Janet F Brown, MD

The second half of the 17th century brought unprecedented economic growth to Maryland. Ag­ricultural entrepreneurship and a larger labor pool, including native-born colonists, raised the living standards.2 The ownership of Part DeLaBrooke Manor passed via wills, sales, and marriages, thereby connecting the emerging power brokers of Maryland (figure 1 ).

Religious conflict continued to play a role in the colony’s power structure. When Oliver Cromwell’s Lord Protectorate role ended and the English monarchy was restored in 1658, 2nd Lord Baltimore Cecil Calvert resumed control of Maryland and reinstituted religious tolerance. His son, Charles Calvert, succeeded him in 1675. The families that owned Part DeLaBrooke Manor were tied to the Calverts/ Lords Baltimore. Upheaval resurfaced in England when James II was deposed by his daughter and her husband, Protestants William III and Mary. Maryland’s Revolution of 1689 soon followed, which put Protestants back in power. Maryland’s Protestant government suspended the Act of Toleration and excluded Catholics from participation. The owners of Part DeLaBrooke Manor adapted to survive.

One remarkable Part DeLaBrooke Manor owner during this period was Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall (1640-1725). She faced many challenges during a time when women were vulnerable and had few rights. Through strength of character, she enabled her family to prosper.

As reported in Part 1 (Spring 2024 issues of the Chronicles of St. Marys and The Generator) DeLaBrooke Manor’s first owner, Robert’ Brooke, devised his manor to his two “of age” sons in 1655.

Thomas received the Part DeLaBrooke Manor. For the next three years, Thomas (1632-1676) and Baker (1628-1678/79) were focused on caring for their mother, their ten minor siblings, and their plantations. However, with the average male life expectancy of 43 years, delaying marriage risked their future children’s security. When a father died, the law considered his minor children orphans. Should their male guardian or mother lack the financial resources to care for them, the children would be indentured to another family, even as young as three years of age. Finding a wife was challenging as men outnumbered women at a ratio of 3: 1.3 The population was small, just 2300 colonists residing in about 330 households in the entire Western Shore of Maryland.

Plantation owners were tied through trade, religion, and participation in government. Thomas’ father, Robert’ and fellow protestant, Lt. Richard Banks, had leadership roles in Maryland’s Parliamentary Commission. Robert’ Brooke had served as Maryland’s Governor in 1652 and Lt. Banks was a member of the Commission and a Justice. Through this connection, Thomas met Lt. Banks’ stepdaughter, Elinor Hatton.

Though records are sparce, what is known about Elinor Hatton is she was the sixth of seven children born to Richard and Margaret Hatton in Lymm, England (east of the bustling English seaport of Liverpool). In 1648, eight years after her baptism, her father died at age 44. Her mother, her remaining five siblings ( ages 4-15 years old) and one family servant were transported to Maryland by her uncle, Thomas Hattan. Margaret’s widowhood was short-lived. She married Lt. Richard Banks by 1652 and Elinor’s older sister, Elizabeth, married Luke Gardiner, a Catholic landowner. Luke resided at Canoe Neck on the shores of St. Clement’s Bay, opposite the Newtowne Catholic Church (see figure 2). In 1654, while Maryland was under Protestant rule, Lt. Banks sued Luke Gardiner in Provincial Court. Elinor’s uncle, Thomas Hatton, was Attorney General, Provincial Secretary and Judge. The case centered around thirteen-year-old Elinor, who was living with her older sister, Elizabeth and her husband, Luke Gardiner. The records from the Archives of Maryland tell the story:

Provincial Court 3 April 1654

“By the Lieutenant of Maryland. Whereas I am given to understand that Luke Gardiner doth in an uncivil, refractory, insolent manner detain at his house one Elinor Hatton, a young girl, daughter to the wife of Lieutenant Richard Bancks [sic] and niece to Mr. Thomas Hatton, his Lordship’s Secretary. Endeavoring (as is probably suspected) to train her up in the Roman Catholic religion contrary to the mind and will of her said Mother and Uncle, who have often demanded her of the said Luke, who refuseth to return her to either of them … Said Luke Gardiner [is] not only a great affront to the Government and an injury to the Girl’s Mother and Uncle, but Likewise of very dangerous and Destructive consequence ln relation to the peace and Welfare of this Province. These are therefore in the Lord Proprietor’s name to authorize and require said Lt. Richard Bancks, commander of Newtowne Hundred, either by himself or together with such other inhabitants of this Province whom he Shall require for his assistance herein … by force of arms or otherwise as he shall see cause to seize upon the person of Elinor Hatton and to bring her before me and the Council at St. Maries to be disposed of as shall be fit. And in case of her concealment, to search the house of said Luke Gardiner or any other place within this Province where he the said Lt. Bancks shall suspect she may be hidden so as she may be produced for the purpose aforesaid. As also to Arrest the said Luke Gardiner, and to bring him likewise before the council before me and the Council to answer such things as shall be objected against him by the said Mr. Hatton, either as Attorney General for his Lordship or on his own behalf and to Stand to and abide the Order of Court thereupon hereof you are not to fail. Given at St. Maries this third day of April 1654. William Stone [Governor of the Province]”

Rather than recuse himself, Elinor’s uncle used his authority to forcibly return Elinor to the home of her mother and stepfather. Imagine how intimidating this was for a 13-year-old, especially a girl!

“At a Court held at St. Maries the tenth day of April 16547
Present: William Stone Esq., Governor Captain John Price, Mr. Thomas Hatton, Secretary, Mr. Thomas Hatton, his Lordship’s Secretary and Attorney General, on his Lordship’s behalf and on behalf of himself this day declared against Luke Gardiner for detaining Elinor Hatton, his niece, a girl of about twelve years old, from him the said Secretary and her Mother, endeavoring to train her up in the Roman Catholic religion with other things in the said Attorneys declaration contained. The said Luke appearing in this Suit upon a Special Warrant from the Governor and both parties being heard at large touching the matter in question, the Court for the present pronounced no other order therein, only that the said, Elinor Hatton, who was present in court, and brought in upon the Said Special Warrant, should be returned and left to the disposition of her said Uncle.” Despite the religious animosity this case record suggests, Thomas Hatton had loyally served the Catholic Lord Baltimore as his Secretary, Council member, Justice and Attorney General. Just one year later in 1655, he fought and was executed at the Battle of Severn defending Lord Baltimore’s interests. There is no record that Luke and Elizabeth Gardiner received any punishment.

Thomas and Elinor Brooke’s Marriage Brought Success

Thomas Brooke and Elinor Hatton were married in 1658 and made their home at Part DeLaBrooke Manor just south of Catt Creek. Despite the court case brought by Banks, Elinor did convert to Catholicism and raised their children in the Catholic faith. Her husband converted to Catholicism soon after their marriage and now shared the same religion with Lord Baltimore. In addition to operating their plantations, the two oldest Brooke brothers entered colonial service. Thomas, an experienced hunter with the Indians , joined the colonial military and rose quickly in rank from captain to major. Protecting the Patuxent River plantations was his duty. He benefitted from the lucrative post as Calvert County Sheriff between 1666 and 1669 and was a Justice. Calvert County was comprised of land on both sides of the Patuxent River during this time. (Baker was appointed Surveyor General and he served in the Upper House from 1658 until his death in 1678/9). Their colonial service brought them additional land grants. Thomas received Brookfield, on the south side of the Patuxent River near Upper Marlborough, in what is now Prince George’s County. Instead of transient trees and fence lines to denote property lines, Thomas placed stone markers with his initials, T.B. One of those markers is the origin for the current Maryland town renowned for the shortest name, “TB.” It lies just north of Waldorf. In 1664 Baker married Ann Calvert, the daughter of the late Governor Leonard Calvert ( one of the original Ark and Dove passengers who had died in 1647). This marriage was likely arranged by her uncle, the 2nd Lord Baltimore, Cecil Calvert. With his marriage, Baker also converted to Catholicism. (See top/right of figure 1 ). Thomas and Elinor lived at Part DeLaBrooke Manor and had seven children: Thomas (b. 1659), Elinor, Robert (b. 1663), Ignatius (b. 1670), Matthew (b. 1673), Mary, and Clement (b. 1676).12 Elinor insured they received a formal education, rare in the l 600’s. Years later, three sons; Robert, Ignatius and Matthew, who were educated at St. Omer’s College in Europe, became Jesuit priests.

Robert Brooke became the first native-born Maryland Jesuit priest in 1684, headed the local Jesuit Mission (1708-1712) and was described as, ” … very solidly grounded in learning, even­ balanced in temperament.” The Brooke plantations were flourishing. Luke and Elizabeth Hatton Gardiner and their neighbors, Robert and Rebecca Cole, lived on St. Clements Manor, about ten miles overland from Thomas and Elinor’s home at Part DeLaBrooke Manor (see figure 2). They were closely connected. All were Catholic, served as godparents for each other’s children, and their farms were similar in size. Upon the untimely deaths of Robert and Rebecca Cole in 1662, Luke Gardiner, became guardian of their minor children pursuant to Robert Cole’s will (witnessed by Thomas2 Brooke). Luke was their social safety net, as the Coles had no family in America. From Gardiner’s meticulous records found in those guardianship documents and the book, Robert Coles World by authors, Carr, Menard and Walsh, we are given a window into colonial farm Iife.

The 1660’s saw the “most rapid economic expansion seen in history.” Unlike England, those early farm owners had opportunities to accumulate wealth based on their own work. When successful, they provided an inheritance beyond their eldest son. The immigrants risked everything, including their lives, for the chance to provide a better future for their children.

Tobacco was their money crop, as well as currency. Colonists paid taxes, purchased goods and valued estates in pounds of tobacco. Cultivation was labor-intensive. Plants were grown in hills, not the rows of today. In the 1640’s one farm worker
could raise 911 pounds of tobacco in a year, but by the 1660’s productivity rose to 1400-1500 pounds per man per year. Farm owners refined their agricultural processes through crop rotation, curing pruning in lower leaves, weatherproof topping shelters to remove and flowering lower shipping costs by tightly packing the dried leaves in hogsheads.

Higher production resulted in lower prices per pound in accordance with principles of supply and demand. To address this issue, Virginia’s governor called for regulation of production, but Lord Baltimore rejected this plan because of its unintended consequences and impossible enforcement. Gardiner wisely diversified his farm operations by running a dairy, and raising cattle, hogs and horses. The Gardiners and Brookes also planted orchards and Indian corn, hunted, and fished to feed their household. Each expanded their land holdings.

Just two years later and soon after the birth of a son, 44-year-old Thomas Brooke fell ill, penned his will on 25 October 1676 and died two month
later.

Elinor, at age 36, was suddenly widowed with seven minor children: Thomas (17), Elinor, Robert, Clement. lgnatious Elinor, now Matthew faced the same Mary and predicaments baby her mother and mother-in-law faced in 1648 and 1655. Thomas’ death seems premature by our current standards, but in 17th century Maryland, 70% of men would die before age fifty and 93% left minor children. Probate records revealed that Thomas had amassed an estate totaling 7,742 acres, 10 slaves, 10 indentured servants and personal property valued at 95,000 pounds of tobacco (the equivalent of the annual production of 64 men).23 In his will, he gave Elinor a life interest in his home plantation, Part DeLaBrooke Manor (its meets and bounds were delineated in his will). After her death, the portion from Cat Creek to the main branch of Second Creek was to pass to his eldest son, Thomas, and south of Second Creek extending to St. Cuthbert’s Creek (now Cole’s Creek) to his next son, Robert 25. Elinor and Thomas’ brothers, Baker and Roger Brooke, were named co-executors. Baker and Roger declined to serve and thus Elinor managed the estate and became the legal guardian of their children. These were unique roles for a woman at that time.

Another Strategic Marriage:

Elinor Hatton Brooke to Col. Henry Darnall Elinor married again to Col. Henry Darnall. He was politically connected through his father, Philip, who had served as Secretary to 1st Lord Baltimore, George Calvert and was a “cousin” of the Calverts.
Col. Darnall immigrated in 1664, was Catholic and a widower with a son, Philip. He served as Sheriff of Calvert County from 1674-1679, a position Thomas Brooke held the prior decade. Soon after Elinor and Col. Darnall’s marriage they began their second families: Mary (b. 1678), Ann (b. 1680), Henry2 II (b. 1682) and Elizabeth. Col. Darnall’s political career flourished with many appointments including as a Provincial Court Justice and an Upper House member with Nicholas Sewall, Col. William Digges, and his brother, John Darnall. (highlighted in yellow in Figure 1 ).
Part DeLaBrooke Manor Sold to John Darnall (who married Susannah Bennett)
With the economic security brought by her marriage, Elinor relinquished her life interest in Part DeLaBrooke Manor to her sons, Thomas3 and Robert3 in 1684. Thomas3 sold his portion to Col. Henry Darnall’s brother, John Darnall.27 Robert3 became a Jesuit priest in 1684 and donated his portion to the Jesuit Mission in 1689.28 John Darnall was Provincial Secretary and served on the Council with his brother.

John Darnall’s political and family connections facilitated his marriage to Susannah Bennett and his Part DeLaBrooke Manor purchase. Susannah Bennett was the daughter of Richard Bennett and Henrietta Maria Neale. She was the granddaughter of Gov. Richard Bennett who was closely tied to Robert Brooke. Henrietta Maria Neale was the daughter of James Neale, who previously served as King Charles I’s Ambassador to Spain and now resided at Wallaston Manor on the Wicomico River (see figure I, lower right). She was named for King Charles I’s wife, Henrietta Maria (Maryland was also named for her). Richard Bennett drowned, leaving Henrietta with two young children, Susannah and Richard Bennett. She married Protestant Philemon Lloyd of the Wye Plantation in Talbot County on the Eastern Shore John Darnall and Philemon Lloyd (Susannah’s step-father) served together in the Provincial Government’s Upper House and so the connection was made. Henrietta’s sister, Dorothy Neale had married Roger Brooke and lived opposite DeLaBrooke Manor on the Patuxent River at Battle Creek (see figure 2). During House sessions, Lloyd and his wife, Henrietta Maria Neale Bennett, likely brought her children to her sister’s home at Brooke Place. Henrietta and Dorothy were held in high esteem in social circles. Dorothy entertained ships captains who brought trade goods from England. 30 When Part DeLaBrooke Manor became their home, John and Susannah lived directly across the Patuxent River from her aunt, Dorothy Neale Brooke. (See Fig.2).

John Darnall’s Early Death and Controversial Bequests

John was in the inner circle of colonial power as Provincial Secretary and a member of Lord Baltimore’s Council along with Col. Henry Darnall (his brother), Maj. Nicholas Sewall (son of Jane Lowe and Henry Sewall’s) and Col. William Digges (married Maj. Sewall’s sister, Elizabeth, see figure 1).

On 4 December 1684 the Counr.iJ was investigating the controversial October 31st murder of Customs Collector Christopher Rousby by Col. George Talbot, a relative of the Calverts. Perhaps the stress of this case was a factor in the untimely death of John Darnall later that month at only 35 years of age.

Most of his large estate was devised equally between Susannah and their young daughter, Henrietta Maria Darnall. In his will he specified if Henrietta died unmarried before age 18, her half passed to his nephew, Henry Darnall II (the son of Col. Henry Darnall and Elinor Hatton Brooke). She died between 1697 and 1702, which later spawned long-running court battles (see part 3).

Susannah Bennett Darnall Married Col. Henry Lowe

Widowhood was necessarily temporary for most women due to their vulnerability. For those widows who inherited significant wealth, they often lacked needed education and management experience. They were particularly desirable as by English law, any assets they individually owned would become their husband’s property upon marriage.

Shortly after John Darnall died, Susannah married Col. Henry Lowe (nephew of Lady Baltimore Jane Lowe Calvert and nephew of Vincent Lowe, Talbot County landowner and Provincial Council member). In accordance with English law, she relinquished her extensive land holdings to him upon her marriage. Two years later their detailed “Marriage Agreement” legally delineated the 19 tracts comprising 13,238 acres that Susannah had inherited from her father, step father and first husband. Col. Lowe wanted to unequivocally safeguard his newly achieved wealth. They raised eleven children at their home plantation at Part DeLaBrooke Manor. Two of their children (Elizabeth and Dorothy) married Brooke descendants (see figure I).

Successful Mixed Religious Marriages

Lord Baltimore had hoped that Maryland would be a haven for religious toleration. An example of that toleration was intermarriage of Catholics and Protestants. The Bennett/Neale, Lloyd/Neale and Diggs/Sewall couples were high profile intermarriage examples that connect to Part DeLaBrooke Manor.
Susannah was the granddaughter of Protestant Governor Richard Bennett and daughter of Protestant Richard Bennett, who married Catholic Henrietta Maria Neale. Her second marriage was to Protestant Philemon Lloyd.

Another key figure was Col. William Digges, a Protestant landowner, key military suppo1ter of Lord Baltimore and Council member. He married Elizabeth Sewall, the daughter of Catholics Henry Sewall and Jane Lowe (who later became Lady Baltimore with her second marriage to 3rd Lord Baltimore Charles Calvert). The Digges’ ten children were raised in the Catholic faith and many intemarried as seen in figure 1.

Maryland Revolution of 1689

The winds of political change were blowing in England. The Royal power was being shared with Parliament to varying degrees. Charles Calvert, the 3rd Lord Baltimore, resisted any change in Maryland. He maintained that his power was absolute, as granted in the Maryland Charter of 1633. The Council, Upper House, Judges, Sheriff and Land Officers were Calvert appointees. The legislature included four elected Lower House representatives from each county, but the reality was that Calvert seated only two of his choice. With Calvert’s veto power over all laws, little clarity over the laws themselves, significant court procedural issues and a land office that toyed with property rights ( escheat), the seeds of resistance were sown. The nepotism, evident in Figure 1 “Power Play Colonial Maryland Style,” fueled discontent. Unlike his father, who had been more inclusive with Protestants, Charles consolidated power among Catholics and his extended family. Peaceful change seemed elusive.

The Resistance leaders (John Coode, Kenelm Cheseldine and Nehemiah Blackiston) were also part of the extended family of Thomas Gerard, who had supported Fendall’s minor revolution in 1659. These leaders had personally experienced frustration, had many years to develop support and were “opportunists.” They circulated rumors that Catholics were inciting Indian attacks. Col. Henry Darnall speedily visited the Patuxent plantations to reassure residents. However, the murder of Patuxent Customs Collector Christopher Rous by by a Calvert relative (1st Lord Baltimore’s grandson), George Talbot, was a political powder keg. After multiple arrests and an escape, Talbot fled to England and was not punished for his crime. Add the simmering divisiveness of religious intolerance and top it off with Calvert’s delay in recognizing the new Protestant King William III and Queen Mary and the Revolution of 1689 boiled over. Col. William Digges and Nicholas Sewall tried to defend St. Mary’s City and the weapons depo at Calvert’s home at Mattapany but were outnumbered by revolutionaries and surrendered to avoid bloodshed.

Now the revolutionaries were in charge, chey paid themselves generously and outlawed Catholic participation in government, immigration anrl public worship. In a show of political force, Jesuits Robert3 Brooke and William Hunter, were brought before the Court in 1704 and accused of illegally saying mass at St. Mary’s City’s chapel. Governor John Seymour severely reprimanded them, locked them out of the chapel and said, “if they are ever in trouble again, he will show no mercy.”38
Despite the revolution, Calvert retained his control of Maryland lands with the lucrative “quit rent” income. Col. Henry Darnall served as his Rent Roll Keeper. Most of the powerful Catholic men (figure 1) adapted, but Thomas Brooke became a Protestant to achieve political power, even if it alienated his family. The new government taxed the people to support the Protestant Church. In a revengeful manner, Catholics were taxed at double the rate of Protestants. To avoid punishment Catholics worshiped privately and some built chapels on their plantations.

Strategic Marriages

Left to focus on building their plantations, Catholics strategically intermarried to strengthen their ties. Many marriages in colonial times were not for romance but were often arranged. These marriages were designed to join families for social, religious, and economic gain. Marriage contracts were recorded in court records.
Col. Henry Darnall and Col. William Digges were notable for the strategic marriages of their children. Philip Col. Henry Darnall’s son by his first marriage, married his stepsister, Elinor Brooke. Their son, Henry Darnall, Jr (to differentiate him from Henry2 Darnall II) later married Elizabeth Lowe, the daughter of Susannah and Henry Lowe. As for Col. Darnall’s four children by his second wife, Elinor Hatton Brooke: Mary married Charles Carroll, “The Settler”, an outspoken and entrepreneurial attorney and progenitor of the wealthy Carroll family; Ann married Clement Hill, Jr.; Henry Darnall II married Ann Digges; and Elizabeth married Edward Digges. Ann and Edward were Col. William Digges’ children. Col. Digges’ other children: Charles married Susannah Lowe, daughter of Henry and Susannah Lowe; William married Elinor Brooke (widow of Philip2 Darnall); John became a successful land speculator, particularly in Frederick County; Elizabeth became the second wife of Lt. Anthony Neale, brother of Henrietta Neale Bennett Lloyd and Dorothy Neale Brooke; and Mary became the first native-born Catholic nun. (See figure I) Col. Henry Darnall amassed great wealth. He was one of Maryland’s largest landowners including large tracts in Prince George’s County and in present day, Washington, DC including Rock Creek Park, Takoma Park and Silver Spring. They moved to Portland Manor in Anne Arundel County. Slavery contributed to their fortune.1 At his death he had over 30,000 acres of land. The Maryland Center for History and Culture (Maryland Historical Society) preserves the Darnall portraits that hung in Col. Henry and Elinor Darnall’s home. Those paintings depict Catholic iconography that wanned the hearts of Catholic guests while likely “hidden in plain sight” for Protestants.”

The next generation enjoyed relative prosperity, but the booms and busts of tobacco prices and their spending habits yielded substantial debts. Their son, Henry II lost his plantation at the Woodyard to creditors. Elinor’s son, Thomas3
Brooke unsuccessfully challenged 3 the legality of his deceased brother’s (RobertBrooke, SJ) 1689 donation of his inherited Part DeLaBrooke Manor to the Jesuit Mission. The emotional distress wrought on his mother, Elinor Brooke Darnall is evident as she penned her will two months Iater on 31 March 1724, ” … being sensible of the casualties that are incident to all mortals in this Life and being desirous to prevent any differences that may arise between the children … ” She left the following in British pounds sterling ( one pound sterling worth approximately $350 in 2024 US dollars): son, Thomas3 1 0; daughter, Mary (Witham) 1 0; Rev. George Thorold [head of the Jesuit Mission] 25; the poor 1 0; daughter, Eleanor (Digges) and her children 150, and paid her son, Clement’s debt of 460, with the balance of her estate divided among the named children: Eleanor (Digges), Mary (Carroll), Ann (Hill) and Henry II. If her heirs failed to comply then “the whole be kept in the hands of my executor … “42 Unlike her husband who made bequests to the husbands of their daughters, Elinor made her bequests directly to her daughters. She died in 1725 at the remarkable age of 85!

Elinor’s Legacy
Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall was an eyewitness to dramatic events in Maryland colonial history. At a time when women generally lacked choices, a voice in government, property and parental rights, she broke the mold. Records of women’s accomplishments are sparse, but in Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall’s case, she overcame hurdles in her first 13 years; her father’s early death, the perilous voyage to colonial Maryland, and the stressful court battle that challenged her Catholic faith. Her marriage to Thomas2 Brooke was a successful partnership. Unusual for a woman of that time, she was the sole executor/guardian at Thomas’ death. She raised 11 children to adulthood during a time when maternal, infant and childhood mortality were common. Education and Catholic faith were her priorities. Three sons became Jesuit priests. Catholic persecution after the 1689 Revolution strengthened her resolve.

The strategic marriages of her children furthered her legacy. Her d,;mghter, Mary’s marriage to Charles1 Carroll, the Settler, began a long line of Carroll’s. TI1eir s.on, Charles2 Carroll of Annapolis amassed great wealth. His son, Charles3 Carroll of Carrollton (Elinor’s great grandson) risked his substantial fortune by placing his flowing signature on the 1776 Declaration of Independence, below that of John Hancock.
Elinor’s granddaughter, Eleanor Darnall ( daughter of Henry2 Darnall II and Ann Digges) married Daniel Carroll. Their son, Archbishop John Carroll, founded Georgetown University and was instrumental in the construction of America’s first cathedral (The Basilica of the Assumption) located in Baltimore.43
Another great grandson was Daniel Carroll II of Rock Creek, who signed the US Constitution.

In summary, the second half of the 17th century saw unprecedented economic gains, but religious divisions resurfaced to divide the population. Part DeLaBrooke Manor ownership passed through the web of interrelated family members with connections to many important :figures in colonial history. In Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall’s 85 years, she demonstrated personal strength and fortitude through trials, tragedies and ‘good fortune. With the dawn of the 18th century came new challenges, including legal battles, greed, falling tobacco prices and land speculation. The stories of the next generations of Part DeLaBrooke Manor owners and their families will continue in Part 3.