Library Logo

Edward Lloyd (III)

The Councillor


The third son of Edward Lloyd (II) the President, and of Sarah Covington the Quakeress, was Edward Lloyd (III) who may be distinguished by the agnomen, the Councillor, because of his having held a seat in the Governor's Council for a great number of years. He was born May Sth, 1711, probably at Wye House, the plantation of his father. Of his education, academic and professional, nothing whatever is known. He may have been a pupil at King William's School at Annapolis, in flourishing condition during his minority, and then sent to England, in conformity with the custom of wealthy planters, for the completion of his studies. As his father died when he was in early youth, and as his mother soon married Mr. James Hollyday, an accomplished gentleman and distinguished lawyer, his education was doubtless directed by him; and it is very probable, under the same capable man, he acquired that knowledge of the low which qualified him for the efficient discharge of those duties to which he was called at an early period of his life and in which he was engaged almost to the day of his death.

Upon reaching his majority and coming into possession of his estate he engaged actively in planting, and from a letter of Henry Callister, still extant, dated Aug. 5th, 1747, it is probable he made ventures in trade or comerece," as was not unusual with large proprietors. It is to be inferred that as the wealth of the family continued to augment that the agricultural as well as the commercial enterprises of Colonel Lloyd, for he too was the recipient of such provincial titles as the Proprietary was justified in bestowing, and such as he might claim by a kind of hereditary privilege, were prosecuted with success. From whatsoever source derived his pecuniary means were such as enabled him to maintain a style of living suitable to the dignified position which he held in the colony, for the maintenance of which his official compensation was inadequate.

At an election held Dec. 15th, 1737, Mr. Edward Lloyd (III) was chosen one of the Delegates from Talbot County to the General Assembly having as his coadjutors elected at the same time, Mr. Nicholas Goldsborough, Mr. William Thomas, Jr. and Mr. Robert Lloyd.30 He held his seat in the Lower House until 1740, when he was called by Governor Samuel Ogle to be one of the Honorable Council of Maryland, of which body Col. Matthew Tilghman Ward was President and Hon. Samuel Charnberlaine was a member, both of Talbot county and kinsman of Mr. Lloyd. Mr. James Hollyday, the husband of Mr. Lloyd's mother, and formerly of the same county, was also a member. This statement will serve to show how nearly certain families monopolized the offices and gave to the government of the Province something of the character of an oligarchy. Mr. Lloyd, who now was made Colonel, held his seat at the Council Board for a great number of years, resigning on account of ill health Nov. 16th, 1769, to be succeeded by Col. William Fitzhugh, of Calvert county. To recite the part taken by Colonel and Honor- able (for thus it is written) Lloyd, in the public affairs of the colony from the time when he entered the House of Delegates until his resignation of his seat as Councillor would be to relate the history of Maryland for thirty-two years. This period may be characterized as one of peaceful growth and prosperity, notwithstanding the Spanish war in progress when Col. Edward Lloyd (III), surnamed the Councillor, went into office, the French and Indian War which was begun and completed during his incumbency, and the premonitory thunders of the war of the Revolution which were heard before his resignation; and notwithstanding, too, the distractions which were the result of the continued conflicts of the Governor and his Council, as representatives of the Lord Proprietary with the Lower House of Assembly as representatives of the people. It is not to be presumed that this peace was that of torpor and this prosperity that of mere material development; for considering the limited field, and the unimportant objects, there was much political activity; and the principals of civil liberty were receiving intelligent investigation by the best of all means, practical experience, and were acquiring increased influence and stability in the minds of the people. It is not believed that Col. Lloyd was in antag- onism to these principles, though it is to be presumed that hold- ing a commission as councillor from the Lord Proprietary, and as it were representing him he defended his rights and prerogatives, which as they were not clearly defined were constantly subject to dispute and contention, and his interests which not being identical with those of his colonists, were frequently assailed. He probably shared in the just indignation of Governor Sharpe that so much reluctance and hesitancy should be shown by the House of Delegates to vote supplies of men and money for the defence of the frontiers against the French and their Indian allies, even when the people were anxious and willing to bear the burdens, personal and pecuniary, of such supplies. When the -violent political excitement was aroused by the imposition by the British ministry of the Stamp tax upon all legal documents and newspapers, it was necessary for the Governor and his council to exercise the most prudent reserve lest they should jeopard the interest of the Proprietary, by bringing the Provincial in conflict with the Im- perial government, but from the well-known fact that the Governor, personally condemned the action of the British cabinet, we may presume that Col. Lloyd was in sentiment accordant with the people at large, though he was not so open in his hostility to the offensive measure.31 He was probably not one of the crowd that hung in effigy Zachariah Hood, the stamp officer before the Court House door in Talbot county; but he was probably in sympathy with the sentiment this act of some of our citizens in a very rude manner symbolized. When, later, duties upon the importations into the colonies were imposed by the British ministry, and the circular letter of the General Court of Massachusetts issued to the sister colonies, advising that petitions should be addressed to the King for the rescinding the obnoxious tax, was presented to the General Assembly of Maryland, notwithstanding the protest of Governor Sharpe against such measures as being "dangerous and factious," the Lower House drafted a petition which was presented by Robt. Lloyd, Esq., of this county, speaker, followed by all the members in procession, whereupon the General Assembly was prorogued by the Governor. This is not evidence that Col. Lloyd, as member of the Council, approved -or disapproved of the course of Governor Sharpe, but if he did, he con- travened the opinions and desire of the great body of the people of this ,county, he separated himself politically from many of his own kins- men, and he violated the traditions of his family which had constantly run in the direction of popular freedom and in opposition to arbitrary :authority. Though not living to share in that heated controversy, to which the clergy of the Province added intensity, originating in the :attempt of Governor Eden to establish fees by proclamation. Col. Lloyd, as councillor, participated in the framing of the comprehensive act of 1763, the expiration of which in 1770 was the occasion of the impolitic course of the Governor that wa,3 so acceptable to the ministers, but so offensive to the people, and that of the debates it provoked, was so influential in preparing the minds of Marylanders for the great Revolution that soon followed.32

From the year 1681 there had been a controversy between the Proprietaries of Maryland and of Pennsylvania respecting the boundaries of the two provinces. This vexatious, and at times exasperating conflict of title had been prolonged by negotiations, conferences, futile settlements, appeals to royal councils and to judicial tribunals. Finally on the 4th of July, 1760, an agreement was signed between Lord Baltimore and the joint Proprietaries of Pennsylvamia, Thomas and Richard Penn, according to which the bounds of their respective provinces were to be those defined in a previous agreement made in 1732 and affirmed by a decree of the High Court of Chancery, in England, of the year 1750. In conformity with this agreement Commissioners were appointed by the Council of Maryland, to meet Commissioners of Pennsylvania to carry into effect its provisions. This commission on the part of Lord Baltimore consisted of his Excellency, Horatio Sharpe, Benjamin Tasker, Jr., Edward Lloyd, Robert Jenkins Henry, Daniel Dulaney, Stephen Bordly, Esqs., and the Rev. Alexander Malcom. As the work of the commission was tedious and protracted, several of the original commissioners resigned and others were appointed in their stead. Among these were the Rev. John Barclay, at one time Rector of St. Peter's Parish, Talbot county, and John Leeds, Esq., at one period Clerk of Talbot county court. Both of these gentlemen were men of most respectable attainments in geodesy, and upon the last Gov. Sharpe relied upon more than upon any other person for protection of the interests of Lord Baltimore. Messrs. Mason and Dixon were subsequently employed, (1763) as surveyors, and from them, as is well known the line between Pennsylvania and Maryland, which has acquired a political significance, derived its name. The final report of the commissioners was made Nov. 9th, 1768, of which it has been said that "it is worthy of preservation as a model of accuracy and fidelity in the record of public transactions." Thus it came to pass that Talbot was participant actively and prominently, through two of her most conspicuous sons, born and bred upon her soil, and a third adopted son, in tracing that famous line, in theory imaginary, but in fact intensely real, being felt and seen in the differing social institutions and in the antagonistic opinions that prevailed on either side in years that followed its original projection.

Citizens of this county, among whom was the subject of this biographical sketch, was connected with that most interesting episode in colonial history, the expulsion of the Acadians, or French Neutrals, from Nova Scotia. Over this, adopted as the theme of song and story, sentiment has dropped the sympathetic tear and humanity uttered its indignant groans. Even sober narrative has not been able to escape falling into romance when attempting to tell the tale, until these recent days, when broader and brighter light has dispelled so many historic illusions.34 After many ineffectual attempts to secure the faithful obedience of the French of Acadia to English authority and rule, the Government resolved to remove this disaffected and really dangerous people from their homes, and to scatter them through the British provinces where they could do no harm. It is well known that five ship loads of them were sent to Maryland, and of these one discharged its living cargo at Oxford, in this county, Dec. 8th, 1755, consigned to Mr. Henry Callister, the factor or agent of the Messrs. Cunliffe of Liverpool. There was great reluctance on the part of the people of this county to receive these people, who were utterly destitute and dependent upon public and private charity. Nor was there entire willingness upon the part of the provincial authorities to admit them, Col. Lloyd, one of the council protesting, as will appear from his letter presently to be quoted. It would be out of place to give here an account of the " Acadians " brought to Talbot, but is sufficient to say Mr. Callister and the Rev. Thomas Bacon, Rector of St. Peter's Parish, particularly interested themselves in their behalf, though they met much opposition from the people at large.35

It would seem that a large share of the burden of their support fell upon Col. Lloyd, and that he complained of and protested against the imposition, and that he encountered the reprobation of Mr. Callister, who in a letter to Gov. Sharpe of Jan. 17th ' 1756, said: "Your Excellency's sensibility of the sufferings of the wretched exiles among us, emboldens your petitioner, on behalf of them and myself to make a direct application to the fountain head, having met with great obstacles, though I have not spared pains to touch the souls of those whose immediate care it ought to be (especially in your Excellency's absence) at least to have assisted me. I have been shocked in a particular manner by the opposition of the Honorable Col. Lloyd. I shall stop here, lest I should say anything that might be disagreeable to you or seem injurious to him.36 As indicative of the grounds of the opposition of Col. Edward Lloyd may be quoted his letter written soon after the arrival of these involuntary immigrants at Oxford, to his half-brother, Mr. James Hollyday, then pursuing his legal studies in England. It will be recollected this was after the defeat of Braddock, when there was great alarm in the Provinces, out of which grew the conference of the Governors which was then attended by Gov. Sharpe of Maryland. The letter, all of it except what was of a purely private character, was as follows:

We are in a most unhappy situation here, being often alarmed and under apprehension that the French and Indians will penetrate far into our country. The horid cruelties that they have acted oil some of ours as well as the Virginia and Pennsylvania black inhabitants, is most shocking and arousing. They impale men and women and even children, and set them ypon high by way of scare-crows, and mangle the bodies in a most frightful manner as a terror to others. The act of scalping has introduced this. 'Tis amazing that any civilized nation should countenance this practice. It ought to be held as against the laws of the nations.37 Our armies are all gone into winter quarters, although within this month we have been threatened with an attack on our army at Lake George. The report was that 9 1000 French and Canadians were on their march to attack Gov. Johnson; but this gasconade or boast presently went off in a mere puff. From Nova Scotia Gov. Lawrence has sent home into Maryland 903 of the people, who call themselves neutral French. A copy of his letter I here enclose you. They have been here this month.

The Governor being in New York, Mr. Tasker cglled a Council. The resolution, if it may be called a resolution or advice, you have also here enclosed. As no doubt much will be talked in London of this transaction, you'll from that and the knowledge you have of the law of nations, form an adequate judgment of the fitness of the measures taken not only by us, but the Council of Nova Scotia. These inhabitants before the treaty of Utrecht were said to be the subjects of the King. As such, no allegiance or obedience could be required of them by the King of England; therefore as soon as this place was ceded to the Crown of England, rather than distress or deprive them of the property they had gained on that part of the Continent, his Majesty was most graciously pleased to offer them the most advantageous terms that could be, consistent with the British Constitution, i.e., that they should remain in possession of all they had on condition that they would become subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, and manifest their allegiance and willingness to the said King, by taking the oath or oaths prescribed to that end.

These were the terms by which these people were to be distinguished as subjects of the King of England. This, however, it is said and well- known to be true, they would not condescend or subscribe to. Then in the first place, it may well enough be made a question whether that act which they are charged with, as being in arms in the French fort at Bodusejour,38 when it surrendered amounts to rebellion, it being said that they never had consented to become subjects of the King of Eng- land. If the conclusion may be that they cannot be deemed rebels, then they are taken and held as prisoners of war; and this to me seems the proper state to set them in, for it seems that the subjects of the King of England, and I suppose by his command, for breach of treaty committed by these French, invaded and overcame with armed power and took them as prisoners of war, and retaining them sent them as such into this province to the care of the government. This government received them in that state from the Captain that brought them here, and after- wards sent them in several counties not under the restraint or confine- ment of any person, but let them at large and to their own liberty. It may be here made a question whether this conduct be prudent or consistent with good policy, for as enemies they came here and as such they must certainly remain, because they are all rigid Roman Catholics and so attached to the French King, that sooner than deny his power over them, they have quitted all that they had in the world. Now then, if it should be asked of us how came these enemies to go at large, what can be said in our justification? I fear our, or rather I should say, the President's (Tasker) conduct in this will not bear a legal scrutiny. I was against this, I assure you. However, I shall be obliged if you'll give me your opinion candidly and as explicitly as your time will permit; and if you should be able to collect Mr. Calvert's opinion of this transaction, pray favor me with it, which you may easily do by means of Mr. Anderson or Mr. Hanbury. He sometimes dines at each of their houses where I say you may see him. That they were taken and sent here as prisoners of war, there can be no doubt I think, as we cannot devise any other honorable way of depriving those people, who are all free born, of their liberty. Now it has been made a question whether they could be justly deemed prisoners of war, as no declaratin of war has been made since the last treaty of peace.39 To this inayn't it well be said that as the people have violated the treaties entered into with the crown of England, either by committing open hostilities or assisting and abetting those that did, I say that they did thereby put themselves against the King, whence the King of England was impliedly acquitted from performing his part of the treaty with them and might renew the war without any proclamation, since by that acquaintance he became in the same state to them as he was in before the treaty was concluded. If this be the case, then they were brought here as prisoners of war and are liable to be called for on a cartel. What will our government say or do, having released them from that just duress or imprisonment which the government of Novia Scotia put upon them? They are restored or are again in a state of freedom. Query then: can this or any other Government restrain them after such liberty granted, or without some new violation or breach of the laws as to put them under confinement, or can they oblige them into servitude? I say my opinion on the President's question was, that these people should be suffered to land but should be restrained of their liberty. This advice I think consistent and most proper, and the measure that ought to have been pursued, for it may well be apprehensive of them as enemies, as they at Halifiax had. But suppose this was not the case, they ought not to have been released or suffered to be at large by us, as they were the King's prisoners, and he alone is to order their releasement.

The resolution of Mr. Tasker, it is said, has taken, is I think, impolitic. He has ordered two of the four vessels to this shore, one at Oxford with 200, the other to Wicomico with, they tell me, 260 additional, another at Patuxent and the 4th stays at Annapolis, 40 without any comemitment to the sheriff, so that they were at large for some time till Callister got many of them on board some vessels, one of which with sixty odd, was ordered by him into this river, Wye, and the Captain instructed to land them on my plantation for me to do what I pleased with them, and this not only against my consent, but in manifest opposition to me, although I had in order to prevent their starving or being too heavy a burden on the town of Oxford, ordered my store-keeper to pay Mr. Callister five pounds a week for their subsistence at Oxford, where I expected they all would be kept under sornerule. But he is so far from grateful for this benefaction, that he has sent the above said number, all to 8 or 9 that were left with Matthew Tilghman and Phil. Hambleton, and ordered them to be quartered on me, which will subject me to the expense of at least £l2 a week, besides making liable to a great deal of danger by their corrupting mine and other negro slaves on this river, of which there is at least the number of 300 that may be called Roman Catholics, who being by some very late practices and declarations dangerous in them- selves, become much more so by the addition of these people. I say dangerous, because some of my slaves have lately said they expected that the French would soon set them free, and Nic. Griffin, that was Fitshugh's overseer, was taken up the other day on information and affidavits that he had said the negros would soon be all free men. If you think my sentiments just in respect to the conduct of our great man, then the greatest, and that these French, from the intention of Gov. Lawrence, in sending them here, ought not to have been suffered at large, be pleased to do me justice, and set me in a true light by saying that I was against this procedure. For this end it is that I have said so much on this head and you may also say that through necessity and to save them from starving for the weather is very sharp and the sloop froze up in the river, I pay E5 per week towards the maintenance of 30 odd at Oxford, and expect every hour to be put to an additional expense of E12 a week for the support of them that are here and can't get away, should the river be all froze up, which is likely. The Governor, had he been here when they were brought, would have prevented all this uneasiness and expense to private individuals. He, I dare say, would have had them, the men at least, committed or taken into safe custody, but he was at New York, attending a grand meeting or Congress of the Governors and is but just come home. With great good will and sincere regard your affectionate brother,

Edward Lloyd.

I am to attend the Gov. as soon as weather permits.41

The fact that this long letter, so out of proportion with the brevity of this memoir of the writer, is ahnost the only paper in existence from his hand, would excuse its insertion here; but the interesting character of its contents would afford ample apology, if every other was wanting. It reviews with the eye of a statesman the action of the British author- ities, it discusses intelligently the status of the deported Acadians, it throws light upon an obscure subject in Maryland history, and gives unexpected insight into the religious, political and social condition of the people of this county,42 but what is of importance in this connection, it vindicates Col. Lloyd from the amputations, dangerous to his memory, from their very obscurity, thrown upon him by Mr. Callister in his letter already quoted. It shows that his objections to the introduction of the Acadians were not of a selfish character, but based upon apprehensions of danger to the commonwealth at large; for while he was protesting against their introduction he was rendering liberal assistance to these ex iles, and affording some of them protection from suffering and starvation.

Col. Lloyd was far from disdaining offices of emolument, though ambitious of provincial honors and blessed with ample fortune. He had been appointed Receiver General of the Province for the Lord Proprietor, which office, the fees of which were very considerable, he resigned in March or April, 1768, to be succeeded by the Rev'd Bennett Allen, somewhat notorious as the "fighting parson."43 Col. Lloyd held his seat in the Council until some time in the year 1769, when, apparently on account of impaired health, he resigned to be succeeded in his place by Col. William Fitzhugh, of Calvert county, who was sworn in on the 16th of November of that year. It may be well enough to note that the Hon. Samuel Chamberlaine, the first of the name, of this county, long his associate in the government of the Province, and his kinsman, resigned his seat at the Board at or about the same date.

The Lloyds of Wye, after Edward (I) the Puritan, seem to have taken little interest in religion, with the exception of the subject of this memoir, and his interest seems to have been slight. Since his time they have had no part in the administration of the church temporalities, and religion with them has been a matter of purely personal concern.44 Perhaps this is attributable to the survival of an ancestral prejudice against popery and prelacy, of which they themselves are hardly conscious. We know that Col. Lloyd (III) was not well affected towards Roman Catholics, but this feeling, if it had not a political origin, was strength- ened by a suspicion of disloyalty in the people of this faith. However this may be, no Lloyd of Wye was vestryman, or other church officer, no Lloyd of Wye contributed for church building or other uses, aside from the legal assessment, until the year 1734, when for the first time the name of Edward Lloyd (III) appears in the list of vestrymen of St. Michaels parish, where it remained during the two following years. Then for thirty years no mention is made of him in the church records either as church officer or even as contributor to church funds; but in 1766 he was again elected vestryman and was continued in this office the following year. It is not meant to be intimated that the Lloyds of Wye have been irreligious or illiberal men. In truth they have been neither. They have never been dreamy, sentimental and imaginative, qualities one or the other of which is necessary to make devotees. On the contrary they have been eminently practical, but never so much as to make their religion a device for their personal advancement, here or hereafter, without the labor of right living.

Col. Lloyd (III) married, March 26th, 1739, Miss Ann Rousby, of Patuxent, by whom he had these children: Elizabeth, who became the wife of General Cadwallader, of Philadelphia; Henrietta Maria, who merely perpetuated the name of that excellent lady, her grandmother, and died unmarried; Edward, (IIII) who became master of Wye House, and married Miss Elizabeth Tayloe, of Virginia, the mother of Edward Lloyd, the Revolutionary patriot; and Richard Bennett, who, going to England became a Captain in the Coldstream Guards, and married a celebrated beauty, Joanna Leigh of North Court, Isle of Wight, England. A full length portrait of Capt. Richard Bennett Lloyd by Charles Willson Peale, painted 1775, hangs in the drawing room at Wye House.

Col. Lloyd died Jan. 27th, 1770, and was interred at Wye House, where a tomb is erected to his memory bearing this inscription:

Here lie interred
the remains of the Hon. Col.
Edward Lloyd, who departed this life
the 27th of January 177045
aged 59 years.
  1. Callister, who at this date was sub-factor under Robt. Morris, the chief- factor of the Cunliffes of Liverpool has a store at the Head-of-Wye. He says "Bennett will have a store at Wye-town, another at home, R. Lloyd and Ed. Lloyd have only goodi3 for their own families." In a letter of a much later date, Nov. 28th, 1764, addressed to Col. Lloyd, recommending his nephew, just from the Isle of Man, as a person fitted to perform the duties of a second mate on ship- board, he refers to the fact of Col. Lloyd's having ships, engaged in commerce with England and the West India islands. From the records of the Court of Queen Anne's county, it is known that in 1756, if not earlier, Mr. Lloyd was one of a house of London transacting a commercial business under the style of Richard Lloyd & Company, of which Richard Lloyd, Edward Lloyd and William Anderson were partners.
  2. Mr. Robert Lloyd was the son of James Lloyd, of "Hope," who was the son of Philemon Lloyd (1) the Indian Commissioner.

    Though hardly relevant, the following extract from the records of Talbot County Court may be interesting as showing the manner of conducting elections.

    At a Court of the Right Honorable Charles, Absolute Lord Proprietary of the Provinces of Maryland, and Avalon, Lord Baron of Baltimore, &c., held for Talbot County at the Court House, near Pitts his Bridge in the county aforesaid the first day of December, Anno Domini, one thousand seven hundred and thirty- seven, by the virtue of a writ of the same Lord Proprietary, to John Goldsborough, Esquire, High Sheriff Talbot County aforesaid, to elect four Deputies and Delegates to serve for the said county at a General Assembly of this Province, before the same Lord Proprietary his Justices of the Peace for the county aforesaid, of whom were present

    Mr. Thomas Bozman,Mr. Perry Benson and The Worshipful Mr. William Thomas, Jr.

    Thomas Bullen, Clerk.

    Thereupon the same sheriff maketh public proclamation, thereby giving notice to all freemen of the said county, who have within the same county a freehold of fifty acres of land, or who are residents and have a visible estate of forty pounds sterling, at the least, thereby requiring them to appear at the said County Court House the 15th day of this instant December to elect and choose four Deputies and Delegates to serve for the said county in the General Assembly of this Province.

    Whereupon the Court adjourns to the same fifteenth day of December, at which issid fifteenth day of December, the Justices of Talbot County, to wit: Mr. Thomas Bozman Mr. Risdon Bozman The Worshipful Mr. Perry Benson Mr. John Robins Mr. John Leeds Thomas Bullen, Clerk. Again here come, and as a Court for the cause assigned sit; and the Freeholders and Residents of the said county do elect and choose Nicholas Goldigborough, Wm. Thomas Jr., Edward Lloyd and Robert Lloyd of Talbot county, gentlemen, to serve as Deputies and Delegates for the county aforesaid at the said General Assembly, according to Act of Assembly, in such case, made and provided." The voting was viva voce and at a single place. Under this system, slightly modified after the War of the Revolution, the elections were held until the year 1801, when for the first time Judges of Election were appointed for each of the election districts into which the county had just been divided.

  3. It would be out of place to enter here into an examination of the causes of the dissidence of the Governor and the House of Delegates. it may suffice to say they had their origin in the old Propriatary and popular antagonism-not in a lack of patriotic devotion. In a letter of Robt. Lloyd, Esq., to the Hon. Jos. Hollyday, in London, under date of Oct. 20th, 1755, he says: "The French and Indians are nibbling at our frontiers and no one seems to have resolution enough to set the dogs at them. * * * Your assistance will be wanting for the relief of a distressed country, the good of which you know we have, all, much at heart, would our grand lords and masters permit us to furnish the necessary means for our defence. We have offered to give and they have refused, till now they won't ask or even give us a public opportunity of either giving or refusing.
  4. Strictly speaking there were two controversies, namely, that relating to the "Proclamation" and that relating to the "Vestry Act." But they had the same origin. The reader is referred to books of general State history, for elucidation of these interesting subjects of ante-revolutionary history.
  5. McMahon's Hist. of Md., Vol. 1, p. 45. Mr. George Johnson, of Cecil county, who has published a full account of Mason & Dixon's line, thus refers in a private letter, dated Nov. 30th, 1878, to the compiler of this memoir, of the part taken by Col. Lloyd in the supervision of the work of the surveyors: "You will find by reference to the first chapter of my article on the History of that line that after the surveyors had traced it, the due north one, for a few miles north from the middle point in the peninsula line, they found by observations that they made as directed, that they failed to trace a true meridian, and that they returned copie of their journal or field notes to the Governors of the respective provinces, and afterwards received instructions to retrace the line. The names of the commissioners on the part of Maryland who revised their work and who detected some errors in it which had led to the deflection from the true meridian were Horatio Sharpe, J. Ridout, Richard Peters, Lynford Landner, Edward Lloyd, John Leeds, and Rives Holt, of whom Mr. Lloyd and Mr. Leeds were of Talbot county. "
  6. See the account of Parkman in his "Montealm & Wolf."
  7. The address of the electors and freeholders of Talbot county to their Dele- gates in Assembly, praying " to have the pest removed " was painted in the Easton Star, of Dec. 2nd, 1879, as part of the paper upon the "Poor House" of Talbot county.
  8. Callister letters as quoted by Scharf in Hist. Md. Vol. 1, p. 476.
  9. And yet at the very next meeting of the General Assembly a provision was made for the payment of ten pounds for every scalp of "Indian enemies, or for every Indian prisoner brought in." See Bacon's Laws, Act of Assembly of Feb. 1756, Chap. v. Query: Was there not a like provision in some previous Act, and did not Col. Liovd refer to this?
  10. This was fort Beausejour, situated upon an arm of the Bay of Fundy, cap- tured by General Moncton in 1755, in which were a number of refugee Acadians. It was by Monkton that the first announcement was made of the purpose of the British Government to remove these people.
  11. The anomalous condition existed of war between the English and French colonies, while the parent governments were nominally at peace.
  12. A fifth was sent to Baltimore countv.
  13. For this letter the writer is indebted to Mr. George Tilghman Hollyday, of Baltimore, a descendant of the gentleman to whom it was addressed. It has also been printed in the Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, for Dec. 1883.
  14. The reference in this letter to the apprehended influence of these Neutral French upon the negro slaves of the county, is a curious illustration of the sus- ceptibility of the minds of our people of fears of servile insurrection, which com- mencing thus early, and perhaps earlier, continued down to most recent times.
  15. Maryland Gazette, April 7th, 1768.
  16. Some branches of the family have furnished exceptions.
  17. Another record of his death, apparently authentic, gives the date of his demise as Feb. 8th, 1770. The change from the old to the new style may account for this discrepancy of eleven days.