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.)

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.

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].)

The request stated the the soldiers were owed 46,500 pounds of tobacco and 100 barrels of corn for wages.

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.)

The very day her request to have voice in the Assembly was refused, she paid a soldier with a cow. (21.)

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.

Recent investigations by Jeanne Cover (Institute of the Blessed Virgin Mary) question part of this story. Some Catholic records indicate that the Catherine Brent who entered the English Abbey of Our Lady of Consolation at Cambrai in 1629, aged 27, was the daughter of William Brent of Larkstoke in

County Gloucester. (Publications of the Catholic Record Society 13 (London, l993), 42.) Perhaps the name William is a recordation error, but if not, then Catharine was not the sister of Margaret Brent, whose father was Richard Brent of Lark Stoke and Admington, nor were Catharine's sisters Elizabeth and Eleanor, who also joined the abbey at Cambrai. These three women could have been cousins of some sort to Margaret and Mary Brent, but I can not find on any genealogical charts what William could have fathered them. They were certainly not the children of Margaret and Mary's brother William, since Catharine was born about 1602 and Richard and Elizabeth Reed Brent were not married until 1594. (French, "The Brent Family," charts 3-5.) It seems to me likely but not certain that Catharine and her sisters were indeed the children of Richard and Elizabeth Brent.

Aleck Loker in a recent study questions whether there is any real basis for the story of Catherine's converting her family. Many English Catholics, especially among the men, conformed just enough to avoid the penal laws. Richard Brent began to be labeled a recusant and get into trouble shortly after his daughters broke the family "cover" by entering convents. By this view, the Brents did not suddenly break into Catholicism but, like George Calvert about the same time, elected to go public with their religion. ("Margaret Brent: Attorney, Adventurer, and America's First Suffragette" [ms. in possession of the author], 2-3.)

I have long given thought to the idea that Margaret and Mary Brent had been members of Mary Ward's Institute, an unenclosed order of women who undertook to propagate the faith and strengthen belief through education. This Institute functioned in England, among other places, beginning about 1618, but was finally banned by the Pope in 1631. He gave the nuns three choices: to enter enclosed orders, live together under vows to local bishops, or marry. The English Jesuits had been much opposed to Mary Ward and her Institute, but individual Jesuits, among them Father Andrew White, had been sympathetic. (See Jeanne Cover, Love, the Driving Force: Mary Ward's Spirituality , Its Significance for Moral Theology [Marquette University Press, Milwaukee, WI, 1997], 9-24, 160-161.) It seems possible that the Brent sisters had been part of Mary Ward's Institute. In Maryland, could they have been living together under vows to an English bishop but working with the local Jesuits, among whom was Father White? If so, the sisters escaped mention in the surviving reports sent to Rome by the English Provincial before Ingle's Rebellion temporarily destroyed the mission. ("Extracts from the Annual Letters of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, 1634, 1638, 1639, 1640, 1643, 1654, 1656, 1681," in Clayton Coleman Hall, ed., Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 [New York, 1910), 118-140].) Or were arrangements possible then, as now, for women to take temporary but renewable vows and remain unenclosed?

Mary Ward was clearly a woman of great spiritual power as well as organizational skills. If Margaret and Mary Brent were a product of her work, they must have carried great spiritual authority where ever they went, whether or not they were still bound to celibacy by vows.

On the other hand, Margaret early had responsibility for her brother's manor on Kent Island and eventually for all of Leonard Calvert's land. In 1642, Giles Brent turned over his 1000-acre Kent Fort Manor (all the land he had taken up) to his sister Margaret in return for payment of debts he owed: £73 English money owed her; £30 to £40 English money owed to his uncle Mr. Richard Reed; and some large tobacco debts in Virginia. (1f.) Nevertheless, it is likelly that Giles did not cease to manage the Kent Fort Manor so long as he lived in Maryland. As a councillor he needed to act and be seen as a manor lord. Not until after Ingle's Rebellion does one find mention that Margaret was ever present on Kent. With the return of proprietary government, she handled the litigation for recovering the extensive damage to a mill and a house and for loss of equipment and cattle, and this took her to the island on occasion. Until he moved to Virginia, Giles acted for himself in seeking damages for loss of his cattle and the burning of his books. (Margaret still held title to the manor, but not to livestock that Giles had acquired since, and not to his personal library.) The Kent County court records show little additional. Late in 1648, Margaret was at Kent long enough to supply sugar, spice, and strong waters to William Cox in his last sickness and "for a funerell Diner for him." And on January 13, 1648[/9] she gave Zachary Wade power of attorney to recover her debts and collect rent corn due the proprietor. Probably neither she or her brother attempted to rebuild the plantation he had lost. (Archives 4: 132-133, 394-395, 417, 419, 434, 435, 436-438, 440-441, 449, 454-56, 489, 517; Archives 10: 4-5; Archives 54: 3, 98 [quote].)

After Margaret joined her brother across the Potomac, there are only two more references to her interest in the manor. The first is in her will, written in 1663, eight years before her death. She left "my lease of Kent Fort Mannor in Maryland" to her nephew Richard, a fact that shows conclusively that she had never surrendered it to Giles. The second is a document in the Kent County records of 1669 granting power of attorney to an agent to collect rents and debts. Evidently by this time, and probably since Giles left Maryland, all the manor had been divided into tenements. ([51.6 (quote)]; French, "The Brent Family," 144-145, 184; Kent County Court Proceedings printed in Archives 54: 273.)

There is some evidence to suggest that after 1651 -- or in Giles's case, 1652 -- neither Giles or Margaret ever dared to visit Maryland again to manage their affairs there. Instead, Mary Brent acted for them. In 1651 Mary was reported to be on Kent Island killing unmarked bulls and sending the meat to St. Mary's to be sold. Secretary Hatton found the meat badly deteriorating in the custody of Thomas Matthews. He seized it and resalted it, and then brought an information against Mary Brent on the grounds that wild cattle belonged to the Proprietor. She defended herself in court, arguing that the cattle on the island were of Giles Brent's stock. The court ordered the sale of the meat, but otherwise postponed judgment to the next meeting of the assembly, which, because of the disruptions after the arrival of the Parliamentary Commissioners early in 1652, did not occur until 1654, when the matter was long forgotten. On two other occasions, both early in 1654, Mary appeared for Giles in actions brought against him in the Maryland Provincial Court. Although Mary appeared in the records but little, she evidently could take action and be a public figure when necessary. She died in 1658, leaving her property to Margaret and after her death to Giles. (French, "The Brent Family," 44-45; Archives 10: 149-152, 164, 327, 335, 348.)

As Leonard Calvert's executor, Margaret held responsibility for his lands, but we know little of how active her management was. With regard to his manor lands, there are few references. At the Provincial Court in December 1648, she asked the opinion of the judges whether Calvert's patents for these lands gave him forfeiture of the tenements that belonged to the rebels. The answer was yes on the grounds that such rights "usually" belonged to the lords of manors in England. (32.) What action Margaret then took, if any, is unknown. The following February she sold 90 acres in Trinity Manor; the buyer was to pay a yearly rent of 9 bushells of corn and do service at the manor court. (35a) A year later, on February 15, 1649[/50], Thomas Sturman brought action against her for disturbing his possession of house and land that he had purchased in good faith. The land -- 1000 acres -- Leonard Calvert had originally granted to Thomas Passmore, but it turned out to be at least partly on one of Calvert's manors. Margaret argued that she had evidence to prove that Sturman had agreed with Calvert to accept part of the land "rendring a Rent and the rest in some other place." She asked and got postponement of the case until November, 1650, so that she could make her proofs, but in November Court she lost. (35b) The last instance arose in March of 1656[/7], after the Brents were long gone from Maryland, and once more Mary Brent, not Margaret, acted. On May 8 , 1654, Henry Potter sold half of his tenement in St. Gabriels's Manor -- thirty-seven and a half acres -- to Martin Kirke for 600 pounds of tobacco plus a yearly payment of 1) half a barrell and 5 pecks of corn and 2) "one poultry and a halfe," to be paid yearly at Christmas at Potter's house. On March 7, 1656[/7], "Att a Court Baron held ... by James Gaylord Steward of Mrs Mary Brent," Kirke "took of the Lady here in full Court ... according to the Custome of the sayd Mannor, One Messuage or tenemt, & Thirty Seaven Acres & halfe of Lande", paying rent as described in Potter's deed to Kirke. However, no mention is here of attending the manorial court. (51.4.) It is likely that the Brents did not try to do more than keep track of tenements and collect rents, if that.

Margaret Brent's long dispute with Governor William Stone over his attempt to purchase the Governor's Field and its house suggests that she was

unclear about her legal position in caring for Calvert's estate. Once the assembly had finally agreed to use a tax on tobacco exports to pay the soldiers, Calvert's estate was no longer liable for their claims. The question then apparently became, what powers did Margaret as executor have over his land, given that Calvert had not specified any legacies? She had used all of his personal estate to pay his debts, but the land remained.

It was to Stone's immediate interest to obtain Leonard Calvert's house and land at St. Mary's. Here at the capital was a tract of very good land with a very large house, although probably not in very good repair after its use as a fort during the years of trouble. He could move in with his family at once. It was in Margaret's interest to sell the property rather than have to expend energy and resources on its upkeep, especially given Lord Baltimore's hostility towards her. She seems at first to have supposed that she had title to it and therefore could sell it with full warranty. Presumably she did not expect to keep the proceeds for her self but to save them or invest them for Leonard's heirs. Stone took possession of the property in expectation of receiving a conveyance and offered her a major part of the price in goods, which she delayed to accept until she could send her shallop. However, doubts about this transaction were already assailing her. On July 22, 1650, she wrote to remind the Governor that she had told him she would "advise with my brother" before she would put a guarantee in writing. "I further told you," she wrote, "that if my title were not good I would return the house into the Inventery, and would not intangle my Self in Maryland because of the Ld Baltemore's disaffections to me and the Instruccons he Sends agt us....I doe not refuse to make you Security for any doubt I have of my title, but because I know it will be more the avoyding of trouble both to you and me to disinterest my Self in it. I will at my comeing down bring with me the Coppy of the Statute to Justifie my right to Mr Calverts Land, and I hope to have a tryall for them in your own Court, and Soe make an end with you to your own content." She then asked Stone to sell the goods he had offered in payment and send her the tobacco. (43,)

This "tryall" was postponed and never took place. Instead, on July 10, 1651, Margaret wrote again, changing the terms of the sale. "My Conveyance of my title unto you which I am now ready to make ... is but that of Mr. Calvert's Admr and which I will not fortify by any bond or warranty." She demanded notice in writing within 20 days whether or not he accepted these terms. ([48c]; [50]; [51.2b].)

Stone's reply was to bring action against Margaret in November Court, 1651, for refusal to give him a conveyance of the land, even though he had offered her the major part of what was due in the form of goods which she had refused to accept unil he agreed in writing to her demands. He was ready to pay the rest. The Maryland Provincial Court -- which included the Governor -- was frustrated by its inability to force Margaret to appear to answer the complaint. It declared that the Governor and his heirs and assigns could "have hold and enjoy" the property" forever, paying Margaret the remainder of what was due, unless she appeared at the next court. ([41], [51.2c,d].)

The result was an impasse. On Janurary 5, 1651[/2], Giles Brent, acting as his sister's attorney, in writing warned Stone off the property, but from Virginia he had no way to enforce the command. Stone answered on January 23 by making tender to Margaret Brent of full payment of the 4500 pounds of tobacco. Four witnesses certified to the Provincial Court that 2800 pounds was paid "per account Shewed us under the Governor's own Hand by Ordr of Mrs Margaret Brent, ... the other Seventeen hundred being now paid and tendred by Edmond Wormell." The tender was made in Maryland, not in Virginia, and Margaret seems to have ignored it. In consequence, Stone had no title. When in 1661 Leonard Calvert's son, William, arrived in Maryland to take up his inheritance, Margaret sent to the Provincial Court a deposition that "I never did make any Conveyance of the howse and land of St Marys which formerly was Leonard Calvert's Esqr. to Captaine William Stone and ... neither he nor the heires of the aforesaid William Stone hath any right or tytle to the aforesaid house or Lands." ([51.2e], f[quote], g[quote]).

Margaret Brent evidently had been content to let Stone use the property rather than undergo further legal struggle. As the Governor's residence, it was certain to be maintained and without expense to her. In the end, she was able to help the rightful owner retrieve it. The upshot for Stone was less desirable. His widow, Verlinda, lost The Governor's Field and its house, which he had willed to her. Leonard Calvert's heir, William, obtained it; but this outcome was probably sweetened by his marriage to Stone's daughter Elizabeth. (Wills 1: 89, ms., Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Md.; "William Stone" in Edward C. Papenfuse, et al., eds., A Biographical Dictionary of Maryland Legislators, 1635-1789, 2 [Baltimore, Md., 1985], 788.)

William Calvert promptly sold the house and land to an innkeeper, Hugh Lee, who apparently had already been operating an ordinary there. Soon afterwards Lee died and in 1662, his widow sold the property to the Province. The house became a combined ordinary and capitol building for meetings of the courts and assembly, and around it began the development of St. Mary's City. (51.2g.)

So far as we know, William took up his other lands without argument and he brought no complaints against his father's executrix. One may wonder why Lord Baltimore had not tried to get Margaret removed from her office, given his suspicions of her loyalty. Evidently, he did not think it desirable to try to overturn his brother's will. The manors probably remained mostly undeveloped, although there may have been squatters. Rents may have gone uncollected. Nevertheless, William received from Margaret Brent a mostly intact landed inheritance.

Basicly, Margaret Brent was a business woman. That she was far and away the most active woman in litigation is certainly true, and that she was usually successful is also true, but she was not the only woman to act for herself. For example, in the year 1643, the recently widowed Mary Lawn Courtney, formerly Margaret Brent's servant, brought two actions to collect debts owed her and defended herself against two actions. (Archives 4: 178, 196, 226, 279.) If Mary had remained a widow longer, she undoubtedly would have appeared as a principal in more cases, but she soon married Daniel Clocker. (Biographical File of Seventeenth-Century St. Mary's County Residents, ms., Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, Md.) Very few free women in early Maryland were unmarried for any length of time, a fact that in itself can account for the general absence of women appearing for themselves. But Margaret Brent never married.

Margaret's agreement to the marriage raises several questions. Why did she let her brother marry an 11 years old, who probably had not yet even reached menarche? To our modern eyes, this age seems extraordinary. However, we do find a handful of marriages of 12-year olds in the early Maryland records, the result of the extraordinarily skewed sex ratio. (Russell R Menard and Lorena S Walsh, "The Demography of Somerset County, Maryland: A Progress Report," Newberry Papers in Family and Community History, 81-2 [1981].)

Was her decision affected by her brother's ambitions? A statement made forty years later by Leonard Calvert's cousin George Talbot hints at what these might have been. At a conference with William Penn in 1684 at what is now Newcastle, Delaware, Talbot was making the third Lord Baltimore's case for lands that he and William Penn both claimed. Talbot mentioned in passing "Capt Brent who in right of his wife the Piscataway Emperors daughter and only Child pretended a right to the most part of Maryland but could doe noe good on't after a great bustle about it." This comment suggests the origins of Lord Baltimore's wrath against the Brents. The comment may be hearsay based on reports of the Proprietor's fears more than actual actions of Giles or Margaret, but the considerable conflict between Leonard and Giles indicates the Calverts' distrust. In addition, although Giles was in Maryland by November 6, 1646, he does not appear again in the Maryland records until after Leonard Calvert's death. Apparently Brent did not participate in the recovery of Maryland or share in the pacification of Kent Island. Were he and his wife living with the Piscataway Indians and perhaps trying to garner support there for a claim to Indian lands? Or was Giles in Virginia, scouting out opportunities there? ([6a]; [13]; "Conference Between Penn and Talbot, at New Castle in 1684," Maryland Historical Magazine, 3 [1908], 30 [quote]). As yet there are no answers to these questions.

Oct. 10, 1639 Patent for above. Patents 1: 31-33.  

May 8, 1642 "Sold unto Mrs Mary Kitomaquund, foure kine, three yearling heifers, one yearling bullock, two bull calves, & 2. cow calves of his Lops stock, now being in the possession of mrs Margarett Brent; for the price of five thousand seven hundred wt of tob & cask, received by us of the said mary Kitomaquund to his Lops use afore the signing hereof. And we does hereby on his Lops behalfe warrant the said Kine & their encrease unto the said mary and her assignes against all men." Signed by Giles Brent, John Lewger and William Brainthwait. Archives 4: 271-272.  

b. 23,440 pounds of tobacco in total debts paid.

d. paid 9,522 pounds of tobacco to the soldiers.

In the brief summary that follows, I indicate the page numbers as I progress through the document.

2. All those guilty of capital offenses committed between February 15, 1644[/5] and August 5, 1646 are pardoned, excepting Captain Richard Ingle, Captain John Durford, and all Kent Islanders not pardoned by Governor Leonard Calvert's pardon of April 16, 1647.

3. All actions "to recover Price" (i.e. payment?) for goods or labor "imployed during the said-tyme for the defence of the Country" are abolished.  

4. No contracts made by those in rebellion for aiding rebellion are actionable, and all contracts that concern plundered goods are void unless action is brought by the party who is the true owner.  

5. For better preservation of the peace, no one is to revile anyone for anything pardoned by this act.

2. excepts from this confirmation "our ordinance and also such other things of ours as did at that tyme ... remaine in the hands of Mrs Margarette Brent undisposed of, or that were or have at any other tyme before or since bine sould or disposed of by her to her brother Mr Gyles Brent or to her Sister Mrs Mary Brent or to any other pson or persons in trust for them." Archives 1: 316-317.

b. July 10, 1651. Margaret Brent writes to Stone. "I did heretofore Set you a price of the house at St Maries, on which you did enter, and did then deferr the assurance of it to you till I had taken advice of my brother to whome I was then goeing, after which I Sent you assurance Conveying my whole title [to?] you which then you ought to have accepted or to have relinquished your pretence of buying, And this I did before you had Incurred any charge upon the thing, as I shall prove by Sufficient Witness I now desire you to know that I am deeply Sensible of the loss, and trouble you have thrown upon me in this business by your keeping of my house and Land from me, and not paying me any price for it, And therefore to disengage My Selfe out of further trouble, I am now compelled to require you to Signifie unto me or to Mr Bretton in my behalfe within 20 days after the receipt hereof your acceptance of the house and Land upon my Conveyance of my title unto you which I am now ready to make and is but that of Mr Calvert's Admr and which I will not fortify by any bond or warranty, If you give me not notice of your acceptance of it, I doe here declare to you that I will be disengaged of the bargain which I then profered you and now profer you of it, and free to dispose of my house to my best profit, I beseech you Sr fail not to lett me know your resolucon in it." Archives 10: 105.  

c. October 22, 1651. Deposition of Elizabeth Parry: "That She was present when Mrs Margaret Brent made an absolute bargain with Wm Stone Esqr of a house at St Maries formerly belonging to Leonard Calvert Esq deced & that there was goods at her request delivered unto her in part of payment for the Said house, And that She was present when there was a bill of Sale made for Mrs Brent to Set her hand unto, but she refused to Sett her hand to it, if that it was therein written that She Should be bound to defend him from all Claims, But She would willingly Set her hand to the Bill of Sale if that it was therein written, all Just claims whatsoever, Moreover She heard her Say afterwards that She wwould not Meddle with the goods aforesd unless the Govr would enter upon the house."  

d. November Court, [1651]. Stone complains that Margaret Brent, after being called to June Court, 1651, to answer to his action, asked for postponement to this court, which was granted, but then wrote on July 10 "that She now waves all former proceedings, and preremptory averreth that She will be disengaged of the Bargain and be free to dispose of the house in question to her best profitt which Expressions being used to the Governor by the Defdt in her Letter upon a Suit depending She absenting herself out of the Province and willfully refusing to appear, this Court apprehend can amount to noe less then a Slighting and Contempt of the Court and Governmt, And doth therefore and for the reasons before Shewed think fit upon the Complaynts mocon to proceed to the hearing of the Cause the Defdts absence not withstanding." Given this history, "the Very great charges upon the premisses" expended by Stone, and the depositions offered to prove the bargain, "It is by this Court Ordered and adjudged that the Complaynt his heirs and assignes Shall forever hereafter have hold and enjoy the quiet and peaceable possioin of the house and Land in question against the Defdt and all claiming by from or under her or her title." Stone is to pay what is still due of the 4,500 pounds of tobacco. If Margaret does not demand and accept this payment, Stone is to give "sufficient tender" in front of witnesses. Margaret is to give Stone a "Sufficient Conveyance or Bill of Sale of the premisses with warranty against all Just claimes." Since Margaret is nonresident and "it being doubtfull how Soon She may further absent herself where She cannot be found or compelled to the Performance" of this order, the Court also requires that after the tender of the final payment, she is to give "Sufficient Security for the Plts his heires and assignes their quiet and peaceable possession of the premisses according to this Order Which is to be absolute and binding" unless she appear at December Court to show cause to the contrary. Archives 10: 106-108.  

e. January 5, 1651[/2]. Giles Brent, as his sister's attorney, warns Stone off the land.  

f. January 23, 1651[/2]. Mr. Edward Wormell, by order of Stone, has tendered the final payment as directed in the November Court, 1651. Four witnesses testify to the payment and that "Mr. Wormell has to our best jdmt. fullly satisfied the afsd. order."  

g. April 8, 1661. "Margaret Brent Gent aged Sixty years or thereabouts" deposes that "I never did make any Conveyance of the howse and land of St Marys which formerly was Leonard Calverts Esqr to Captaine William Stone and that neither he nor the heires of the aforesaid William Stone hath any right or tytle to the aforesaid house or Lands." Archives 41: 453.