Foreword to Supplement to Early Settlers
by Christopher N. Allan, Deputy State Archivist, 1998
Maryland is fortunate to have a remarkable collection of records
at the State Archives that documents the history of the colony and
state. At the heart of this rich archival heritage are the records
of the Land Office from which all title to land in Maryland
derives and in which are found the headrights upon which many of
the original tracts were granted. The Archives has also a group of
dedicated volunteers, including Carson Gibb, who not only help the
public find and understand records, but also, clearly interested
in the records, process collections and improve our indexes.
In 1994, Dr. Gibb told Edward C. Papenfuse, Archivist of the State
of Maryland, that he had found in the Land Office records names
not in The Early Settlers of Maryland and that he was ready
to search the records for more. Dr. Papenfuse invited Dr. Gibb to
use a computer in the Archives, arranged for Lynne MacAdam and
Betsy Bodziak to guide him through the process of database
indexing, and offered to publish his work in both electronic and
book form. Dr. Gibb proceeded accordingly and, over a period of
several years, found over 8600 omissions and other errors now
corrected in A Supplement. In doing so, he helped us not
only to understand better the nature of the records but also to
think more carefully about designing indexes in the future.
The Conditions of Plantation
In helping us to understand better the records of migration to
Maryland, Dr. Gibb has focused our attention on the headright
system, not only whether its records are reliable, but also on
when and why it ended. It was initiated by Cecilius Calvert,
Second Lord Baltimore, as an inducement to those considering
emigration to Maryland. The promise of land is a powerful
attraction and figures often in the development of America. When
and why it was terminated is not widely known. The title page and
the entries in Early Settlers imply that it ended in 1680,
but Warrants WC4 has warrants issued for headrights as late as
spring 1682/83. These questions give a glimpse of the vicissitudes
of administering a colonial venture.
Charles Calvert, the Third Lord Baltimore, first suggested that he
was going to abolish the headright system in a proclamation issued
June 3, 1676. He complained that his agents had not properly
returned many of the rights to land proved before them to be
entered among the records. Even when this was done, he was not
certain that the secretaries had made the appropriate entries.
Calvert believed that, as a result, "the titles of divers of the
said adventurers to their land are dubious and questionable and
may hereafter be questioned to the great prejudice of the
inhabitants of this province in after times when things cannot be
made appear." Having suggested that the current system was not
effective, he stated his intention to cease offering land in
return for providing transportation to the province within two
years. (LAND OFFICE (Patents) 19:459-460 MSA S11-23)
Despite reiterating his desire to end the system of headrights in
1678 and issuing several further proclamations to that effect, the
Proprietor issued two extensions that, in effect, appear to have
kept the headright system alive. In June of 1678, he allowed eight
more months for rights to land to be proved. The first was an
order for the relief of residents in Somerset County dated June
14, 1678. It did not extend the time in which people could
immigrate or be transported and claim a headright to land. It
merely offered additional time to prove rights to land due to
those already in the province. (LAND OFFICE (Patents) 19:636-637
MSA S11-23) The second proclamation, dated June 19, 1678, applied
the terms suggested for Somerset County to the whole colony,
however, noting that "severall inhabitants of this province have
informed me, that by reason of the late troubles with the Indians,
and other urgent occasions in their cropps hindering, they could
not attend the Secretary's Office for finding out their Patents."
It does not forbid the issuance of new headrights for new
arrivals. (GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL (Proceedings) RR:164 MSA S1071-7)
Thus, it does not appear that the practice of granting land for
immigrants ceased with either of these orders. Another
proclamation, dated May 15, 1683, again stated that land would be
sold for 100 lbs of tobacco per fifty acres. Lord Baltimore
emphasized that "the taking up of land by rights within this our
province of Maryland hath proved not only grievous and burthensome
to the inhabitants -- for paying for the same extravagant and
extortious rates when to be procured but also very injurious and
prejudiciall to ourselves by undue and unjust probate made of such
rights." (GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL (Proceedings) RR:190 MSA S1071-7)
Lord Baltimore's stated concerns in ending the system are
essentially (a) that his agents had not been diligent in
performing their duties, thus jeopardizing title to land for those
who received grants; (b) the process was very expensive for the
prospective landowner; and (c) he believed the administration of
the system had deprived the Proprietor of a great deal of income.
The cause of these concerns was the speculative manipulation of
the system. A thriving business had evolved in the rights assigned
by those entitled to land. While a number of people appear to have
prospered in this trade, Lord Baltimore did not profit. Further,
while the market for the headrights was thriving and warrants for
land were being bought and sold, the expected surveying and taking
up of land did not follow. Lord Baltimore's revenue came from the
fees for warrants, certificates of survey, and patents and from
the quitrents paid on land once it was patented. So not only had
the system not benefited Lord Baltimore, but the speculation that
sprang from it may actually have hindered the settlement upon
which his income depended.
Further complicating matters was the influence of the people
involved in this speculation, most of Lord Baltimore's principal
officials. John Llewellin, Clerk of the Council and Vincent Lowe,
Surveyor General, received a number of assignments. So did other
members of the Provincial Council: Henry Darnall, William Stevens,
George Talbot, and William Digges. Their participation certainly
is one of the reasons why the end of the headright system was
delayed until 1683.
The occasion of the end of the system was probably the fall in the
price of tobacco. It reduced the number of new settlers claiming
land and thus made speculation in headrights a marginal
undertaking. Considering the status of the participants, this must
have been a convenient juncture at which to end the practice.
Whatever may be learned in the future about the end of the
headright system, what we have learned is partly due to Dr. Gibb's
work.
How Reliable are the Records?
Dr. Gibb's work also leads us to a better understanding of the
nature of record keeping and the reliability of the records
themselves. One such example is on the cover of this publication
which is taken from LAND OFFICE (Patents) 1:37 MSA S920-1. It
forms the basis of a cautionary tale about where indexes lead us.
The entry on the cover is notable in that it is the probate of
rights for Father Andrew White and a number of individuals brought
to the colony between 1633 and 1638. Ferdinando Pulton, a Jesuit
colleague of Father White, is demanding land for the
transportation of White and others into the province.
The original record, known as Liber F, is now lost. Patents 1 is a
transcript made in 1724. The entries also appear in a transcript
made in 1717, LAND OFFICE (Patents) AB&H:65 MSA S920-5, taken from
three original record books designated as A, B, and H. The entry
for Father White appears to have been entered into the original
record Liber B which no longer exists. There are important
differences in the way the entries appear in each of the
transcripts.
Scholars and casual researchers have assumed that the entries in
each of the transcripts were duplicative and no one has ever taken
the time to compare them to see if they contained significant
differences. In Patents 1, as shown on the cover, it appears that
Father Andrew White attempted to bring into the colony at least 21
individuals including "a Smith lost by the way," and "Francisco, a
molato" for all of whom Mr. Ferdinando Pulton (by virtue of
assignment from Father White) claimed headrights. On the other
hand, Patents AB&H suggests that Father White's headrights
amounted to no more than 12 and that both "A Smith lost by the
way" and "Francisco a Malato" were brought into the colony by
Edward and Frederick Wintour.
In addition, there are substantial differences in the rendering of
the names between the two transcripts. Is it Henry Bishop, or is
it Henry Briscoe? Have we Thomas Mimms or should we be speaking of
Thomas Mums? John Borwood or Horwood? There is no doubt that the
same people appear in each of the records. The lack of original
records to consult and the discrepancies between two transcripts
make interpretation conjectural.
The meaning of what is found in any record, no matter how old it
might be, can be suspect and should be used with varying degrees
of caution, depending upon the means available to evaluate its
reliability. In this instance, what is affected is our
understanding of not only how people came (that is, who claimed
the right of their coming) but also what those claims meant about
another important historical question: the role of the Catholic
church (in this case the Jesuit order) in the early settlement of
the colony and the means by which the Jesuits made their claim to
large tracts of land that remained in their possession well into
the 20th century. Ferdinando Pulton was making the claim for all
of the headrights listed on folios 65-66 of Patents AB&H (ff.
37-38 of Patents 1). He was aided and abetted by assignments from
a number of people, some of whom were probably not Jesuits such as
Captain Edward Wintour. Does Captain Wintour, who has also left us
one of the earliest narrative accounts of the founding of
Maryland, and his brother, Frederick, contribute seven headrights
shown in Patents 1? Or do the brothers surrender the value of 16
headrights to the Church, including "a Smith lost by the way" who
never made it to Maryland at all, yet had land acquired in his
name? At times the records are not clear and the reader is left
without sufficient guidance as to their meaning.
Dr. Gibb's Supplement is more than the sum of the accuracy
with which he reflects the record. It is more than a cautionary
tale about taking what is found in the record for granted. It also
reminds us that we need to look at records as a reflection of how
well or how ill government has served us. In the case of the
patent records, later, well-intentioned but often inept or
incomplete transcriptions, adversely affect our ability to
comprehend the nature and extent of the daily course of
government. Those clerks who attempted to create some order out of
the chaos of the early record keeping in 1717, and again in 1724,
as evidenced by Patents AB&H and Patents 1, and those who in the
19th Century abstracted from the seriatim record to create the
printed Archives of Maryland series, provided a distorted
and inaccurate picture of the governing of the colony during its
first fifty years or so of settlement. As we can see from the
earliest extant record book of the colony (Liber Z) and from the
original of Liber A (by 1680 missing its first fifty pages), the
record of government loses much of its richness, diversity, color,
and even accuracy when dissected into separate functions. When, in
the case of the Archives' volumes, transcriptions omit huge
sections of the business (such as claims for headrights) it even
provides a woefully incomplete picture of both the work and the
accomplishments of those who labored as the record keepers of the
colony.
By paying so much deserved attention to the question of who
constituted the immigrants of the first fifty years of Maryland's
history, Dr. Gibb has not only put names to thousands more who
came (or in the case of Smith, nearly came) but he has also
reawakened our interest in the process of recording how well and
in what ways they were governed. As the modern keepers of the
record, we could ask for no better ally and friend.