltimore's appointment as attorney for this purpose in 1646. (John Lewger to Lord Baltimore, January 5, 1638[/9],
The Calvert Papers Number One, Fund Publication No. 28 [Baltimore, Md., 1889], 194-201; [7].)
Question 5: How soon did the mercenaries become hostile after Calvert's death?
Probably by October 6, 1647, when Captain John Price, in the name of the garrison, got the Provincial Court to attach all of Calvert's estate. (15.)
The request stated the the soldiers were owed 46,500 pounds of tobacco and 100 barrels of corn for wages.
Question 6: Did Margaret Brent sell all of Leonard Calvert's estate to settle his debts? How many mercenaries were paid directly from the estate? Were there arrangements other than direct payment (land, cattle, etc)?
Margaret Brent recorded an administration account on June 6, 1648. (28) Although Calvert's lands and buildings were added into the inventory, under English law she could not sell these without a court order or a special act of the legislature. They were all available for Calvert's son William to occupy and develop when he arrived in Maryland in 1661 to claim them. The only exception was the 100-acre tract, "The Governor's Field," which Governor William Stone believed he had purchased from Margaret Brent, although she denied the sale. See (51).
Margaret Brent's accounting of Leonard Calvert's estate showed
56,142 pounds of tobacco in assets, but when the land, valued at ll,000 pounds of tobacco, and Lord Baltimore's debt to his brother (18,548 pounds of tobacco "to the estate layd out in Mr Calvert's life") are subtracted, there were only 26,594 pounds of tobacco available to pay Calvert's debts. At the moment of this accounting, Margaret had paid out 23,440 pounds of tobacco and the remaining 3,154 pounds were under attachment for paying the soldiers. ([15]; [17]; [28].) Payments already made to the soldiers came to 9,522 pounds of tobacco.
In the April 2-21, 1649, session, the Assembly finally passed a custom of ten shillings for every hogshead exported in a Dutch ship, of which half was to go to His Lordship and half to pay the soldiers. (37.) (This payment was smaller than dictated by the act of 1646.) Thereafter, Margaret referred any soldier applying for payment to his rights under this act. ([31a], [38].) How many soldiers she had paid off and how much, if any, of Leonard Calvert's movable Maryland estate remained by then I can not tell. The records show that she paid some of the claims with Lord Baltimore's cattle, but if the assertions of the Assembly are to be believed, there may not have been many available. ([21], [22], [24], [25], [27], [37].) Soldiers certainly were not paid in land. In the end, most had to await payments from the tobacco custom finally passed by the Assembly in 1649.
It is clear that Lord Baltimore lost most of his cattle during Ingle's Rebellion. Accounts sent to him late in 1644 showed 93 head, of which 37 were cows or heifers. The Assembly averred that only 12 cows and a bull were left after the depredations of the rebels, although there were unmarked animals in the woods, some of which might be his. ([37];
Archives 4: 276-277; 1: 240-241.)
Question 8. What were the circumstances that surrounded Margaret Brent's request to vote in the Assembly of January-March, 1647/48? What did she hope to gain?
There was a shortage of food, the soldiers were hungry, and they had lost the leader who had promised to pay them. Less than three weeks before the Assembly met, Margaret Brent had been given charge of Lord Baltimore's property, which -- apart from land and ordnance that she would not dare touch -- consisted mostly of livestock, much depleted during the "time of plunder." Undoubtedly, she would have preferred not to sell the animals without his knowledge and consent, but this would take months to obtain. She had to act quickly. Unless the Assembly would agree to keep the tax on tobacco passed by the Assembly of 1646 or would make some other public assessment, she would have to pay the soldiers with cattle. She doubtless knew the burgesses wanted to repeal the tobacco tax and hoped to persuade them to desist. ([12-19]; [37]; [39].)
The very day her request to have voice in the Assembly was refused, she paid a soldier with a cow. (21.)
Question 9. Why did Margaret Brent ask for two votes?
Perhaps she hoped that by providing two reasons for eligibility she would increase her chances of gaining admission to the Assembly.
Question 10. Did Lord Baltimore offer any assistance towards the costs of recovering his colony? Why did the assembly resist paying the soldiers?
The Assembly members of April 2-21, 1649 argued that -- given the destruction during the rebellion and their consequent poverty -- their efforts to reestablish Lord Baltimore's government were contribution enough. (37.) Lord Baltimore argued that "an Equall Assessment upon all the Inhabitants ... is the justest and usuall way in all Civill Kingdomes and Commonwealths for defraying of publick charges." Princes were not expected to carry the burden of public defense from their private fortunes. They would be ruined and made unable to protect their subjects. (39.)
Both sides made a concession. In 1649, the Assembly passed an act that gave His Lordship and heirs for seven years a custom of 10 shillings per hogshead on tobacco shipped from Maryland in Dutch ships, of which half was to go to claims arising from the recovery and defense of the Province. (37) These provisions were evidently similar to those of the act passed in 1646 and repealed by the Assembly of 1647/48. In addition, the act of 1649 raised an assessment on every inhabitant to pay His Lordship within two years 16 cows and a bull "in consideracon of his Lopps former stock of cattell distributed and disposed of towards the defence and prservacon of the Province." (39.) The following summer, the Proprietor agreed to this arrangement, provided that 1) the Assembly did in fact provide the promised cattle and 2) that it would pass sixteen acts he had sent to the Assembly of 1647[/8] in expectation that it would accept them all without alteration (which it had not done). (39.) Whether any or all of these laws were ever passed without alteration is not clear; we do not know what his contained. Probably some that the Assembly did pass were essentially those Lord Baltimore had sent. Whether or not Lord Baltimore got all that he had demanded, he made no further objection to this inroad on a tax that he might have insisted on keeping for himself.
Question 11: If Margaret Brent had been granted vote and voice, how would that have changed things?
Probably not much, at least with respect to her own position and that of her brother. She might have persuaded the Assembly not to repeal the act for tobacco custom passed in 1646, which was supposed to be used to pay the soldiers, and thereby saved herself from Lord Baltimore's wrath on the score of her selling property without his consent. But he would still have been suspicious of her. He was furious with Giles for his role in the Assembly of March 4, 1647[/8], which 1) refused to recognize the Assembly of 1646 or any of the laws it had passed on the grounds that Leonard Calvert had not called for a new election; 2) refused to pass sixteen acts the Proprietor had sent with orders to pass them as a body unaltered; and 3) prepared a remonstrance that Governor Greene had refused to sign. From what Lord Baltimore said about this documment, one can infer that it had criticized the Act for Recognition and the act laying down the wording of the oath of fealty, two of the sixteen acts. The words objected to were "Absolute Lord and Proprietary," from which some inferred "a slavery in the people to us," and "Royall Jurisdiction," seen as exceeding "the power intended to us by the ... charter." Lord Baltimore interpreted the remonstrance and rejection of the acts as indications of possible conspiracy against his auhority and as efforts to alienate the people "from the present government." (39.) He may also have interpreted Giles's marriage to Mary Kitomaquund as positioning to acquire Indian lands without a proprietary grant. In 1685, Lord Baltimore's nephew George Talbot said as much to William Penn. ([30]; "Conference between Penn and Talbot, at New Castle in 1684,"
Maryland Historical Magazine 3 [1908]) The fall of the Brents from grace was undoubtedly inevitable, no matter how conscientious Margaret may have tried to be.
MARGARET of sisters freehold 10xga Brent (1601 - 1671)
Richard 10X Sheriff of Gloucestershire Brent (1573 - 1652)
father of MARGARET of sisters freehold 10xga Brent
Richard 9GG Brent (1595 - 1671)
son of Richard 10X Sheriff of Gloucestershire Brent
Margaret 8x Brent BARTLETT (1645 - )
daughter of Richard 9GG Brent
WILLIAM BERKELEY 7X OF STAFFORD BARTLETT (1690 - 1761)
son of Margaret 8x Brent BARTLETT
WILLIAM BERKLEY OF WESTMORELAND 6x BARTLETT (1722 - 1804)
son of WILLIAM BERKELEY 7X OF STAFFORD BARTLETT
Garner 5X OF MONTGOMERY R1b1b2 Bartlett (1750 - 1811)
son of WILLIAM BERKLEY OF WESTMORELAND 6x BARTLETT
Reuben S. 4GG BARTLETT (1776 - 1840)
son of Garner 5X OF MONTGOMERY R1b1b2 Bartlett
Sarah Ann 3GG Bartlett KING (1808 - 1884)
daughter of Reuben S. 4GG BARTLETT
Nancy Rachel 2XGG KING BARTLETT (1845 - 1913)
daughter of Sarah Ann 3GG Bartlett KING
Martha Callie Bartlett COLLINS (1874 - 1950)
daughter of Nancy Rachel 2XGG KING BARTLETT
May Catherine "Mamie" Collins Nichols (1895 - 1936)
daughter of Martha Callie Bartlett COLLINS
HOWARD E "POP" NICHOLS R-M269 (1936 - 2017)
son of May Catherine "Mamie" Collins Nichols
RAYMOND E NICHOLS R-CTS1751
