Cornelius Lloyd

EDWARD LLOYD (1)
THE PURITAN

It is proposed in this contribution to our local annals to give a brief account of conspicuous members of a family whose record is more intimately interwoven with the history of Talbot county, than is that of any other existing within its bounds-The Lloyds of Wye. Being among the very first to be planted here, becoming deeply rooted in our soil, and never spreading widely beyond our borders, it may, if any of European race can, be called autochthonous. Its possessory interests whether in land or slaves, those forms of property which here, until of late, great wealth assumed, have always been the largest within our limits, and its personal influence has not been incommensurate with its affluence. Here this family has ever been represented and most worthily represented by some member or members notable for private graces and public virtue. Through some member or members it has continuously, as it were, from the first settlement and organization of the county to the present, been participating actively and prominently in every important social movement, and by general consent it has always stood, for whatever is gentle in birth and breeding, for whatever is honorable in character and conduct, and in short, for whatever is of good report among the people of Talbot.

Tradition claims to confirm what the name of the family suggests, that the Maryland Lloyds are of Welsh origin; but all attempts to trace them to their original hearth-stone-to the very place in the Principality where they had their primitive home-have been vain, so common is this patronymic and so widely spread are those that bear it in the British islands.¹ It is by no means certain, though it is not improbable that the founder of the family in Maryland, Edward Lloyd (1), of whom it is now proposed to speak, was of Welsh nativity. Names of tracts of lands and rivers or creeks by which those tracts were bounded within this county and in Anne Arundel, popularly thought to owe their origin to him, seem to betray a memory of the land of his birth.² The date of his coming in has never been determined with precision, but it is said, upon uncertain authority, that this occurred in the year 1645. The first authentic knowledge we have of him is, that prior to 1650 he was one of that body of Puritans seated in Virginia upon the Nancemond and Elizabeth rivers, who were then undergoing from the people and authori- ties of that dominion a mild sort of persecution because of their religious non-conformity----a persecution, however, which in the end was sufficiently stringent to cause a desire to remove out of that jurisdiction.³ The long controversy that had been raging in the mother country between Parliament and King, between Puritan and Prelatist, between Liberty and Prerogative, between Independence and Conformity, extended to Virginia. There were no warmer adherents of the royal cause at home than existed in this province; but a few of the opposite party made their appearance and propagated their tenets, religious and political. The former were decidedly in the majority and gave policy to the Dominion which favored the Stewarts and the Church of England. After the defeat of the cause by Cromwell, this party receiving many accessions from the Cavalier families became more embittered towards the few Puritans living in Virginia, and revived those laws which some years before had been passed against non-conformity, but which had not been rigidly enforced. These people opened negotiations with the Maryland authorities looking towards their removal to this province. After receiving such guarantees of their civil and religious liberties as they demanded, in or about the year 1649 they broke up their settlements upon the Nancemond and Elizabeth rivers, which of late had been growing in numbers and influence under the encouragement afforded by the success of their party at home, and removed to Maryland, settling at a place on the Severn to which they gave the name of Providence, near the site of the present city of Annapolis. Among those who sought refuge here was Mr. Edward Lloyd (1) a conspicuous actor in the important events which immediately followed, and doubtless, a prominent man among the people before their expulsion from Virginia. In the records of Lower Norfolk County, Virginia, of 1649, is the following:

Whereas, Mr. Edward Lloyd and Mr. Thomas Meeres, Commissioners with Edward Selby, Richard Day, Richard Owens, Thomas Marsh, George Kemp and George Norwood were presented to ye board by the Sheriff for seditious sectuaries for not repairing to their church and for refusing to hear Common Prayer, liberty is granted till October next to inform their judgments and to conform themselves to the established law.

Before that term of probation had expired all the above named were safely settled in the province of Maryland.

After their settlement at Providence, the Puritans refused to submit, at once, to the rule of the Proprietary, on the ground that they were required, before receiving patents for their land, contrary to previous stipulations upon the part of the Maryland authorities, as they alleged, to take certain oaths which they as republicans in politics and non-conformists in religion, could not do in conscience. [This statement should be taken with a grain of salt] Now that the King had lost his crown and his head, and that Parliament alone was the "keeper of the liberties of England," they thought such words as "absolute lord" and "royal jurisdiction" which were used on the form of oath "were far too high for a subject to exact and too much unsuitable to the present liberty which God had given the English subjects from arbitrary and popish government, as the Lord Baltimore's government plainly appeared to be;" and further the gl oath was exceedingly scrupled on another account, viz.: that they must swear to uphold the government and those officers who are sworn to countenance and uphold anti-Christ, in plain words, expressed in the officer's oath, and for these people to own such by an oath, when in their hearts they could by no means close with; what could it be accounted but collision." Evidently this was straining the meaning of words to the utmost. In fact the Puritans confidently believed that the authority of Lord Baltimore would be abrogated under the Parliamentary regime and that a new form of government would be instituted that should be in correspondence with the new order of things at home. [This is the more accurate assessment] Accordingly they proceeded to set up at Providence a government of their own similar to that which existed in New England. On the 29th of April in the following year, 1650, the district of country embracing Providence was erected into a county to which the name Anne Arundel was given, and of this Mr. Edward Lloyd was, by Governor Stone, made Commander, his commission bear- ing the date of July 30th of that year. The powers thus delegated to him were of a very comprehensive character, and difficult of exact definition. "He appears to have been somewhat in the nature of a deputy to the Governor of the province, and to have been invested by the tenor of his commission with all the Governor's military as well as civil powers, as to that particular county, though subordinate to the superior powers and appellate jurisdiction of the Governor and Council at St. Mary's.⁴ On the day previous to the issuance of the commission of Mr. Lloyd as Commander, Governor Stone issued to him another commission, which empowered him to grant patents for lands within the county of Anne Arundel according to the conditions of plantation as established by the Proprietary. The same was done for Captain Vaughan, of the isle of Kent. This extraordinary power was bestowed for the purpose of saving the trouble and expense of going to St. Mary's by those desiring to obtain warrants. But it was necessary that records of these warrants should be made by the Secretary of the Province at the seat of Government. We shall see in the sequel that the neglect of Mr. Lloyd and Captain Vaughan to forward information of such patents as were issued by them, caused the revocation of their commissions. The erection of their settlements into a distinct county and the promise that they should have the appointment of officers, civil and military, of their own selection, seems to have pacified the Puritans at Providence, for the time at least; for two deputies or burgesses were sent by them to the General Assembly, who immediately took their seats and participated in legislation, one of them indeed being appointed Speaker. Yet there is no evidence that the oaths of office were essentially modified to suit their scruples. But when the Assembly again met in 1651, no delegates made their appearance from Anne Arundel; but a message was received from Mr. Lloyd, the purport and motive of which are not known except as far as they are revealed by a communication of Lord Baltimore addressed to the Governor and the two houses of Assembly, which says:

We cannot but much wonder at a message which we understood -was lately sent by one Mr. Lloyd from some lately seated at Anne Arundel within our said province of Maryland to our General Assembly held at St. Mary's in March last, but are unwilling to impute either to the sender or deliverer thereof so malign a sense of ingratitude and other ill-affections as it may seem to bear, conceiving rather that it proceeded from some apprehensions in them at that time, grounded upon some reports in those parts of a dissolution or resignation here of our patent and right to that province, which might perhaps for the present make them doubtful what to do, till they had more certain intelligence thereof from hence.

From this it is very evident that there was incipient rebellion at Providence and that Mr. Lloyd with his people were in expectation of the disposition of the Lord Proprietary, and were not disposed to give support or countenance to his authority. It will presently be seen that this expectation was not without foundation. In September, 1651, instructions were given by the home Government for the reducing of Virginia and all the plantations within the Chesapeake bay to their due obedience to the. Parliament of the Commonwealth of England. The commissioners named for this work were Captain Thomas Stagge, with Mr. Richard Bennett and Captain William Claiborne-the two last well-known in Maryland history. The reduction was speedily accomplished, and Lord Baltimore deprived of all authority and power in the province. Governor Stone, however, was reappointed by the commissioners, with a Council composed chiefly of Puritans and wholly of those disaffected to the royal and proprietary interests. While it is no where recorded that Mr. Lloyd retained his position as Conunander, there is no doubt of his being in full sympathy with this political movement and of his participation in the active measures for its accomplishment, for as a part of the scheme for "reducing, settling and governing the plantations within the bay of Chesapeake," the commissioners crossed over to Kent Island and we find Mr. Lloyd, with Mr. Bennett and others, deposing Capt. Robert Vaughan, the Commander, and appointing in the name of the keepers of the liberty of England a board of commissioners for the Island,⁵ which at this day contained most of the settlers upon the Eastern Shore.

 A little before this, namely on the 5th of July, 1652, we find him in connection with Mr. Bennett, William Fuller, Thos. Marsh and Leonard Strong, at the Severn negotiating a treaty with the Susquehannocks for the surrender of certain territory upon the Eastern and Western Shores of the bay.

In December of this same year, 1654, Governor Stone published an order rescinding the commissions that he had issued to Mr. Lloyd and Captain Vaughan, authorizing them to issue patents for land in their respective counties. The reason assigned for this step was that these officers had failed to have entered upon the records of the Secretary's office, such land warrants as they had granted. This extraordinary neglect of so important a matter must have had strong motive. It is unnecessary in this biographical sketch to discuss the influences which controlled the conduct of Mr. Lloyd and Captain Vaughan. They were doubtless of a political nature, and had their source in a belief that Lord Baltimore would soon be dispossessed of his proprietary rights, as indeed he was, as already mentioned. It is curious to note that this neglect of Mr. Lloyd to record patents gave rise many years afterwards to much and costly litigation respecting titles.

 Lord Baltimore having been deprived of his proprietary rights by the existing government, which he notwithstanding was politic enough to acknowledge, presented remonstrances. But these, though they were not entirely unheard, did not receive that consideration which he conceived they merited and demanded--such was the pressure of public affairs at home. However, he prevailed upon Gov. Stone, who had been retained in his place by the Commissioners of settlement under a prom- ise made by him to them that in all things, especially in the issue of patents for lands, he would act as under the authority of the "Keepers of the liberty of England," to follow the line of policy dictated by himself. "The next year," to quote the words of another, "under directions of Lord Baltimore, Stone violated the compact and began to issue writs in the Lord Proprietary's name, to admit to the Council only those appointed by Lord Baltimore, and to require the inhabitants to take an oath of fidelity, which if refused by any colonist after three months, his lands were to be confiscated for the use of the Proprietary."⁶ This created great indignation among Puritan settlers, and as a consequence on the 3d of Jan. 1654 a petition was addressed to the Parliament's Commissioners, from the Commissioners at Severn, that was subscribed by Mr. Edward Lloyd and seventy-seven others, in which they com- plained that having been invited and encouraged by Capt. Stone, Lord Baltimore's Governor of Maryland, to remove themselves into the province, with a promise of enjoying the liberty of their consciences in matters of religion and other privileges of English subjects; and having with great cost, labor and danger, so removed themselves, and having been at great charges in building and clearing:

 now the Lord Baltimore imposeth an oath upon us to make us swear an absolute subjection to a government where the ministers of State are bound by oath to countenance and defend the Roman Popish religion, which if we do not take within three months, after publications all our lands are to be seized for His Lorships's use.⁷

Upon the receipt of this petition from the Puritans of Maryland, of whom Ed. Lloyd appears in the light of a leader, to the Commisioners of settlement who were then in Virginia, Mr. Bennett and Col. Claiborne returned to Providence, and on the 20th July, 1654, they compelled Gov. Stone, under a threat of using arms for the enforcement of their commands, to lay down his office and to submit " to such government as shall be selected by the Comnaissioners in the name and under the authority of his highness, the Lord Proprietor." They then, on the 23rd of the same month in the name of OUver Cromwell, the Lord Protector, appointed a board of commissioners to administer the government, and of this board Mr. Edward Lloyd was a member.⁸ Again in 1655 Gov. Stone, by direction of Lord Baltimore, whose temerity is inexplicable,[?!-- the author reveals a bias here-- ] attempted by force of arms to reestablish the government of the Proprietary, and was defeated in a battle with the Puritans fought near Providence. Mr. Lloyd's name does not appear in any extant records of this affair. Capt. Fuller was in command of the Providence -forces and probably held the official position formerly occupied by Mr Lloyd. Again in 1656 Mr. Josias Fendall was appointed Governor by Lord Baltimore, who, when he attempted to exercise jurisdiction, was arrested by the Puritans and carried before the Provincial Court composed of the Conunissioners of Parliament, namely Capt. William Fuller, Mr. Edward Lloyd, Mr. Richard Wells, Capt. Richard Ewen, Mr. Thomas Marsh, and Mr. Thomas Meares, where he was charged with actions dangerous to the public peace. But in this year, the matter in dispute between the Lord Proprietary and the inhabitants at Providence, having been deferred to the Commissioners of Trade, was decided in Lord Baltimore's favor. On the 20th of March, 1658, Capt. William Fuller, Richard Preston, Edward Lloyd, Thomas Meares, Philip Thomas and Samuel Withers, as envoys of the government at Providence, yielded submission to Governor Fendall, and his councillors, the representatives of the Lord Proprietary; and so this contest ended.⁹ 

But it would seem that this opposition to Lord Baltimore did not prevent his appointment to a place in the Council of Gov. Fendall.¹⁰

This introduction into a most important department of the provincial government of a person who had for many years been conspicuously hostile to the Proprietary, and had acted as one of the court for the trial of the very man who was at the head of the government, is intelligible if we presume that it was made for the purpose of conciliating the Puritans of Providence, who were a strong if not the strongest party in Maryland; and that Mr. Lloyd's character and abilities were required to impart strength to an administration needing all support to give it permanence and success. We are at liberty to suppose, too, that he was a man of moderation, or as we say in modern party parlance, a conservative, who while tenacious enough of his own and his people's rights, was not unmindful of the rights of others. He may even have felt a breath of that reactionary spirit which was abroad in the old country, and may not have approved of much that had been done under the rule of the Commissioners of the Commonwealth. But conjectures are perhaps futile and the important fact is the one which has been noted, that immediately upon the submission he was appointed a member of the Provincial Council, or Upper House of Assembly. As such we find him as strenuous a supporter of the rights of the Lord Proprietary as any of his former partisans, for in Aug. 1659, he was one of the council that ordered Col. Nathaniel Utie to repair to the pretended governor of a people seated in Delaware bay, within his Lordship's province without notice given to his Lorship's lieutenant here, and to require them to depart the provmce. This was the beginning of the controversy with the Dutch of South (otherwise Delaware) river, respecting boundaries and the rights to territory that now constitutes Delaware State, in which Lord Baltimore was defeated when the dispute was. taken up by the " oily" Mr. Penn. Governor Fendall soon after this, began to betray a faithfulness to the interests of Lord Baltimore which at this day is inexplicable, except upon the assumption that he had become possessed by the spirit of republicanism which was passing out of the Puritans. In 1659 he instigated a revolution in the organic system of the provincial government by the abolition of the Upper House of Assembly; and for a short time his scheme was in actual operation, for he and several of his councillors took their seats in the Lower House. And the people were commanded, by proclamation, to acknowledge no authority, except that which came immediately from the Assembly or from the King, who had now been restored to the throne of England.

It is tolerably certain, though no record exists of the fact, that in this revolutionary movement Gov. Fendall had not the cooperation of Mr. Lloyd. The secretary of the council, Mr. Philip Calvert, and one other member, Mr. Baker Brooke, indignantly left the room when a joint meeting of the two Houses was in session, and it is probable, if Mr. Lloyd did not accompany them, he approved of their course, for we find that after Fendall was displaced and the Upper House restored, he was one of those whom Gov. Philip Calvert, who had been secretary, called to be one of the new Council. Although he had received many marks of the favor and confidence of the Lord Proprietary, we find that he was not subservient, differing from and opposing him whenever he was transcending his privileges. This was shown notably in Mr. Lloyd's opposition to his scheme for coining money, first proposed in 1659 and renewed in 1661. When this bill, entitled "An Act concerning the setting up of a Mint within this Province of Maryland" came up for a third reading, Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Brooke desired that there should be entered upon the journal this memorandum, that the dissenters to the voted dissented upon this ground, that they were not certainly informed that the County Palatine of Durham had liberty to Coine. The scheme, notwithstanding this objection of the "strict constructionists" of the Council was carried into effect and Maryland money was actually stricken; for which infringement upon the prerogative of the supreme authority of the realm Lord Baltimore was apprehended in England; but he either had interest with the court, or his offence was forgotten aniidst the tumult and lax administration of justice following the restoration of royalty. Thus the correctness of Mr. Lloyd's opinion was vindicated.[?! -- the author needs to make up his mind-- does his like royalty now-- vs. colonial independence?]

It would be useless to follow, if it were possible from our imperfect records, his course while he had a seat in the provincial Council. It is fair to say that it was that of an independent and judicious legislator. He continued a member of this body until 1666, when his name disappears from the list of its members.

 It is proper to mention here that after the coming in of the Puritans and their settlement at Providence, Mr. Lloyd acted as a land surveyor. In the absence of all knowledge of the character of his education this fact may be taken as evidence that he was possessed of considerable acquaintance with at least one branch of science, and its application to a useful art. The employment of this knowledge in practice gave him opportunities which he did not neglect, we may be very sure, for the selection of choice lands in eligible situations, and the discovery of valuable tracts that had escaped being patented.

During the whole, or the most of the time now passed over, Mr. Lloyd was a resident of Providence or Anne Arundel, but at or about the time of the organization of Talbot as a new county, say 1661, he removed to the Eastern Shore where his largest landed interests lay. The court records of this county indicate that the seventh court held within its limits was held June 30th (or 3rd) 1663, at his house. His name does not appear in the list of justices in attendance until the 15th of November of the same year. His position of councillor made him a member of the highest court of the Province, and also entitled him, whenever present, to a seat upon the bench in any of the county courts.¹¹ He continued to act as a Justice of the Peace of Talbot county until 1668, when he left the county.

While thus engaged in reducing the province of Maryland to submission to the Keepers of the liberty of England and combating royal and proprietary claims to jurisdiction within the province; while performing the duties of Councillor, which were those, at once, of cabinet officer, senator and judge, under Governor Fendall and Lord Baltimore; while executing the office of a Justice of the Peace in his adopted county, an officer whose functions were much more extended and diversified than at present, he was not negligent of his own private interests. Ile was laying the foundations of that great fortune which, increased from time to time, has given permanence, dignity, and influence to the family of which he was the founder and progenitor in Maryland. He was planter, Indian trader, merchant, emigrant agent and land-speculator, using the locution of the present without any intention of attaching to these designations any thing opprobrious. He became the possessor of lands which he cultivated with laborers introduced from the old country, and possibly with African slaves. He shipped the products of his own plantations, and those of his poorer neighbors, bringing back in return those articles of necessity and comfort which were to be had only from abroad. With these he sent the peltries which he collected from the natives and other trappers in exchange for such articles as their fancy, their wants or their appetites demanded; he brought over indentured servants who paid for their passage by terms of service to himself, or he sold them to others; he availed himself of the "conditions of plantation" established by the Lord Proprietary, and obtained patents for land in consideration of his having brought in servants and laborers; he brought up the grants of land which had been issued to original patentees, and sold them, as well as other lands, to those demanding smaller tracts.¹² He early became the possessor of large tracts upon Wye river, upon one of which since known as "Wye House" he made his home, and that is still the home of the family. It is believed that Mr. Lloyd had 'stores' upon his estates, from which his planters were supplied with foreign goods, and from which his poorer neighbors were furnished. Thus was laid the foundation of that mercantile business, which he pursued more extensively after his removal from Maryland to England. This event took place in 1668, and it is altogether probable he was moved to take this step by a conviction that his acquaintance with the planters and with their wants, would enable him to prosecute a profitable trade with the province. He settled in London, and from that city he made his commercial adventures. It is reasonable tobelieve these were conducted with success. Whether he ever returned to America is not known, but leaving behind him a son and large estate, it is hardly likely that in the long time which elapsed before his death he did not again and again cross the ocean. Of his life in London we know little-nothing in fact but of his engagement in trade, of his third marriage, and of his death. His will, made March 11th, 1695, speaks of himself as "Edward Lloyd of the Parish of St. Mary, White Chappel, in the county of Middlesex, merchant and late planter in Maryland." The date of his death has not been recovered, but it probably occurred soon after the execution of this will, by which he devised the Wye House to his grandson, bearing his own name, the son of Philemon Lloyd, of both of whom more will hereafter be said. Mr. Lloyd was thrice married: first to Frances, the widow of John Watkins, who came up from Virginia in the Puritan colony headed by Edward Lloyd; second to Alice Crouch, widow of Hawkins, and third to another widow, Mrs. Grace Parker of London, whose maiden name was Buckerfield. He had but one child, the son of his second wife Alice, Philemon, who subsequently became a very prominent personage in the province, and continued the family. There are family memoranda that indicate there was another son of Alice Crouch, named Edward, who lived at "White House," but it is probable he died early, and without issue.

Any attempt to form an estimate of the character of a man of whom we know so little as we do of Mr. Lloyd, might be considered vain. History has related nothing more of him than a few of his acts of a public nature. Court records and musty parchments make mention of some of his large private business transactions. Family registers, commonly kept with care within if not as a part of the sacred volume, have not perpetuated even the dates of those trivial or common incidents, such as birth, marriage, death. Even tradition, always garrulous, in general fabling where credit may be derived by descendants from ancestral virtues (and sometimes vices) has strangely never invented a legend of his life. But interpreting character by conduct we may believe him to have been a man of strong and sincere religious convictions, ready to suffer for conscience or opinion's sake. His abandoning his Virginia home rather than submit to enforced conformity with the church of England, may be taken as evidence of this. As he was of the Assembly (Oct. 1654) which passed the "act concerning religion" which provided that liberty in the exercise of religion should not be "extended to popery nor prelacy," we discover that he had not entirely freed himself from that spirit of intolerance he had severely condemned when exercised towards himself. [Isn't this typical of the Puritans/Calvinists?] But religion and politics were at the time inextricably mingled, and this Act may have been aimed at arbitrary, royal and priestly power, as much as at what was deemed false belief, and corrupt practices in the church. Mr. Lloyd was a republican in his politics, adhering to the Parliament rather than to the King, and then to the Protector as the guardian of the rights of the people. If he opposed the Lord Proprietary, it was not from a wish to deprive him of his property in the province he had founded, but of his regalia-those powers .and privileges which he claimed as a count palatine under the charter granted by the deposed king. He was unwilling to take an oath of allegiance which seemed to acknowledge or savor of royalty, even when the oath had been modified to suit the political scruples of him and his coadjutors; so uncompromising was he in his adherence to the principles of popular government.[maybe, maybe not] It has, however, been already mentioned that his political repugnances were very much softened, for he consented to accept office under Lord Baltimore, and subsequently be returned to live in London when England was indulging in the very saturnalia of royalty. But Mr. Lloyd's life was not spent in the indulgence of religious sentiment, nor in the defence or propagation of political theories. He was no mere enthusiast in what related to the Church and dreamer in what related to the State. This is evinced by his success in affairs purely practical-affairs strictly personal to himself. It would not do to say that he was not interested in discussions upon polemics or upon government, ecclesiastical or civil; but he was more interested in pushing his fortunes. He may even have taken some delight in harrying a priest, Romanist or Anglican, or witnessing the whipping of a Quaker by the constable of his hundred.¹³ He no doubt did take a kind of malicious pleasure in the discomfiture of the royalists of the province and in the triumph of the parliamentary forces at Homs Point on Severn river.[?! Really?-- Took maliscious pleasure in "Bloody Sunday"?-- The Puritans slaughtered the Catholics, including the POWs] But his more abiding gratifications were derived from the perusal of patents for broad acres, or the deeds for lands purchased of other patentees; from a contemplation of his fields broadening under cultivation and the corresponding increase of his crops; from the scanning of his lengthening roll of his servants, indentured and enslaved, introduced through his own agency, or purchased from the ships arriving in Patuxent and Severn and Wye; from numbering and marking his flocks of cattle, sheep, hogs and horses, that ran wild in his woods; from counting the double profits of his ship- ments of tobacco to England, and their proceeds returned in cargoes for Maryland consumers; and later when he became merchant in London, from the success of his commercial adventures; from the favorable reports of the trading of his factors or agents in America, and the letters of his son Philemon of the increasing value of his estates in Maryland. We are justified in believing Mr. Lloyd was in his business transactions diligent, laborious and judicious; there is no reason to doubt, if we may accept the doctrines of heredity, and judge him by his descendants, that he was direct, trusty and honorable. We know for the evidence remains to the present, that in the selection of his lands, for patent or purchase, he displayed most excellent judgment, for to this day they are among the best in this county. We also know that his planting was on a large scale, for it laid the foundation of a considerable fortune. We can only conjecture that his adventures in trade, discreetly planned and ably executed, were correspondingly great and profitable, for he transmitted to his son, Philemon, an estate, which largely increased by a provident (and not the less happy because provident), marriage made him one of the wealthiest men of the province and gave a social distinction to the family which it has maintained, and worthily maintained, to the present.

_{1. Among papers at Wye House are letters that seem to identify the Lloyds of Maryland with the Lloyds of Wales. One hundred years ago Richard Bennett Lloyd brought from England a blazon of the arms of the Lloyds, under which he wrote, September 14,1775, that they were the arms of the family that went from Wales to the province of Maryland. There is another heraldic evidence of the same point, which need not be recited.}

_{2. As for instance the tract of land in Talbot county called "Hyer Dier;" the Severn river in Anne Arundel; the Wye and Tred Avon (third Haven) creeks in Talbot.}

 _{3. There was an Edward Lloyd living at Elizabeth City, Virginia, as early as 1623. (Original lists, etc., by John Camden Hotten), Edward Lloyd was a Burgess in the Virginia Assembly, from Lower Norfolk county, Feb. 17, 1644--5. (Hening's statutes at Large), Vol. 1, page 289. A Cornelius Lloyd was a Burgess from the same county in 1642-3-4 and 1647 and (as Left. Coll. Cornelius Lloyd) in 1652 and 1653 (Hening). Whether the Edward Lloyd of 1623 was the same as the subject of this sketch is doubtful. But Edward Lloyd the Burgess was prob- ably he who shortly after the date last mentioned came to Maryland and became the founder of the family here.}

_{4.  Bozman's Hio't of Md., Vol. 11, page 407; where also may be found the essential parts of a commission to Mr. James Homewood, Mr. Thoznas Mears, Mr. Thomas Marsh, Mr. George Puddington, Mr. Matthew Hawkins, Mr. James Merryman and Mr. Henry Catlyn, who with the Commander, Mr. Lloyd, were to act as Commissioners and Justices of the Peace of the county-that is to say as judges of the county court.}

_{5. The names of these commissioners were Mr. Phillip Conner, Mr. Thomas Ringgold, Mr. Thomas Bradnox, Mr. Henry Morgan, Mr. Nic Browne, Mr. Thomas Hynson, Mr. Joseph Wickes, Mr. John Phillips and Mr. John Russell. Old Kent, page 28.}

_{6. E. D. Neill's Founders of Maryland, page 125.}

_{7. Biographical Cyclopedia, for Md. and Dist. Col. article Edward Lloyd. Neill in his Terra Mariae, page 119, says after stating that in 1853 Gov. Stone ordered oaths of fidelity to the Proprietary to be taken by the Puritans before he would issue them patents for lauds. "This created great excitement among the settlers, who had come from Nancexnond, Va., and their friends-men who had done more than any other to build up and give character to the colony; and Edward Lloyd and seventy-seven other persons of the house-keepers and freemen of Severn river, and Richard Preston and sixty others of Patuxent river, petitioned the corniyiissioners for the comnionwealth of England for relief."}

_{8.  This board of Commissioners was composed of these gentlemen, most of whom were Puritans and all of them, presumably, were commonwealth men or Cromwellians: Capt. William Fuller, Richard Preston, William Durand, Edward Lloyd, Capt. John Smith, Leonard Strong, John Lawson, John Hatch, Richard Wells, and Richard Ewen.}

9.  It will be perceived that no attempt has been made to give a full account of the Puritan dominance in Maryland. This has been left to the general history of the province; but the remark is ventured that the story of this period has been very imperfectly told, and is worthy of a more thorough and impartial study than has yet been bestowed upon it.

10. The appointment was made May 6th, 1658.

11. These gentlemen were his associates of the county court: Lieut. Richard Woolman, Mr. Seth Foster, Mr. James Ringgold, Mr. William Coursey, Mr. Thomas Powell, Mr. Symon Carpenter and perhaps others.

12.  An extract from the patent issued to him for a well-known tract of land may prove interesting, as it is illustrative of business methods at the date of its issue. "To all persons to whom these presents shall come greeting in our Lord God Everlasting: Know ye that We for and in consideration that William Davies, Overseer of the orphans of Walter Cooper, deceased, hath assigned to our trusty and well beloved Councillor, Edward Lloyd, Esquire, all the right to land to the said Walter Cooper for transporting himself, Ann his wife, Eliza- beth, Dorothy, Susan and Catherine Cooper, William Haynes, Thomas Green, Mary Gray, Jerry Brown, John Alinge, Catherine Hunt, Abraham Hope, George Rapin, John Fenworth, Will. A. Cooper, Solomon Alinge, Alex'r Francis and William Weikes, and for that the said Francis and William Weikes, an4 for that the said Edward Lloyd hath transported Philemon Lloyd, William Scott, Edward Trowell, Samuel Hawkins, Henry Hawkins, John Flemming, Hannah Gould, and Alice Paine, into this province, here to inhabit, and upon such conditions and terms as are expressed in our conditions of plantation, of our said Province of Maryland, &c." The patent then describes with metes and bounds the celebrated tract of Hyer-Dyer Lloyd, containing 3050 acres of land in what is now and for long has been called Oxford Neck, which it conveys to Mr. Lloyd, in consideration of the annual payment of 3E. Is. sterling, or 2 shillings for each hundred acres. This patent from Cecelius, Lord Baltimore, is dated Jan. loth, 1659 and signed by Jonas Fendall, "our Lieut. of our said Province." This tract now divided into many farms contained some of the best land of the county.

13.  Whether any Quaker was ever whipped in Maryland is a matter of dispute, but Edward Lloyd, the Puritan, was a member of the council in 1659 that "issued an order 'to seize and whip them (Quakers) from constable to constable' until they be sent out of the province."-Neill's Founders of Maryland, p. 131.

Matthew Howard & Wife Anne were sufficiently close to Cornelius Lloyd to name a son for him c. 1643

      
http://www.howard-concepts.com/HFEN/102.html

MATTHEW HOWARD, immigrant to Lower Norfolk Co., VA, whose children all went to Anne Arundel Co., MD, and shose wife was Anne.

Some feel she was Anne Hall, as a Richard Hall left bequests to Matthew, Anne and some of their children in his will of 1645. Others believe she could have been Anne Lloyd, as an Edward and his brother Cornelius Lloyd had a close relationship with Matthew Howard. Also, Cornelius Lloyd was a witness to the will of the above Richard Hall.

Regarding Matthew & Anne's son, Capt. Cornelius Howard, (ca 1643 VA-1680 MD. who married an Elizabeth. Again there is speculation here. Some say she was a Todd, d/o Thomas & Elizabeth Todd of Anne Arundel Co., MD, but this is not proven. Harry Wright Newman in Vol. 2, of Anne Arundel Gentry, in a footnote on page 261 states:

"for fifth or more years the identity of my ancestress, Elizabeth, the wife of Capt. Cornelius Howard, has haunted me. She was aunt to a daughter of Lancelot Todd and her husband, Capt. Howard, was a brother to John Sisson. The emigration of the orphan children of the Rev. John Gorsuch, a clergyman of the church of England, to America with their Mother after the death of their father...is a long and interesting story. Most of the children went direct to Virginia, but eventually settled in Maryland. Among the children of Rev. Gorsuch...was one Frances. On Nov 11, 1662 John Sisson demanded 600 acres of land for his own emigration and the transporting in 1659 of Frances his wife along with eight other settlers.... On May 13, 1661, Thomas Powell who was connected with the Gorsuch family claimed land-rights for transporting five members of the Powell family, Richard Gorsuch and Elizabeth Gorsuch and also five other transportees stating that six of the rights' are entered in behalf of Richard Gorsuch', Ref. Patents, Liber 4, folio 551. Elizabeth Gorsuch had previously been transported to Virginia along with her brothers, Charles, Robert and Richard and sisters Anne and Kathryn sometime before Feb 22, 1652/3 when Theodore Hoane, Gent. proved headrights. Ref: Patent Book No. 3, folio 187, VA State Library, Richmond. On Nov 10, 1690 Lancelot Tood who was also of kinship to the Gorsuchs wrote his will and provided that 'my daughter Mary have and enjoy the cow and her increase which her Aunt Elizabeth Howard gave her'. Ref. Wills. Liber 1, folio 219. "It is therefore proved that Elizabeth Gorsuch, who was baptized at Walkerne Parish, Herts, on May 13, 1641 arrived in Virginia before 1652 with other members of the Gorsuch, or her kinsman, Thomas Powell. It is furthermore proved that the Rev. Mr. Gorsuch had a daughter who is placed as Frances, the wife of John Sisson, whom he transported to Maryland in 1660. John Sisson in his will, proved March 16, 1663/4, styled Capt. Cornelius Howard as "brother", requested him to look after his jwife and children, and named him the overseer of his estate (Ref: Wills, Liber 1, folio 197). Therefore it is obvious that the exact relationship was that of "brother-in-law" and that Cornelius Howard and John Sisson had married sisters. On the other hand a daughter of Lancelot Todd being a niece of Madam Elizabeth Howard is therefore placed in relationship to the wife of Cornelius Howard. Anne Gorsuch, another daughter of the Rev. Mr. Gorsuch, married Thomas Tood, and as it is accepted that Lancelot Todd of Anne Arundel County was his son, therefore the relationship was that of a great-niece.

After reading this, I rather lean towards the wife of Cornelius Howard (who is my husband's ancestor) being Elizabeth Gorsuch.

The children of Capt. Cornelius & Elizabeth Howard are: 1 - Joseph (1676-1736) m. 1) Hannah Dorsey, d/o Capt. Edw. Dorsey; 2) Anne (Barnett) Burass; 3) Margery Keith. 9 children 2 - Cornelius (ca 1670-1716/17) m. Mary Roper, d/o Thomas Roper and Mary Heath (this is our line) 3 - Sarah, single 4 - Mary, single 5 - Elizabeth, mar. 1) Andrew Norwood (1634-1701); 2) Andrew Wellplay, d. 1708; 3) Charles Kilbourne. I have other descendants of this line, along with other descendants of Matthew Howard, if anyone is interested. CONTRIBUTED BY: Joan Ruse, XWTW51A@prodigy.com

The Howard Historian In this issue, our search into the relationship of the Stevens, Whites and Howards ends with the search for Edmund Howard.  The trail of Edmund Howard's immigration to Maryland is anything but clear, however, there are clues that bear further research. One of the paths seem to lead from the village of Heaton near Manchester. Just east of Manchester lie several land holdings which at one time belonged to the Dukes of Norfolk, among them Glossop Hall, Derwent Hall, The Farm at Sheffield, and Worksop Manor. Further research revealed that most of these holdings were brought to the Howard family through the marriage of Alathea Talbot to Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel. In 1664 and again in 1666, there are records indicating an Edmund Howard and a John Hayward (Howard) departed from Bristol bound for Richmond, Virginia. However, both times Edmund and John show up not in Richmond, but in Accomack County on the Eastern Shore of Virginia. On 12 July 1664 they appear as the headrights of Miles Gray and on 5 Apr 1666 they are claimed as headrights by Robert Johnson. A John Howard was also claimed as a headright by William Mellinge of Northampton 1 Mar 1650 along with Agnes Barnes, Ann Mellinge, Mary Gotridge and Humphrey Jones. William Mellinge was called cousin by Mrs. Mary Scarburge wife of Edmund Scarburge (Scarborough). Other people associated with Mellinge were John and Margaret Johnson, Thomas Simpson, Robert Watson, Richard Clark and Charles Hamor. Another possible immigration route is through Richard Wells, a churgeon from Long Island, Scotland, who immigrated to Charles City Co., Virginia. He claimed 50 acres of land for his own personal adventure 1 Aug 1637 and was a Burgess for Upper Norfolk Co., by 1645. He is said to have married Frances White who many believe to be the daughter of Richard White and Catherine Weston, but since he did not claim land for her upon his arrival, it is more likely he married after he came to the colonies. There are two records of a Richard Wells coming to the America's from Gravesend, both in 1635; one age 17 left on 24 July on the Assurance of London , the other age 26 left on 7 Aug on the Globe of London. Also leaving on 7 Aug was a Robert Wells aboard the Thomas of London. A William Batchelor was listed as a servant of Robert Wells who was assigned first to Stephen Burle then to William Stevens. On 1 Aug 1653, Richard demanded 500 acres of land in Northampton Co., Virginia then again on Oct 5, 1653, after the Act of Toleration was passed in Maryland, he demanded land for the importation of  his family and several servants, including an Edward Howard, a Will Connoway and a Richard Johnson. On the same date he assigned 600 acres to Mr. William Ayres out of the above deed. The Deed was witnessed by Thomas Hatton. Settlers from the same area in Upper Norfolk, VA who came to be associated with Howards were: Edmund Knight, Henry Yates, Robert Hodges, John & Thomas Powell, Richard Bennet [Editor's Note: Richard Wells' brother William Wells is thought to have married an Elizabeth Bennett], William Heires (Eyres), George White, John Gary, William Bonniday, Edward Dorsey (on land assigned from Cornelius Lloyd) and a William Howard. A Richard Wells and an Edward/Edmund Howard also seem to have been in the same area of Westmoreland Co., VA. The entire article is available in the Summer 2002 issue of "The Howard Historian"