Nabb Research Center General Resources - People & Cultures

Oath of Loyalty - 1689

By Carolyn Lowman

The seventeenth century was a tumultuous time for England. She was constantly at war, either with her self or other nations. Questions about succession continually plagued the government. Civil war, as well as difficulties with Holland, Spain, France, Ireland, and others, was a part of daily life for most in England, but how did this affect people in her colonies? Were the people in America, specifically Maryland and Virginia, concerned about these issues? How, if at all, did the changing governments in England affect the running of the colonies in America? Two lists, one from Northampton County, Virginia, in 1651/1652, and one from Somerset County, Maryland, in 1689, give some insight to how people in these areas felt about the political maneuvering in England at the time.

Before discussing the two lists, a background of what was going on at the time in England is appropriate. The list from Northampton County appears at a time in which the English government was changing. England was in the midst of a civil war that began in 1642, during the reign of Charles I. When Charles came to the throne in 1625, he had very specific ideas about how he would rule. In this process he became the catalyst that pushed England into civil war. According to John Morrill, a Stuart historian, ". . . Charles blithely ruled as he thought right and did little to explain himself."⁽¹⁾ By 1629, Charles and Parliament had already polarized over many issues. They disagreed over foreign policy, fiscal expenditures needed to fund that policy, over the use of imprisonment to enforce those expenditures, and over the king's sponsorship of a new minority group within the church, whose beliefs and practices sharply diverged from the developing practice and teachings of the Anglican mainstream.⁽²⁾

It was in this same year that Charles decided to rule without Parliament. "He was, however, alienating a huge majority of his people by his religious policies."⁽³⁾ People began to believe that Catholicism was being let in secretly. Charles could have managed without Parliament if he could stay out of war, but he could not. In 1637 he became involved in a war with the Scots. He had to call Parliament for money. It was with this Parliament that Charles lost any credibility he may have had left.

No one had intended to increase the powers of the two houses, but only to insist that Parliament be allowed to meet regularly to discharge its ancient duties . . . By 1641 a wholly new view had emerged. It was that the king himself was so irresponsible, so incorrigible, that Parliament, on the people's behalf, had a right to transfer to themselves powers previously exercised by the king.⁽⁴⁾ According to John Morrill, Charles' actions had forced many people into a more radical constitutional position. His religious views were alienating the gentry who were gaining control of Parliament. In 1642 civil war broke out.⁽⁵⁾

By 1648 Charles I was captured and was negotiating with Parliament. This was not good enough for Oliver Cromwell, the leader of the New Model Army. On December first of 1648, Cromwell ordered the army to reoccupy London. "Colonel Thomas Pride was ordered to purge the commons of dissidents, deducing it to a 'Rump' of about 150 members."⁽⁶⁾ Charles was tried and executed in 1649. The army, through Parliament, was now in control and was calling government a Commonwealth, without a king or House of Lords.⁽⁷⁾ In October of 1651 the Commonwealth "passed the first of the Navigation Acts, designed to break the hold of the Dutch on the carrying trade between Europe and America and within Europe, and it embarked on the resultant war in 1652 with the utmost self-confidence."⁽⁸⁾

These events are the basis for what was going on in Virginia, more specifically Northampton County, in 1651/52.. "In March, 1652, Captain Dennis arrived at Jamestown and demanded the surrender of the colony to Parliament, and after a slight delay, and no resistance, the capitulation was ratified on the 12th of the month."⁽⁹⁾ These articles made the colony of Virginia subject to the Commonwealth. Virginia was to seek out a new charter from Parliament because she "should have the ancient bounds and limits granted by the charters of former Kings. . ."⁽¹⁰⁾ The council appointed for the Commonwealth of Virginia sent its two members from Northampton County, Nathaniel Littleton and Colonel Argoll Yeardly, back to collect signatures of the residents of their county. One hundred and sixteen people signed the document which stated:

The Engagm't tendered to ye Inhabitants of Northampton County, Eleaventh of March, 1651 (O.S.) Wee whose Names are subscribed; doe hereby Engage and promise to bee true and faithfull to the Commonwealth of England as it is nowe Established without Kinge or House of Lords⁽¹¹⁾ (see Appendix A for list).

This oath of loyalty, on its own would suggest that residents of Northampton County were loyal to the new government in England. However, there is another document called The Northampton Protest which may suggest otherwise. This protest stems from the problems between the English and the Dutch, and a lack of representation of Northampton County in Virginia's Assembly. The "tax of forty-six pounds of tobacco per poll" which had been levied on the Eastern Shoreman was on cause for complaint.⁽¹²⁾ "Parliament, which at first had found much support on the peninsula, especially among the middle classes and the tradesman, soon lost favor."⁽¹³⁾ This grievance combined with laws like the Navigation Acts and the prohibition of Dutch trade had eaten away at the Parliamentary Party in Northampton. A spirit of independence soon resulted, and influential royalists took advantage of this. These royalists "appealed to the people to resist the unjust burdens imposed upon them by the Assembly at James City, and to assert their independence of a government in which their sole participation was to defray its expense."⁽¹⁴⁾ People began to assemble daily to listen to the agitators. "After several days of such excitement, six prominent citizens of the county were selected by vote of the people to draw up a protest against their present condition and to act in all things as the best interest of the people might demand."⁽¹⁵⁾ On March 30th a protest was drawn up by some of the same people who, days earlier, had signed the oath of loyalty to the Commonwealth (see Appendix B for copy of the protest). Stephen Charlton, Llevyne Denwood, Jno. Nuthall, Wm. Whittington, Jno. Ellis, and Steph. Horsey were the six people chosen to draw up the document. This was the first "form of a protest against taxation without representation."⁽¹⁶⁾ Jennings Cropper Wise, author of Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke, suggests that this document "was a direct protest against the authority of the Commonwealth of England, which from March 12th, to April 30th, 1652, was represented by Parliamentary Commissioners, not chosen by the people, nor any section of the people of Virginia."⁽¹⁷⁾ If this is the case, why did the people of Northampton sign the loyalty list at all? It is impossible to determine exactly why the people of Northampton changed their minds so quickly. However, the Northampton Protest appears to be directed at the Virginia government that was in power before the Commonwealth took over. If this is the case, residents of Northampton were most likely loyal to the Commonwealth, or at least signed the oath because it was the thing to do. If Wise's assertion is correct, one could suggest that force may have been used to obtain the signatures.

A similar loyalty list can be found in Somerset County in 1689. This list, like the one from Northampton, was a result of events in England. Here another short explanation of these events is necessary. Like Charles I, James II was not highly regarded by his contemporaries. Also like his father, James dissolved Parliament, however, he never recalled it during his reign. This allowed him to pursue whatever he pleased. He began replacing key figures in government with lords of Roman Catholic sentiment.

Popish institutions were also established, a chapel in the city, a Jesuit school at the Savoy, a girls school in St. Martin's Lane, a Franciscan friary in Lincoln's Inn Fields, one for the Dominicans near by, a Benedictine house in Clerkenwell. A papal nuncio was publicly received at court. Steps were taken to revive a Roman Catholic hierarchy by the consecration of bishops.⁽¹⁸⁾

James II alienated the Church of England, and to regain the support he lost, he was forced to accept all-round toleration. "He renewed the attempts to relieve the protestant nonconformists and so to gain their support and that of the more liberal element in the established church."⁽¹⁹⁾ James also granted full liberty of worship in public places only, through a new declaration of indulgence. ⁽²⁰⁾ Even with this effort, people in England were wary about an openly Catholic monarch. Most were comforted by the fact that Mary, James' sister and also a Protestant, was next in line to the throne. This comfort was shattered in 1688 with the birth of a son to James. This son would surely be raised Catholic and people in England did not want another Catholic monarch. Something had to be done. William of Orange, Mary's husband, was secretly invited to invade England to "rescue the nation and the religion."⁽²¹⁾ Seven high officials signed the letter inviting William to come to England. "The letter pointed out that 'people generally' were dissatisfied with the government's behavior in regard to religion, liberties, and prosperities, 'all of which have been greatly invaded'."⁽²²⁾ The letter also spoke of the support they expected to get from the gentry and masses. Evidently, some people did not believe that the Prince of Wales, James' son, was really his. This made it easier for people's consciences to deal with the legitimacy question that was raised by passing over the king's son for his sister and brother-in-law. The invitation gave William the opportunity to use England in his war against the French. William decided to accept the invitation to invade England and was successful. This invasion is also known as The Glorious Revolution. This success meant changes for the colonies, particularly Maryland, whose pro-Catholic sentiments were widely known.

In the year 1692 Maryland became a royal colony. This was after its own "glorious revolution" in 1689. When the colony came directly under the control of King William, the Church of England was established in Maryland. In the few years preceding this act, the Protestants, under the leadership of John Coode, ran the government in Maryland. On the second of June, 1692, the assembly passed an "Act of Recognition" declaring William and Mary the sovereign king and queen of England.⁽²³⁾ The official Church of England was set up with "An act for the service of almighty God, and the establishment of the Protestant Religion."⁽²⁴⁾ In Somerset County, where religious sentiment had always been strongly Protestant (specifically Presbyterian), an oath of loyalty to William and Mary was signed in 1689. It is entitled: "Address of the Inhabitants of the County of Somersett Nover th 28th 1689"⁽²⁵⁾ (see Appendix C). This oath of loyalty fit perfectly in the chronology of events of Maryland at the time. Up until a few years before "The Protestant Revolution" in Maryland, Somerset County had defended Lord Baltimore against accusations that he had favored the Roman Catholic religion and in appointment to office had favored men of that faith . . . 'In April, 1689, writes Scharff in his History of Maryland (volume I, p. 309), 'An Association in arms for the defence of the Protestant religion and for asserting the right of King William and Queen Mary to the province of Maryland and all the English dominions, was formed at the head of which was placed John Coode . . .'⁽²⁶⁾

By July of the same year the "Associators" had seized the government and they sent an address of loyalty to William and Mary. Coode called for an Assembly to be held in St. Mary's City on August 22, 1689, in which four representatives from each county were to be present.⁽²⁷⁾ Francis Jenkins and his associates, from Somerset County, arrived late, on the last day of the session. Jenkins and the others explained that they had heard about all that was done by the Assembly, "but indeed they intended to own no other power but their Majesties, which excuse was readily accepted neminine contradicente."⁽²⁸⁾ After this meeting in St. Mary's City, the people of Somerset considered themselves free of Calvert control. They were thrilled to have Protestants in control of government and religion. Interestingly enough, only those who would take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary were eligible for holding any office. This certainly gives incentive for potential signers, other than any feelings they may have had about its religious and political meanings. Somerset County was known for being a stronghold of Presbyterianism. Three of the signers of the oath were Presbyterian ministers: William Traile, Thomas Wilson, and Samuel Davis.⁽²⁹⁾ This shows that the document was not aimed specifically at Anglicans. Rather than asking why someone signed the document, a better question would be: Why wouldn't they sign it? The same holds true for the Northampton list. It was in a person's best interest politically, and maybe even religiously, to go with the tide and sign the list. One could hypothesize that one reason for the Northampton Protest was the difference in religious beliefs between the signers and the leaders of the Commonwealth. Since Virginia's beginning, the established church was Anglican. This would certainly put them at odds with the Puritans. More likely, however, the protest was drawn up as a reaction to the taxes Northampton residents had to pay, even though they did not have a representative in the Assembly. Most people probably signed the loyalty list because it was the proper thing to do, if one wanted to have any political or social power.

Although these lists are signed in two different colonies and in two different years, they are related closely enough that a comparison of names is justified. The counties, although in two different colonies, border one another. This suggests the possibility of movement between the two areas. There are several similar family names on both lists. Names like Coulbourne, Smyth, Elzey, Scarburgh, Ratclife [Ratliffe], and numerous others. There were also names that were exactly the same, with the exception of minor differences in spelling. Thirteen names can be found on both lists. They are: William Coulbourne, Randall Revell, Richard Hill, John Browne, Charles Ratclife, William Smyth, William Browne, John Johnson, John Gray, John Ellis, Alexander Maddux, John Tayler, and John Williams. Although these names are the same, the people on the first list are not the same people on the second list. Wills show that John Browne, John Gray, John Ellis, and John Tayler died in Northampton County and could not have signed the list in Somerset. The remaining group either died too early to be on the list or could not be found in the Somerset or Northampton records. From discussion with Dr. Ray Thompson and Rebecca Miller, who have both done extensive research in this area, one could determine that a number of families moved form Northampton to Somerset during the time period between the two lists. Although it appears that no one person signed both lists, the descendants of the signers of the 1651 document are those common names that are on the 1689 list. Further research would determine the relationship between these names.

The loyalty list from Northampton County in 1651, the Northampton Protest of the same year, and the loyalty list from Somerset County in 1689 all give information about the effects English politics had on a small area in the colonies of America. The fact that they exist show that there was at least some concern with what was going on in England, for whatever reasons they may be. Politics certainly played a role because of the requirement that one could not hold office if they did not sign the list. The religious and social reasons are there but are more difficult to prove. The existence of these lists allows a small view into the relationship between England and her American colonies.

Appendix A

"The Engagm't tendered to ye Inhabitants of Northampton County, Eleaventh of March, 1651 (O.S.) "Wee whose Names are subscribed; doe hereby Engage and promis to bee true and faithfull to the Commonwealth of England as it is nowe Established without Kinge or House of Lords.

25 OF MARCH

Nathan'll Littleton Obedience Robins Edm. Scarburgh Edm. Douglas Peter Walder Wm. Andrews, Sen'r Allex Addison James Barnabye Jno. Pannell Sam'll Sone Jno. Denman James Berry Phillip Farrant Jno. Ellis Jeffery Minshatt Georgine Hacke Rich. Hamby Edw. Harrington Nich. Waddelone

Argoll Yeardley Wm. Waters Wm. Jones Thos. Sprigge Jno. Dye X'ofer Major Wm. Munds Francis Flood Stph. Stringer Zephyr Jarvis Nice. Scott Ankh. Hodgskins Jno. Nuthall Wm. Whittington Wm. Coake Ben. Cowdrey Levyne Denwood Robert Andrews Ben. Mathews Jno. Stringer Allex. Harryson

Rich. Vaughan Thos. Johnson Dan'll Baker Thomas Hint Thos. Higby Jno. Parkes Wm. Stanley Jno. Akers Robert Harryson Luke Billington Randolfe Hutchinson Nice. Granger Thos. Truman Allex. Madoxe Henr. Armitradinge Steph. Charlton Jno. Parramore Jno. Robearts Zephyr Dixon Robert Marryott

TRICESIMO DIE MARTY 1651 (o. s.)

Edm. Mathews Jno. Custis Jno. Johnson, Jun. Farmer Jones Jno. Dixon Jno. Taylor Mathew Stone Tobine Selve Rich. Nottingham Nehemiah Coventon Francis Morgan Wm. Ward Jno. Johnson, Senr. Edw. Southren Jno. Merryfin Dan'll Chadwell Jno. Teeslocke Jno. Coulson Jno. Michaell Jno. Cornley Rich. Newell Jno. Lee Phill. Merrydayr Edw. Moore Jno. Brillyant Ambrose Dixon Wm. Horose Robt. Blake Rich Hill Jno. Hott Edw. Marshall Jno. Dolling Charles Scarburgh Walter Williams WM. Stephens Jno. Thatcher James Johnson Elial Hartree Charles Ratliffe Jno. Graye Jno. Willyams

Randall Revell Wm. Smyth Wm Custis Tho. Miller Robert Baily Jno. Whitehead Armstrong Foster Wm. Adrews, Jun'r Sam'l Calvert Francis Goodman Jno. Willyams Wm. Corner Rich Smyth Jno. Rutter Andrew Hendrye Antho. Carpnter Jno. Wise Wm. Taylor Jno. Waleford Mick Richett Rich Bruducke Thos. Clarke Thos. Crecro Sam'l Jones Hen. White X'ofer Calvert James Adkinson Wm. Gower Wm. Boucher Jno. Johnson, Jr. Wm. Jordan Rich. Smyth David Wheatley Robert Berry Wm. Preeninge Tho. Butterie Jno. James

Tho. Price Rich. Baily Rich. Hudson Rich. Alleyn Jno. Lewis Jno. Johnson, Senr. Wm. Gaskins Nicholas Jueyre Stephen Horsey Jno. Robinson Symon Bailey Jno. Hinman Jno. Coulson Phill. Mathews Edw. Leene X'ofer Kirke Thos. Savage Sam'll Smothergall Wm. Colebourne Alex Maddoxe Sam'l Powell James Brewce Wm. Luddington Sam'll Robins Jno. Garnell David Kiffyn Jno. Edwards Wm. Mellinger Raph'll Hudson Rich. Teggar Samuel Goldfine Wm. Moultor Wm. Browne

Recordantur vicesimo die Augusty Ano. 1652.

Teste Edm. Mathews, Cloc. Cur."
(This information was taken from Jennings Cropper Wise's book Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke Pages 134-136)

Appendix B

"The xxxth of March, Ano. 1652

"Wee whose names are und written this daye made choyce of by the Inhabitants of Northampton Countie in Virginia to give Informacons and Insruccons to ye gent Ellected Burgesses for this prsent Grand Assemblie (in relacon to such matters as conduce to our peace & Saftie). And For ye Redresse of those aggreevances wch (att prsent) wee are capable & sensible of in our Countie of Northampton.

"Imprmis. Wee the Inhabitants of Northampton Countie doe complayne that from tyme to tyme (pticular yeares past) wee have been submitted & bine obedient unto the paymt of publeq Taxacons. Butt after ye yeare 1647, since yt tyme wee Conceive & have found that ye taxes were very Weightie. But in a more espetiall manner (undr favor) wee are very sensible of the Taxacon of fforty sixe pounds of tobacco p. poll (this present yeare). And desire yt ye same bee taken off ye charge of ye Countie; furthermore wee alledge that after 1647, wee did understand7 suppose or Countie of Northampton to bee disioynted & sequestered from ye rest of Virginia. Therefore that Llawe wch requireth & inioyneth Taxacons from us to bee Arbitrarye & illegall; fforasmuch as wee had neither summons for Ellecon fo Burgesses nor voyce in their Assemblye (during the time aforesd) but only the Singlur Burgess in September, Ano., 1651. Wee conceive that wee may Lawfullie ptest agt the pceedings in the Act of Assemblie for publiq Taxaconswch have relacon to Northmton Countie since ye year 1647.

"The Gent who are (att rsent) to speak inour behalfe can sufficiently declare what is necessary to bee expressed to this effect wch wee referr to them.

"Our desire is that there may bee an annual Choyce of Magistrates in Northmton. And, if our Countie may not have ye privilege of a peculir govrmt & propriety (att prsent) granted wth in our prcincts that then you Request and plead that all Causes, Suit of Tryalls ( of what nature soevr) may bee concerned (for future tyme), determined in our sd Countie fo Northampton.

"If there bee a free & genr. all vote for a Governor wherein they shall Ellect Mr. Richard Bennett Wee the inhaitants of Northampton Countie wth unanimous consent & plenary aprobacon Rendr our voyce for te sd Esq. Bennett.

"The people doe further desire that ye Taxacons for fforty sixe pouds of tobac a heead maye not bee collected by the sheriffs (until ansrw of the questions form the Grand Assemblie nowe summoned).

"Witness our hands subscribed the day & yeare aforesd.

Stephen Charlton Wm. Whittington

Llevyne Denwood Jno. Ellis

Jno. Nuthall Steph. Horsey

"Recordatr Decimo Mense May, 1652, p. me Edm. Mathews, Clic. Cur."

(This information was taken from Jennings Cropper Wise's book Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke Pages 139-140)

APPENDIX C - November 1689

"To the King and Queen most Ext [excellent] Majity [majesty] Wee your Majesty's subjects in the County of Somersett and Province of Maryland being refreshed and encouraged by your Majestys great and prosperous undertakings, and by your late gracious letter to those of this Province, do cast ourselves at your Majesty's feet humbly desiring and hopefully expecting the continuance of your Majtys care of us, as our Case and Circumstance doe or may require, in the confidence whereof wee resolve to continue (by the Grace of God) in the Profession and defence of the Protestant Religion and your Majesty's Title and interest against the French and other Paptists that oppose and trouble us in soe just and gook a cause not doubting but your Majestys wisdom and clemency will afford unto us all needful suitable Aid and Protection for securing our Religion lives and liberty under Protestant Governors and Government, and for enabling us to defend ourselves against all Invaders. Thus praying for your Majestys long and happy Reigne over us. Wee know ourselves to bee (with due Reverence and sincerity) Your Majestys Loyall Obedient and humble Subjects. John Huett, Wm. Coulbourne, junr., Thomas Wilson, Henry Phillips, John Parsons, Thomas Shild [Shiall?], Thomas Stivenson, James Knox, John Brown, Wm. Alexander, Randall Revell, Peter Elzey, James Smith, Epraem [Ephraim] Wilson, Thomas Smith, John Knox, Thmas Wallr [Waller], John Knox, Thomas Wallr, Alexander Knox, Alexander Proctor, John Renshaw, James Conner, William Wilmot, Micayah [Micajah] Sadler, John Chanceleer, John Smocke, Nicholas Cornwell, Robert Cade, John Miller, Adam Spence, Tho: Midgley, Jhom Baron, John Deale, Martin Curtis, Clement Giles, Robert Johnson, William Bowen, Devoraux Dregas, Robert Simson, Edward Evans, Hugh Jingle [Tingle], John Colston, Richard Warren, Mathew Jones, Richard Hill, John Goldsmith, John Browne, Wilm Owen, Malcolm Knox, William Knox, William Hacaland, Richard Jarrett, Nathaniel Clark, George Boyman [Bozman], John Nelson, William Waller, George Phebus, John Rawley, John Jones, George Park, Wm. Polk, Wm. Wilson, Edward Surnam, Charles Ratclife, William Melvell, William Smith, Richard Macklure, John White, John Rowell [Powell], John Killam, Johm More, Saml Hopkins, junr, Benjamin Keyar [Keysar?], Ralph Milbourne, Henry Hale, Francis Heap, John Pope, Thomas Oxford, William Hearne, Richard Pepper, John Saunders, Nathaniell Abbott, William Coard [Cord?], William Hale, William Davis, Joshua Light, John Rust, Nathaniel Vesey Richard Woodcraft, Tobias Pepper, Walter Read, John Peterfrank, Stephen Page, Thomas Edwards, Alexander Mackcullah, George Beniam [Benjamin?], Andrew Miller, Patrick Read, John Steell, William Browne, Thomas Bromley, William Wouldhave, Richard Wildgoose, John Lucas, John Johnson, Richard Cole, William Oswell, John Snow, George Latham, William Law, William Alexand[e]r, junr., John Gray, Robert Polk, Thomas Pollett, Charles Mullen, Arnold Elzey, Alexander White William Nelson, Michael Hannah, William Lawrence, John Swaine, Ambrose Archer, William Stevenson, James Barber, Samll Showell, William Jurvill [Turvill], John Mcknitt, Wm. Coulbourne, James Murrah, John Roach, Owen Mckgraw, William Round, Richard Farwell, Alexander Kyll [Kyle?], Thomas Poynter, John Strawbridge, Adam Fitch, William Burch, Thomas Gordan, Nicholas Carpenter, John Henderson, John Tarr, Richard Hill, Edmd Beauchamp, Allen Ross, Geo: Nobell, Richard Britten, Peter Whaples, William Layton William Boyman [Bozman], George Lane, John Crawley, Samll Worthington, Robert Peny [Perry?], Moses Fenton, John Porter, Ninian Dulap, James Henderson, James Duncan, John Barber, John Hicks, William Mead, Robert Neame [Nearne?], Henry Mills, Richard Dennis, Thomas Morgan, Humphrey Read, William Shankland, David Dresden [Dreaden, Dryden?], John Watt, John Ellis, Thomas Ellis, John Strret, William Fossit [Fassitt], Thomas Delahide, Arthur Hanley, John Christopher, Philip Askew, Roger Phillips, Robert Crouch, George Bayley, Lazarus Maddox, John Davis, Henry Hamon [Haymon], Miles Harrison, Tho: Dixon, Alexander Maddux, John Frankland, Wm. Coulbourne, Francis Joice, Robert Boyer, Nicholas Jodvin [Todvin, Toadvin], Geo: Layfield, Comtr, Michael Clugstone, Lawrence Crawford, Wm. Traile, Thomas Wilson, Samll Davis, Peter Dent, John West, John Boyman[Bozman], James Sangster, John Tayler, Edward Jones, Thomas Poole, Roger Burkham, John Emmit, John Kine, William Planer, junr., Richard Tull, Thomas Tull, Robert Hall John Broughton, William Nobell, John Coulbourne, John Williams, Richard Chambers, John Trupshaw, Mathew Dorman, James Langreene, Nathl Horsey, Alexander Thomas, John Mackbride, David Brown, Francis Jenkins, William Brer[e]ton, John Winder, Robt King, James Dashiell, Stephen Luff, Thomas Newbold, James Round, Samll Hopkins, Edmd Howard, Thomas Jones, Henry Smith.

This is a true Copy taken form the Original examined and signed by the Order of the Respective Person above named.

Peter Dent depty Collr of his Majestys

Customes in the County of Somersett."

(This information was taken from Clayton Torrence's book Old Somerset on the Eastern Shore of Maryland pgs. 349-350)

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Baron, Thomas. Laws of Maryland 1637-1763. 1880. Browne, William Hand, ed. Archives of Maryland Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland April 1684-June 1692. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1894.

Secondary Sources:

Ashley, Maurice, The Glorious Revolution of 1688. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966.

Brugger, Robert J., Maryland A Middle Temperament 1634-1980. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988.

Clark, Sir George, The Latter Stuarts 1660-1714, Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1961.

Guy, John and John Morrill, The Tudors and Stuarts, Vol. 3.

Jones, Colin, Malyn Newitt, and Stephen Roberts, eds.,Politics and People in Revolutionary England: Essays in Honour of Ivan Roots, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1986.

Kenyon, J. P., Stuart England, New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978.

Marshall, James Handley, Comp, Abstracts of the Wills and Administrations of Northampton County, Virginia 1632-1802, Camdem: Picton Press, 1994.

The Oxford History of Britain. New York: Oxford University, 1992.

Torrence, Clayton, Old Somerset on the Eastern Shore of Maryland: A Study in Foundations and Founders, Baltimore: Regional Publishing Company, 1973. p>Wise, Jennings Cropper, Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke or the Eastern Shore of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century, Richmond: The Bell Book and Stationary Company, 1911.

Footnotes:

1. John Guy and John Morrill, The Tudors And Stuarts, vol. 3, The Oxford History of Britain (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 99.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid,. 100.
4. Ibid,. 103.
5. Ibid,. 157.
6. J. P. Kenyon, Stuart England (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1978), 163.
7. Ibid,. 164-165.
8. Ibid,. 169.
9. Jennings Cropper Wise, Ye Kingdome of Accawmacke or the Eastern Shore of Virginia in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond: The Bell Book And Stationary Co. 1988), 133.
10. Ibid,. 134.
11. Ibid,. 134-135.
12. Ibid,. 137.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid,. 138.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid,. 140.
17. Ibid,. 141.
18. Sir George Clark, The Later Stuarts 1660-1714 (Oxford: The Clarenden Press, 1961), 122-124.
19. Ibid,. 125.
20. Ibid.
21. Maurice Ashley, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966), 121.
22. Ibid,. 121-122.
23. William Hand Brown, ed, Archives of Maryland Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland April 1684-1692 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1894), 425.
24. Thomas Bacon, Laws of Maryland 1637-1763, 1880, CHAP. II, 1692.
25. Clayton Torrence, Old Somerset on the Eastern Shore of Maryland A Study in Foundations and Founders (Baltimore: Regional Publishing Company, 1973), 349.
26. Ibid,. 338.
27. Ibid,. 339.
28. Ibid., 339.
29. Ibid., 350.