St. Mary's County
MDGenWeb
Christopher Rousby came to Maryland about 1666 settling in what was
then called Calvert County, but is St. Mary's County. He brought with
him his younger brother John Rousby and eight others for whom he claimed
land rights. He was a merchant and lawyer.
Sometime between 1668
and 1670, Rousby married Elizabeth, the widow of Richard Collett who had
died in 1668. Through this marriage, he acquired "Susquehanna Point". He
would eventually increase his land holdings to almost 3,000 acres in
several Maryland counties. No one is sure when Elizabeth died, but she
was deceased prior to 1684 and there were no issue from this, his one
and only marriage.
Rousby held a variety of offices in the new
colony of Maryland, including Sheriff of Calvert County (1669-1674); the
Lower House, as a representative from Calvert County (1676-1682); and
finally as the King's Collector of the Patuxent (1676-1684). This last
position, to which he was nominated by Lord Baltimore and appointed by
the King, would eventually put him at loggerheads with Lord Baltimore
and would ultimately be his downfall.
For years, the relationship
between Lord Baltimore and Christopher Rousby had been friendly. But in
March 1678 several witnesses came forth and stated that Rousby had made
disparaging remarks about Lord Baltimore. From the records, it would
appear that problems had been simmering for some time. There does not
appear to be one single cause as to why these two men came to dislike
each other, and it may simply have been a clash of egos spurred on by
the incessant gossip that flourished in St. Mary's City.
Whatever
the reason, by 1681 Lord Baltimore wanted badly to have Rousby removed
from the position of King's Collector and he began to accumulate
evidence toward that end.
On June 6, 1681, Vincent Lowe deposed
that the previous April he had been at Rousby's house and they had a
discussion about political affairs in England. Lowe stated that during
the course of conversation, Rousby (referring to the King and members of
his Court) said to him "great men were great knaves and turncoats, and
{had} begun to piss backwards."
The Archives of Maryland is
replete with allegations being made by one individual against another
and these were all dealt with immediately. Why was this allegation made
two months after the incident supposedly occurred? Why was it made after
Rousby sailed for England in early May?
Further, keep in mind
that Vincent Lowe was the brother-in-law of Lord Baltimore. Jane Lowe,
Vincent's sister, married first, Henry Sewall about 1654 and secondly,
Charles Calvert in 1666.
On June 7, Lord Baltimore wrote to the
Earl of Anglesey, enclosing a copy of the deposition of Lowe, reminding
him that he had already requested, twice before, that Christopher Rousby
be removed as the King's Collector. He stated that Rousby was a "great
knave to the king, and as great a disturber of the trade and peace of my
province … how seditious and wicked he is … and that he is a great
traitor, in his heart, to the King."
In this same letter, Lord
Baltimore also alleged that Christopher Rousby and Nicholas Badcock
(Surveyor of the Customs in Maryland) were erroneously attempting to
collect the penny per pound tax on tobacco leaving Maryland when the
ships' captains had certificates of bonds (which would have waived that
requirement).
After Rousby's departure in May, Lord Baltimore and
his Council approached Nicholas Badcock (Surveyor of the Customs in
Maryland). Lord Baltimore instructed Mr. Badcock not to collect customs
from those captains that had such certificates, unless he could affirm
they were counterfeited. But Badcock (who was the King's appointee),
wasn't backing down, because as Lord Baltimore further stated in his
letter of complaint, "yet he had the impudence to tell me before some of
my Council, that he would complain to the Commissioners of the Customs,
that I hindered his discharging his office." True to his word, Mr.
Badcock did complain about Lord Baltimore. Letters were written on May
26th and on July 10th stating that Lord Baltimore had "obstructed the
due execution of the Acts of Parliament relating to trade and hindered
the said Badcock from performing the duty of his office." Lord Baltimore
concluded his letter to the Earl of Anglesey by stating "By this your
Lordship may see what hungry indigent fellows are appointed to service
his Majesty here, such as would dishonor the King, cheat his subjects,
and drive all manner of trade out of my Province." He asked that the
Commissioners of the Customs be directed to appoint "some persons of
good estates and livers in my Province to serve the King here; for such
will be careful to discharge their trust faithfully and will also have
some respect to the government."
Rousby, still in England, was
provided with the correspondence from Lord Baltimore and required to
respond to the allegations made against him. Christopher Rousby quickly
responded, charging that the only reason Lord Baltimore wanted he and
Mr. Badcock removed was so that he could put his own appointees in the
positions, specifically his two sons-in-law.
Rousby may have had
a point. Lord Baltimore had already nominated Capt. Digges ("who married
one of his Lady's companies daughters" employed in the place of Rousby).
He later changed his mind about Digges and asked for the appointment of
Philip Calvert, "another is his Lady's sons-in-law".
He
emphatically denied that he had made the statements attributed to him by
Vincent Lowe and said that if Lowe had made such a statement about him,
it must have been when he (Lowe) was drunk "which was a thing very
frequent with him, as can be proved." He also pointed out that he found
it remarkable that he was supposed to have made the statements attested
to by Lowe in April, yet Lowe waited until June 6 to speak out and only
did so after Rousby left Maryland for England. He also questioned why
Lord Baltimore had not approached him directly. All of which were very
good points.
Allegation: That Lord Baltimore had written to the
Commissioners of his Majesty's Customs on several occasions to complain
about Rousby, but that Rousby had intercepted his letters. Rousby denied
that he had intercepted any letters, nor was it within his power to do
so.
Allegation: That Rousby had caused Maryland to lose trade
with New England. Rousby acknowledged that Maryland had lost some trade,
but it was with some New England men (and perhaps others not qualified
to carry tobacco out of the province) who were attempting to take the
tobacco out of Maryland without paying any tax at all. "And now because
I have used all lawful endeavors to suppress and prevent that course and
trade of defrauding his Majesty's customs, and to reduce the traders and
dealers in that Province to a compliance with the law, my Lord Baltimore
goes about to persuade my Lord Privy Seale that this is a crime in me
for which I ought to be turned out of my place to make room for his
Lady's son-in-law."
Allegation: That Rousby was imposing fees
unjustly, seizing cargo, and making unnecessary demands on ship
captains. Rousby responded that he was following the instructions
provided to him. He stated that he only interfered with those ships not
having the appropriate certificates. He also denied that he had
prevented the ship captains from carrying their certificates to his
Lordship's officers.
Allegation: That Rousby was exceeding his
authority.
"I utterly deny that I ever pretended to have other
powers than what I really had from your Honors by commission and
instructions or that I ever went about to wrest or strain them beyond
their true and natural sense, or any ways thereby to thwart and oppose
or as his Lordship terms it, to nose {in on} him or his government. But
I confess I have ever had an awful regard to the instructions received
from time to time from your Honors and thought it my duty as far as
possibly I could to pursue the same always looking upon them as
sufficient warrant to."
Allegation: That Rousby had expressed
sentiments that were against the King (per the statement by Vincent
Lowe). Rousby denied having made any such statements and said that "none
but a madman or a fool can be imagined to speak such idle words." He
stated again that neither Lord Baltimore nor any of his officers had
called him to account for his supposed statements prior to his departure
to England.
Allegation: Debauchery, lewdness, and villainy.
Rousby responded that this was Lord Baltimore's way of trying to prove
that he and Nicholas Badcock (now deceased) were "too infamous to be
capable of our employments ... and though his Lordship has no cause or
grounds for same, he hopes that by casting much dirt, some might stick
to work his ends against us." Mr. Rousby remained in London during this
time to defend himself, but he wrote regularly to his law partner,
Robert Ridgely. In one letter, dated December 6, 1681, he stated
"You will doubtless think it strange to hear that I am not yet out
of my trouble occasioned by my Lord Baltimore and though the character
given of me by his Lordship be as black as hell, yet am I not looked
upon to be so profligate or despicable a rogue as he sets me forth but
have met with fair, honorable, and just dealing and {have met}several
unexpected friends and some not of the meanest rank."
In January,
1681/2, the Lords of the Treasury voted to report to the King that they
had investigated the allegations made against Christopher Rousby by Lord
Baltimore and stated that they found that Lord Baltimore had "proceeded
in a very unusual manner" by making such serious allegations against
Rousby but not telling him about them prior to Rousby's departure from
Maryland in May. They also stated that Lord Baltimore had not provided
sufficient proof to support the allegations. They recommended that the
King instruct Lord Baltimore to allow Rousby to "execute his office and
to afford him all the encouragement therein with the law requires."
The King, following the recommendations made, wrote the following
letter to Lord Baltimore. It is dated February 8, 1682.
"We are
not a little surprised to find by a number of undeniable testimonies we
have received as well as by the confession of your own letters that you
have obstructed our service and discouraged our Officers in the
execution of their duty. And although by several letters we have already
directed you by yourself and your Officers to be aiding and assisting to
the Collector and other Officers of our customs in our Colony of
Maryland, in all matters relating to their respective offices; and
particularly in the due collection of the impositions payable unto us by
an Act of Parliament.
We are nevertheless informed that instead
of being aiding and assisting to our said Officers in the due collection
thereof you have hindered and forbidden them to receive the same.
We have been given to understand by Nicholas Badock that he did
demand from the masters of the ships (Note: three ships had arrived in
the St. George's River in May, 1681) the penny per pound due in such
case for all tobacco which they should lade on board the said ships, but
that he being refused by them he attended you several times and desired
your assistance for the collection thereof but that you refused to give
him any countenance or assistance therein and that our said surveyor
pressing you several times in this matter and urging the said law you
ordered him to appear before your Council at St Mary's which he
accordingly did, and there in our name prayed and required your aid to
levy our duties upon the lading of the said ships or to make seizure of
the goods; but that he was absolutely denied the same, and told that he
should not meddle with them for that he had nothing to do therewith.
And we are further informed that by a letter under your own hand to
our Commissioners of our Customs bearing date the seventh of June last
{in which}you acknowledged to have denied him the receiving of our
duties on the said ladings and to have hindered him from molesting the
said Masters by means whereof the said ships went away with their
ladings of tobacco without passing any of the said duties to us whereby
we are demnified in our customs to the value of 25OO lbs. sterling.
We have been also made acquainted with the complaints insinuated by
you against our trusty and well-beloved Christopher Rousby, Collector of
our Customs in our said Province as if he had behaved himself in such
violent and unwarrantable manner as tended to the discouragement of
trade, diminution of our customs, and disturbance of the public peace.
It has been presented to us that you have proceeded in a very unusual
manner by charging the said Rousby with so great enormities in his
absence without giving him any notice of those accusations before his
departure from Maryland, which was well known to you at least four
months before he embarked, nor have you transmitted sufficient proof
upon the matters complained.
{We} do hereby require and command
you to permit the said Rousby, peaceably and quietly, to execute his
Office, and to afford him all the encouragement which the law requires.
And we do think {it} fit to give you this caution--that if you shall
hereafter have any cause of complaint against the said Rousby or any
other person you do first give him or them a particular charge thereof
and receive his or their answer thereunto and then transmit the said
charge and answer to us with the proofs thereof to the end we may direct
speedy justice to be awarded according to the merit of the case.
And although your proceedings abovementioned in the obstruction of our
officers and contempt of our laws are of such a nature as that we might
justly direct a writ of quo warranto be thereupon issued out. We have
nevertheless, out of our great clemency thought fit for the present only
to require the Commissioners of our customs to charge you with the
payment of the said sum of 2500 lbs. and to cause a demand to be made
from you for the same and that you adjusting of what shall appear to be
truly due to us to cause the same to be passed by you to our Receiver
General and Cashier of our Customs for the time being residing in
London.
And we do strictly command you for the future to take
care that all our laws relating to the trade of our Colony and
Plantations be duly observed and put in execution and that all
encouragement and assistance be given to the several Officers of our
Customs under your government And so wee bid you farewell. Given at our
Court at Whitehall the 8th of February in the 34th year of our Reign."
To be continued.
In Part I of this article, we discussed the events surrounding the
controversy between Lord Baltimore and Christopher Rousby. This
controversy eventually led to King James becoming involved.
One
would have thought that the dispute might have ended here, but it did
not. In a letter to Sir Lionel Jenkins dated May 31, 1682, just three
months after King James had already issued, what can only be construed
as a strong admonishment of Lord Baltimore, Baltimore persisted and
wrote that, "Badcock was never called before my Council about that
difference with me which he affirmed he was (as it appears by His Sacred
Majesty's letter of the 8th day of February 1681/2.)".
Other
documents were also provided including an extract which had been
prepared of a letter from Christopher Rousby to Robert Ridgely dated
December 6, 1681 "so that I would not trouble you with a copy of the
whole"; the latter part of which he seems to resolve to follow his old
practice of taking an easy penny, as he terms it, by which his Majesty
must be indemnified in his customs, for if Rousby did not compound with
(ship) masters, all the tobacco exported from here would certainly be
carried directly to England, of this I am certain. I humbly beg that
when His Majesty's Collector shall come, he may be commanded to give me
(a) copy of his instructions, and of all orders from time to time which
may anyway relate to His Majesty's interest and service, and then I
shall not doubt but to approve myself a faithful observer of all
commands as well as a dutiful subject to my king. I beg you will please
to present my humble petition to His most sacred Majesty ".
So
time went on and Christopher Rousby continued to stop and sometimes
seize ships to ensure payment of the King's customs while Lord Baltimore
continued to complain. Rousby wasn't an angel either. Arrogant and
insolent were the terms most often used to describe him.
On
October 31, 1684, Christopher Rousby was murdered while aboard the
"Quaker Ketch" commanded by Capt. Thomas Allen. The perpetrator was
George Talbot, a first cousin of Lord Baltimore (son of Helen Calvert
and James Talbot) who Lord Baltimore had appointed as Surveyor General
of Maryland in 1683.
By all accounts, Christopher Rousby had been
aboard the "Quaker Ketch" with Capt. Allen when George Talbot arrived.
An argument ensued which ended in the death of Rousby. Unfortunately,
there is not much information available about the murder itself.
The indictment presented by the Grand Jury stated that Rousby was
unarmed and that Talbot "with a certain dagger made of iron and steel of
the value of one shilling" stabbed Rousby in the right breast". Rousby
died instantly.
Capt. Allen immediately placed Talbot in irons,
but refused to surrender him to the Maryland authorities, stating that
he would carry him to Virginia for trial. Despite the protests of the
Marylanders, Governor Effingham of Virginia also refused to surrender
Talbot. In the meantime, Lord Baltimore was attempting, through the
Privy Council, to have Talbot sent to England for trial.
Mrs.
Talbot took matters into her own hands and managed to free her husband
the following February. Talbot went into hiding near his home on the
Susquehanna River, but finally surrendered to the Maryland authorities
the following April. Governor Effingham immediately demanded that he be
turned over to Virginia authorities. In October, 1685, a year after the
crime, Lord Baltimore, who was still in England, directed the
Marylanders to turn Talbot over to the Virginia authorities who had been
directed to return Talbot to England for trial.
However, the
following April, the King directed that the trial of Talbot be held in
Virginia. He was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. Before
the death sentence was carried out, however, Talbot was released on his
own recognizance and soon thereafter, the King pardoned him!
Christopher Rousby was buried at his home, coincidentally called
"Susquehanna" in St. Mary's County. His tombstone, marked with a skull
and crossbones was inscribed as follows:
"Here lyeth the Body of
Xpher Rousbie Esquire Who was taken out of this world by a violent death
received on Board his Majesty's Ship the Quaker Ketch, Cap. Thos. Allen
commander the last day of Oct'r 1684. And alsoe of Mr. John Rousbie, his
Brother, who departed this Natural Life on Board the Ship Baltimore.
Being arrived in Patuxon River the first day of February 1685 memento
mori."
With Christopher Rousby out of the way, one would have
thought that Lord Baltimore would be satisfied, but that was not the
case, probably because he was still unable to have one of his kinsmen
appointed as King's Collector.
King James named Nicholas
Blackistone to take over Rousby's duties, presumably until a replacement
could be found. On April 20, 1685, Blackistone felt compelled to write a
"letter of complaint against Lord Baltimore's officers." His letter
states:
"I hope my letter of the 10th of November last sent via
Virginia and my duplicate of the same in another ship is come safe to
your hands since which I met with divers testimoniesand experience of
the truth of what intelligence I therein gave to your Honors. The most
horrid murder of His Majesty's Collector here hath been and is daily
seconded with very apparent tokens of approvement both from Talbot, the
bloody malefactor, and all his adherents who are busy in extenuating his
crime and have conspired and procured his escape from prison in Virginia
and from thence transported him to Maryland where he remains publicly
known at his own house.
There is little hope of his being brought
to justice that he may receive condign punishment, there being a literal
intercourse and correspondence between him and some principal
magistrates of this Province, and no effectual course taken for
apprehending him which I humbly conceive may be a strong argument and
signal taken to your Honors of the ill and wicked carriage of things
here.
Since Mr Rousby's murder, I have been continually
discountenanced and obstructed in my proceedings in his Majesty's
Service by the chief persons left and deputed for the Government of this
Province. They have condemned and disowned my commission, torn and burnt
my certificates to masters of ships and have diverted and dissuaded
masters of ships from applying themselves any ways to me and so have
entered clear and dispatched ships without my notice or privity by which
means I am certain several transgressors have escaped and many frauds
pass undetected.
My Lord Baltimore's Council have also assumed a
power to themselves to depute another to be Collector in several rivers
to levy and receive all His Majesties rates, duties and impositions
payable by the Act of 25th year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord, the
King and for my disowning and not complying with those appointed (and I
hope your Honors will not blame me for saying spuriously empowered)
Collectors and for my dissenting from their proceedings, I have been
served with warrants to appear before some of them and they threatened
me with bringing me to the Provincial Court and with infliction of
several punishments, banishments and utter ruin of me and my family.
One of them especially, by name Col. William Diggs, domineers and
tells me I shall not maintain my commission here unless by great guns as
Captain Allen does, whom he and the rest try to calumniate and
ignominiously term him a pirate and endeavor to throw all such like
base, scurilous aspersions against him me and both our commissions, but
notwithstanding threatenings and difficulties, I shall proceed to the
best of my knowledge and endeavors to execute the duties of my place and
commission especially in what I see may (be) most conduce (conducive) to
His Majesty's interest and service in the present circumstances and
exigency of affairs here.
I humbly beg your Honors mediation for
his Majesty's true information that a course may be taken to repel and
remedy those growing and intolerable insolences and illegal doings under
which His Majesties officers heretofore have ever been sufferers and
now, after them, I expect the same or as bad usage to complete the hard
measure I met with alreadyunless speedy care be had for prevention of
the dangers and mischiefs that certainly impend (impede) me in (the)
prosecution of His Majesty's service in this country.
I am
confident his Majesty is prejudiced several thousand pounds by the
obstruction andconfusion that's caused in His Majesty's Affairs and
concerns here and I doubt his revenue from the duties of the penny per
pound for tobacco will prove but small this year by reason many masters
and merchants bound for other of His Majesties plantations would have
carried tobacco, but have been threatened by the aforesaid Col. (Diggs),
to seize their ships and be sued if they paid any duties but to
themselves.
They being discouraged and frightened, (and) have
declined carrying any tobacco. I know as yet but of two entries made
with me or my deputies for tobacco to pay the duties in the whole
Province. I hear (that) some of the said (Baltimore's) collectors have
lately clandestinely cleared and received His Majesties duties of some
tobacco and as to that I shall make (a) thorough inspection.
Maj.
Nicholas Sewall, one of the aforesaid Council and Collectors at
Patuxent, entered some Irish and some other ships which, upon my
suspicion of their being transgressors of the Laws of Trade, I told him
of the irregularity of such proceedings in giving entries and permits of
trade without the knowledge and assent of the Chief Officer of His
Majesty's Customs for the time being and demanded the certificates to be
brought in by the masters of those ships but the said Sewall deferred
delivery thereof and suspecting that either I or Capt. Allen by my order
would seize on them immediately sent notice to those masters of their
dangers and promised them all favor upon their submitting their ships to
their seizures, which was complied with and accordingly prosecuted, and
the ship brought to condemnation by a private court appointed for that
purpose and all this is done as appears and can be fully proved to
prevent our proceedings and just executions of our commissions in behalf
of His Majesty.
NOTE: Nicholas Sewall, the brother-in-law of
William Diggs, was also involved in the murder of John Paine,
Christopher Rousby's successor, in 1691.
In like manner, there
were some prohibited goods put on shore near St. Mary's from a ship that
fled from me out of the Patuxent River. The said goods, with all speed,
were seized by the said Maj. Sewall and Colonel Darnall who appointed a
trial for the same in which business they might have had witnesses
enough besides there was the depositions of some persons who are still
resident in the Province whose proof could have effected the
condemnation of the said goods, but the said goods notwithstanding, all
this which they well knew were cleared and acquitted and those material
witnesses (were) never summoned in the business.
The ship which
imported these goods and commodities was soon, after the landing of
them, met with and seized by Captain Allen to whom I sent directions to
that purpose and when the ship was so seized and a trial demanded in His
Majesties behalf, which was denied him by one of the principal ministers
and officers of this government, Captain Allen then carried the said
ship to his Majesties court in Virginia where I was forced todismiss
(dismiss in this case meaning to proceed with) my prosecutions against
her and took the master's bond in His Majesty's behalf".
A copy
of Blackistone's letter must have been provided to Lord Baltimore, as
his response to that letter is dated the same day.His response:
"It plainly appears, by a letter from the Governor of Virginia to the
Deputies of Maryland that the escape made by George Talbot out of
prison, was occasioned by the corruption of the guard, and not procured
by any persons of Maryland as is falsely suggested in the letter of the
said Blackistone, and that as soon as the Governor of Virginia had given
notice to the Deputies of Maryland of the said Talbot's escape, special
care was taken immediately by them for his apprehension as appears by
the hue and cry sent out into all parts of the Province, besides what
other ways and means could be used for the speedy beginning
(apprehension) of the said Talbot, who never was publicly seen at his
own plantation (though the contrary is affirmed by the said Blackistone,
but always kept himself out in the mountains to the northward, until at
last he resolved to surrenderhimself to the Deputies of Maryland where
now he is under a strong guard to be disposed of as His Majesty shall
think fit.
His Lordship is very confident Mr. Blackistone has no
just cause to complain of his being discountenanced in the execution of
his place, for that he (Baltimore) very well knows his officers dare not
presume to offer any contempt nor show the least disrespect either to
his person or commission nor would they presume to dissuade masters of
vessels from presenting themselves and their certificates to His
Majesty's Officers, his Lordship having long since ordered that they
should apply themselves to the King's Collector as well as to his own
and such was the practice while Mr. Christopher Rousby was living and
the truth of this may be easily known from several masters of ships and
others now in town, after Mr. Christopher Rousby was so unfortunately
killed by George Talbot.
The Deputies of Maryland did presume to
appoint Col. Wm Diggs and Maj. Nicholas Sewall (both of them persons of
good repute and estates) to officiate as collectors for His Majesties
duties, until another person could be appointed by the Commissioners of
His Majesty's Customs, and this they thought their duty to take care to
do, that His Majesties Officers might receive the less prejudice by that
wicked act of the said Talbot and hisLordship doubts not, but the said
persons so appointed will give a just account of their proceedings to
the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs.
His Lordship cannot
believe that Mr. Blackistone has been served (as he alleges in his said
letter) with any warrant or has been threatened in that manner as he has
written and therefore humbly begs that enquiry may be made of such
persons as are lately come from those parts of whom the truth of all
this may be easily known, though it may very possibly be that he has
been arrested at the suits of his many creditors, it being known to many
he is much in debt and has been so for many years.
Col. Wm Diggs,
one of his Lordships Collectors, is known by several eminent merchants
here to be a person of so much loyalty as that he would not be guilty of
those foul things laid to his charge in the said letter, and it were to
be wished that Mr. Blackistone had at all times expressed his loyalty to
the King as amply as the said Diggs has always done both in Virginia and
Maryland.
T'is not possible for any person that understands the
trade of Maryland to believe his Majesty should be prejudiced several
thousand pounds, if his Lordship's Officers should be as malicious and
as wicked as the said Blackistone doth endeavor to represent them for
while Christopher Rousby lived, who understood the office well and knew
as much as any person, how to make the most of it, there never was much
above 100 pounds in one year received by him, for so he often declared
to his Lordship.
T'is strange therefore to his Lordship, as also
to all dealers and traders thither, that MrBlackistone should find out
that it is possible for his Lordship's Officers by any obstruction which
he says is given by them to prejudice his Majesty in so high a measure,
were they so undutiful and impudent as to do it in any matter
whatsoever. But Mr. Blackistone takes care to signify that he doubts he
shall receive little tobacco this year, and gives this as a reason that
his Lordship's Officers threaten the masters of vessels that in case
they pay not the penny per pound duty to them, they shall be sued and
their vessels seized, and yet notwithstanding this complaint, His
Lordship is ready to make it appear that the said Blackistone had
received several thousand pounds of tobacco, even before he had written
that letter, and (with) the same had paid away to his creditors, who
never had any hopes of being satisfied by him until he had obtained His
Majesty's commission.
This will be proved if required, so that
Mr. Blackistone had no other way this year to make up his accounts with
the Commissioners of His Majesty's Customs but by pretending great
obstructions from his Lordship's Officers.
What Mr. Blackistone
has mentioned concerning Maj. Sewall is as untrue as the rest of his
letter, for when the said Sewall had given him notice of several Irish
vessels he intended to seize, the said Blackistone neglected to assist
him in it and so the said Sewall was forced to proceed without him and
after those vessels were seized, the said Blackistone persuaded Capt.
Allen to send boats and men to secure them, who finding his Lordship's
Officers on board were disappointed which gave great trouble to them
both and is the cause of his writing that he was prevented in the
discharge of his office, some of the said vessels were condemned at a
special court and the rest more likely to receive the same condemnation
as his Lordship has been informed and a faithful account will be given
suddenly by his Lordship's Officers to the Commissioners of His
Majesty's Customs and his Lordship is assured they will be also ready
and able to clear themselves in all particulars when they shall know and
understand what Mr. Blackistone hascharged them with, for his Lordship
doth not doubt but it will, in the end, appear some prejudice and ill
will the said Blackistone has been guilty of in his office and of which
his Lordship has given notice to the Commissioners of his Majesties
Customs.
Therefore his Lordship humbly begs that the said
Blackiston may be required to prosecute his great charge contained in
his said letter that in case Col. Diggs and the rest of the officers in
Maryland be found guilty they may suffer, but if innocent as his
Lordship hopes and believes they are, that then they may be cleared."
The following quote comes directly from the Maryland Archives:
The murder of Christopher Rousby, and, in 1691, the subsequent
murder of John Paine, his successor, tended to "represent the Province
(of Maryland) as the seat of lawlessness and disaffection, and the
insinuating (William) Penn was ever at the King's ear. Breaking charters
was congenial work to James, and he took steps to have that of Maryland
revoked; but before the case could come to trial, an indignant and
disgusted people had hurled the worst of the Stuarts from the throne."
With Lord Baltimore falling out of favor with the King and with
William Penn having the King's ear, Maryland would eventually lose all
property south of the 40th parallel which includes present day Delaware
and that part of Pennsylvania south of Philadelphia.
But Maryland
wasn't finished losing yet. In 1942, when the U.S. Navy took over the
land which encompassed "Susquehanna", the Rousby property, Henry Ford
bought the house located on that site (called by the same name), had it
dismantled, and moved it to Dearborn, Michigan where it is now on
display in Greenfield Village, a part of the Henry Ford Museum. I guess,
to complete the deal, it was thought necessary for him to have the
Rousby graves moved as well. St. Mary's County has not always done such
a fine job of protecting its treasures.
There is another bizarre
twist to the Christopher Rousby story. There are some who believe that
none other than Captain Kidd, who was supposed to have been hung for
piracy, actually escaped and assumed the name of Christopher Rousby, and
lived out his days in New Jersey. But that's another story ...
In the case of quotations from the records, I have corrected spelling, added punctuation, and added words, in brackets, to make the information more readable and understandable.
Written and contributed 2002 by Linda Reno
Copyright © 1996- The USGenWeb® Project, MDGenWeb, St. Mary's County. All Rights Reserved.
Design by Templates in Time
This page was last updated
01/18/2024