by Jan Brown

Susannah Bennett and Henry Lowe and their children to Thomas and Mary Neale Taney

This is the third in a series of essays tracing the owners of Part DeLaBrooke Manor from the 17^th to 20^th centuries.  Part 1 began with Robert¹ Brooke’s original land grant (Chronicles of St. Mary’s Spring, 2024) and Part 2, Plantation Prosperity continued from the late 17^th century into early 18^th century (Chronicles of St. Mary’s, Summer, 2024). Part 3 further expands its owners’ stories in the setting of colonial Maryland history.  In 1688 Anglicans William and Mary ascended to the English throne which spawned Maryland’s Revolution of 1689.  Maryland’s unique Act of Religious Toleration was repealed, Lord Baltimore was removed from power and his Anglican successors found governing difficult. The tobacco economy that brought rapid prosperity faltered. The owners of Part DeLaBrooke Manor focused on the importance of family connections, experienced legal entanglements and weathered Catholic persecution, personal tragedy, and economic downturns. These stories of the owners bring a personal perspective to Part DeLaBrooke Manor and colonial Maryland history.

Founding Family Interconnections

Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall (1640-1725) 

Maryland Center for History and Culture Collection

Bequest of Ellen C. Dangerfield, 1912.1.2

Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall was a strong Catholic matriarch who garnered considerable influence among the powerful colonial families during her remarkable 85-year lifespan. Her immigration, her embrace of Catholicism, which spawned a court case, and her two marriages were discussed in Part 2. Her first husband, Thomas² Brooke, inherited Part DeLaBrooke Manor from his father, Robert¹ Brooke. Elinor and Thomas² had their seven children there. After his death she married Col. Henry¹ Darnall, brother of Provincial Secretary John Darnall. Thomas² Brooke had bequeathed her a life interest in that manor, which she relinquished to her son, Thomas³ before 1682.  He sold it to his step-uncle, John Darnall.  The Darnalls were Catholic and were appointed to many powerful and lucrative government posts, including the Provincial Council.  John Darnall married Susannah Maria Bennett when she was 15 or 16 years-old and they made their home at Part DeLaBrooke Manor.  John died just two years later in 1684, leaving Susannah with their infant daughter, Henrietta Maria Darnall.  Susannah married again to Henry¹ Lowe in 1686.  The matriarch, Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall outlived Susannah, Henry and many of the Lowe children.  She witnessed many of these following events- both painful and joyous.  Elinor was an ardent advocate for her family, her Catholic faith and the family farms.  Her influence, especially through marriage arrangements and the roles of her descendants helped shape Maryland.

Susannah descended from two wealthy and well-connected families, Bennett and Neale (see figure 1). Her grandfather was Gov. Richard¹ Bennett (1609-1675), a Protestant governor of Virginia, a huge landowner and a controversial associate of Lord Baltimore’s nemesis, William Claiborne. Bennett also became a Commissioner of Parliament that controlled Maryland during Cromwell’s rule in England (1652-1655). Susannah’s father, Richard² Bennett (c. 1639-1667) married Henrietta Maria Neale (1647-1697), the daughter of Wollaston Manor owner, James¹ Neale (c. 1615-1683).  James Neale was Catholic, a royal diplomat, and a close friend of Lord Baltimore. James’ daughters’ marriages were to wealthy landowners- Henrietta to Richard² Bennett and Dorothy to Roger² Brooke, son of the original DeLaBrooke Manor owner, Robert¹ Brooke. (See Part 2 Chart: Power Play Colonial Maryland Style, Chronicles of St. Mary’s Summer 2024)

Richard² Bennett drowned in 1667 at 28 years of age. Henrietta married again to Anglican Col. Philemon Lloyd and lived at his Wye plantation in Talbot County. She raised her children, Susannah and Richard³ Bennett, in her Catholic faith, but they were also exposed to the Anglican religion of their stepfather.  Col. Lloyd was a talented diplomat. His political connections with Provincial Secretary John Darnall likely led to Susannah Bennett’s marriage to John.  

With John Darnall’s sudden death in December 1684, Susannah became his sole executor.  John failed to name a male guardian for Henrietta.  By English law, when a father died, his children were considered orphans, even if their mother was alive.  Susannah had limited legal power and relinquished any control upon remarriage.  John directed that his estate be divided between his wife and infant daughter.  Because early deaths were so common, he added a unique provision: If his daughter died unmarried and a minor, her half devised to his nephew, Henry² Darnall, the son of Elinor Hatton Brooke and her second husband, Col. Henry¹ Darnall.  This provision later spawned legal entanglements. The formidable task of handling John’s large estate, overseeing 18 scattered plantations comprising 11,088 acres and protecting Henrietta’s legacy fell to an unprepared 17-year-old Susannah.  Unfortunately, her stepfather, Philemon Lloyd, died the following year in 1685.  

“The Prize is a Wealthy Widow, with a Proven Womb”

In April 1686, Susannah married Henry¹ Lowe. Henry was a minor naval officer of the Patuxent, but he had family connections.  Henry’s aunt, Lady Baltimore Jane Lowe Sewall Calvert was married secondly to the 3^rd Lord Baltimore, Charles Calvert.  Henry’s uncle, Col. Vincent Lowe, a wealthy Talbot County landowner, who had served on the Provincial Council with John and Col. Henry Darnall, likely stepped in as matchmaker.  In September 1688, two years after Susannah and Henry Lowe were married, a formal “Marriage Settlement” was signed delineating all of Susannah’s land she brought to the marriage (see chart below-note her ½ portions from John were clearly shown).  Under the English common law of coverture, a woman had no independent legal standing from her husband, therefore a wife’s property became her husband’s upon marriage.  With sudden wealth and responsibilities, Henry assumed Susannah’s roles as John Darnall’s executor, guardian of Henrietta Darnall and suddenly became a wealthy plantation owner.  They chose Part DeLaBrooke Manor as their home plantation.  

Properties Susannah Bennett Brought to her Marriage

Lands	County	Acres	Inherited From:
Green Oake	Cecil	450	Bennett
Holdmanstone	Cecil	150	Bennett
Southward	Cecil	200	Bennett
Utiesly	Cecil	300	Bennett
Bennett’s Hope	Cecil		Bennett
The Hills	Cecil	400	Philemon Lloyd
Castle’s Point		150	John Darnall
Henrietta Maria	Charles (later PG)	500	John Darnall
1/2 of Part DeLaBrooke Manor	Calvert (later St.Mary’s)	500	John Darnall
1/2 of Darnall’s Sylvania	Baltimore	500	John Darnall
1/2 of Affinity	Baltimore	500	John Darnall
1/2 of Darnall’s Farm	Kent	600	John Darnall
1/2 of Part Fenwick Manor	Calvert (later St.Mary’s)	400	John Darnall
1/2 of Melwood Park, aka New Design in the Freshes	Calvert (later PG)	1050	John Darnall
1/2 of Darnall’s Lot	Kent	400	John Darnall
Greenwood	Calvert	488
1/2 of Peach Blossom	Cecil	1500	John Darnall
Tuckahoe Creek		3000

Their 28-year marriage brought 11 more children, the drama of court battles, Catholic persecution and personal tragedy.  With Susannah’s death in 1714 and Henry’s in 1717, their son, Nicholas inherited their plantation.  By 1728, Nicholas and six of his siblings had died.  In 1733 the Lowe heirs transferred Part DeLaBrooke Manor to their 2^nd cousins, Thomas³ Taney and his wife, Mary Neale.  Both were great grandchildren of the original owner, Robert¹ Brooke.  Their stories bring a personal perspective to Part DeLaBrooke Manor as key colonial events were unfolding around them.

Legal Issues – Lowe/Darnall Feud

During their marriage Henry Lowe was involved in many legal proceedings.  Some were self-serving, while in others, he was the defendant.  He defied some court orders, yet he also worked for the court system.  He was appointed as a Provincial Court Justice (1694-97), St. Mary’s County Sheriff (1698-1700) and St. Mary’s County Clerk (1709-1717).  

Soon after their marriage Henry used the court to ensure no advantage was missed. On 21 May 1688, Henry’s uncle, Col. Vincent Lowe appeared before the Prerogative Court (managed estates) to examine the Philemon Lloyd estate accounts. Was he acting on Henry’s behalf to verify if any legacy was due Susannah from her stepfather, thus it would be considered his property?  Henry’s “Marriage Settlement” windfall soon followed that September.

Following the death of Mary Darnall (Col. Henry and John Darnall’s mother), Henry Lowe went to Prerogative Court on multiple occasions from 1693-1696 to force Col. Henry Darnall to produce his mother’s will.  Henry Lowe sensed Mary may have left a legacy to her son, John. Susannah stood to inherit that legacy and thus could add to Henry Lowe’s marriage windfall.  In December 1696, Madam Elinor [Hatton Brooke] Darnall was summoned to testify.  No final court judgement or proven will were found. 

In 1696, likely after the death of the young, heiress Henrietta Darnall, Col. Darnall went on the offense to protect the interests of his son, Henry² Darnall who stood to inherit Henrietta’s portion.  Henry¹ Lowe was the administrator of John Darnall’s estate with his 1686 marriage to Susannah.  Col. Darnall demanded an accounting of the estate.  In one testimony, Henry Lowe accused his wife of poor financial controls after her husband’s death.  Numerous court hearings ensued.  Henry² Darnall accused Henry Lowe of presenting an account that had “marks either of an evident fraud…or at least of an excusable negligence.” Henry Lowe finally produced a questionable estate account 13 years after John Darnall died! Henry then defied the Prerogative Court commands.  The legal battles raged until 1707 when Henry² Darnall received a favorable final ruling. 

When Henry² Darnall reached age 21, he also sued Henry Lowe in Provincial Court to receive his property inheritance from John Darnall’s estate. Henrietta Darnall’s death as an unmarried minor was now confirmed.  Separate court judgements were promptly issued on 12 October 1699 for the properties in question. In a writ of partition, the 500-acre Part DeLaBrooke Manor was to be divided saying, “Command be given to the Sheriff of St. Mary’s County that he go with 12 men to equally and justly divide the land.” Incredibly, Henry Lowe was the sheriff of St. Mary’s County on that date!

  Inexplicably, Part DeLaBrooke Manor was not subdivided, suggesting some side agreement. Did Richard³ Bennett assist his sister?  Not coincidentally, Richard³ did help Susannah one day before that Provincial Court ruling. He formalized a deed for five Cecil County tracts comprising 1300 acres “for the natural love and affection…to his sister, the said Susannah and her children” to be held by trustees. Richard frequently gave financial aid to family. “To those relatives whom he considered irresponsible, he left property in trust.”

Catholics Cope with Discrimination

Just three years after Henry and Susannah Lowe’s marriage, Maryland’s Revolution of 1689 removed Lord Baltimore from power.  Anglicans now controlled government offices.  A series of escalating anti-Popery laws were passed in 1689, 1704 and 1716.  Catholics were precluded from government positions, public worship and running schools. One event left an indelible impression on Susannah’s brother, Richard³ Bennett.  It occurred in 1689 when the “Protestant Associators sent 30-40 men” to confiscate all weapons belonging to two leading Catholics, Peter Sayer and his mother, Henrietta Maria Bennett Lloyd.  Twenty-two-year-old Richard felt the responsibility of caring for his widowed mother and her ten Lloyd children.  Those weapons were key to their protection and hunting for food. Instead of allowing anger and resentment to dominate his life, he remained a loyal Catholic and chose a path of diligence, entrepreneurship, and altruism.

Although both Susannah and Henry were raised in the Catholic faith, Henry¹ Lowe outwardly became Anglican for its practicality.  He was thus qualified for government positions as a justice, sheriff and clerk. Henry’s practical approach to religious affiliation extended to their sons who were Protestants and became officeholders (see chart below).  Susannah raised her daughters in the Catholic faith and was likely encouraged by Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall. Henry’s religious position and legal actions further alienated Col. Henry and Elinor Darnall, who remained loyal Catholics throughout their lives. But Elinor’s family also experienced religious division.  Her son, Thomas³ Brooke, rejected his Catholic upbringing, became an Anglican and gained lucrative government positions.  If that was not painful enough for his mother, he legally challenged his deceased brother’s (Robert Brooke, SJ) land donation to his Jesuit Mission. While serving in the Upper House for three decades (1692-1722) Thomas³ actively suppressed Catholic freedoms. 

Elinor and Col. Henry Darnall’s daughter, Mary and her husband, Charles¹ Carroll, Esq., the Settler, kept their faith. They were part of the “Papist Faction” consisting of 13 wealthy Catholic men, nine who were family members. Carroll was the most vocal activist. He further inflamed the personal animosity of Gov. John Hart by risking a trip to England.  While there Carroll managed to briefly regain his prior positions from the 4^th Lord Baltimore, including the power of the Provincial purse.  Hart responded with a harsher crackdown on all Catholics that persisted until the American Revolution. Notably, Carroll’s grandson, Charles³ Carroll of Carrollton, was the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence.  He risked his substantial fortune.  The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States restored religious freedom to all, including Catholics.

Susannah’s Legacy- Her Children- “Marriages Were Not For Romance”

Susannah had experience raising children. As the eldest daughter, she aided her mother with her ten Lloyd children. Like her mother, Susannah was quite busy, bearing and raising 12 children of her own. Their wealth provided them with servants and slaves to help.  Extended family resided on surrounding plantations for support. 

In July 1714 Susannah died in her 47^th year and was buried at Part DeLaBrooke Manor on a knoll overlooking the lovely, blue Patuxent River.  Susannah’s large carved gravestone was likely placed by her brother.  Its now-illegible inscription has suffered the ravages of time. 

Her husband’s death 3 years later left four daughters. Their sons, Henry and Bennett were named executors. Another son, Nicholas received their home plantation, Part DeLaBrooke Manor. No guardian was named in Henry’s will for his minor daughters.  Their eldest daughter, Susannah² had married Charles³ Digges, her 2^nd cousin via the Lowe line. (see Part 2, Chronicles of St. Mary’s Summer 2024).  Jane Lowe, Henry’s aunt, and her first husband, Henry Sewall had a daughter, Elizabeth who married Col. William² Digges.  Their son, Charles³ married Susannah³ Lowe. There were also three other Digges/Brooke/Darnall marriage connections. Those involved the matriarch Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall’s children:  Ann³ Digges married Henry² Darnall (who inherited ½ of the John Darnall estate), William³ Digges married Eleanor³ Brooke (Elinor’s daughter and widow of Philip² Darnall, Col. Henry Darnall’s son by his first marriage) and Edward³ Digges married Elizabeth Darnall. These men were members of the Papist Faction.

Susannah² and Charles³ Digges likely assumed the care of her young sisters. The Digges’ resided at their Warburton estate in Prince George’s County on the Potomac River across from Mt. Vernon and Alexandria, Virginia. Lingering friction between Henry Lowe and Susannah² is revealed in Henry’s will.  Although she was his eldest child, she was mentioned last.  Her legacy was limited to 100 pounds sterling and he directed his residual estate be equally divided among his children, “my daughter Susannah Maria Digges only excepted.” Lasting friction over religion and the legal dispute between Henry Lowe and Henry² Darnall (Charles³ Digges’ brother-in-law) were likely causes. 

Once Henry Lowe died, the Catholic family ties strengthened. The next strategic marriages of Henry’s daughters further united the Digges/Darnall/Lowe/Brooke families. One senses the hands of matriarch Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall with Susannah² and Charles³ Digges forging those unions. Genealogist, Betty DeKeyser summarized it well, “In colonial Maryland, marriages were not for romance.”

Elizabeth² Lowe married Henry³ Darnall of Portland Manor (son of Eleanor³ Brooke and her first husband, Philip² Darnall.  Eleanor³ Brooke was the daughter of Elinor Hatton and her first husband, Thomas² Brooke.  Philip² Darnall was the son of Col. Henry¹ Darnall and his first wife.  When Philip² Darnall died, Eleanor³ Brooke Darnall married secondly to William³ Digges, brother of Charles³, Ann, and Edward) 

Dorothy² Lowe married Francis² Hall (son of Benjamin¹ Hall and Mary³ Brooke.  Mary was the daughter of Elinor Hatton and Thomas² Brooke.  Mary³ Brooke and Eleanor³ Brooke were sisters, thus Henry³ Darnall and Francis² Hall were first cousins and married the Lowe sisters) 

Mary² Lowe married Edward³ Neale (son of Elizabeth³ Digges and Anthony² Neale.  They were second cousins, once removed through the Neale line as Mary’s maternal grandmother, Henrietta Maria Neale Bennett Lloyd was Anthony² Neale’s sister.  Edward’s mother, Elizabeth³ Digges Neale was Charles³ Digges’ sister)

Lowe Children	Birth	Death	Spouse	Child/Spouse Occupation	Their Children
Susannah Maria	c. 1687	aft. 1733bef. 1739	Charles3 Digges (c.1685-1744)	Planter, Merchant (Alexandria, Virginia shop)	William, Henry, Mary, Anne
Henry	c. 1688	1722	Mary	Upper House, Council, Receiver General 1716-1721, Planter	None
Anne	c. 1691	1718	None		None
Bennett	1693	1722	Eleanor Addison	Receiver-General 1721-1722	None
Henrietta Maria		c. 1718	None
Thomas	c. 1697	aft. 1717	None		None
Nicholas	c. 1698	1728	None	Lawyer, Planter, Merchant, Receiver-General 1722-28. Upper House, Council	None
Jane	c. 1700	c. 1718	James Bowles	Lived in PG Co at death	None
Elizabeth	c. 1702	aft. 1741	Henry3 Darnall of Portland Manor of AA Co. (c.1698-1782)	Planter, Merchant	Mary, Susannah, Elizabeth, Nicholas Lowe, Henrietta Maria, Philip, Richard, Henry Bennett, Anne, Eleanor, Bennett
Dorothy	1704	1803	Francis Hall (c. 1696-1785) of PG Co	Lawyer, Land Investor	Ignatius, Benjamin, James, Richard Bennett, Francis, Eleanor, Susannah, Henrietta Maria
Mary	c. 1708	bef. 1733	Edward3 Neale  (c. 1704-1760/1)	Planter, Investor (Land/Mines/Iron/Furnace)	Mary, Eleanor

Mysterious March of Deaths

A glance at the death dates of the Lowe children reveals the fragility of life (see chart above).  Seven of Susannah and Henry Lowe’s children died between 1717 and 1728 and all were young adults.  The exact cause(s) are unknown, however, there were numerous possibilities.  Childhood diseases that we now avoid with vaccinations (measles, diphtheria, polio, tetanus) also affected adults in the 1700’s.  Smallpox, malaria, yellow fever, tuberculosis, cholera/other water-borne pathogens plus injuries lurked ready to strike. But, when compared to their relatives and surrounding families, the Lowe family experienced much more tragedy. 

Religious Conviction and Philanthropy- Richard³ Bennett

Susannah’s brother’s story is compelling.  Richard³ Bennett was uniquely prepared for life’s challenges, which he met with strength of character.  He and Susannah were raised by a respected, strong Catholic mother (Henrietta Maria Neale) and a diplomatic, successful Protestant stepfather (Col. Philemon Lloyd). Susannah and Richard could appreciate both faiths and perspectives.  They witnessed their mother’s successful marriage, despite differing religions.  As a woman in the 1700’s, Susannah’s impact and her legacy were limited to her children.  Richard had broader opportunities.  He took the difficult path of remaining a devout Catholic.  He grew the substantial inheritance he received from his grandfather, Gov. Richard¹ Bennett.  Although he remained a large landowner, he diversified his businesses as a lender, merchant and ship owner.  

From age 18 when he assumed paternal responsibilities for his ten stepsiblings, he insured all were educated and raised as Protestants, in keeping with their father’s instructions.  Most entered politics and the Lloyd and Tilghman names brought respect.   Richard married Elizabeth Rousby.  Although Richard and Elizabeth never had children of their own, they assumed the care of the orphan, Robert Knatchbull. He was educated at St. Omers in Flanders and became a Jesuit priest. They also raised Elizabeth’s niece, Ann Rousby from infancy, as there was “trouble in the home [of Ann’s father], John² Rousby.” He lived at Susquehanna plantation on the Patuxent River in St. Mary’s County, downriver from DeLaBrooke Manor.  Richard³ also provided financial assistance to many family members, particularly Henry³ Darnall of Portland Manor (husband of his niece, Elizabeth² Lowe).   In his 1749 Maryland Gazette obituary Richard was described as “the richest man in America.” After death, he forgave the debts of over 150 persons, gave bequests to his workers, family, and church.  His stepfather, Col. Philemon Lloyd’s tomb inscription, “But he leaves his life to speak his praise,” aptly describes both of them.   Richard Bennett was a true philanthropist of that era.

Portrait of Colonists through Ebenezer Cooke’s, The Sot-Weed Factor…

Ebenezer Cooke (c. 1667-c.1733) was a Cambridge-educated Englishman who inherited property and practiced law in Maryland.  Although little is known of his life, he and Nicholas Lowe, the owner of Part DeLaBrooke Manor, were connected.  In London in 1708 he published the booklet, “The Sot-Weed Factor,” considered the “best known colonial Maryland poem.”  Sot-Weed was slang for tobacco and a Factor was a merchant who traded tobacco for English goods (likely Cooke himself).  He skillfully entertained readers on both sides of the Atlantic with rhyming satire of the Factor’s escapade to Maryland.  His scathing and humorous depiction of the colonists probably confirmed the stereotypes held by the English. But when it was reprinted in 1730 in Annapolis, the colonists also found humor from both perspectives- in his portrayal of themselves and that of the naïve, impractical and clueless English Factor.  For a 21^st century reader, it provides a glimpse into colonial life, albeit with exaggeration.  A summary, including some excerpts, is provided: 

  The poem opens with a description of ill-dressed, ill-mannered and hard-drinking colonists, “Who when they cou’d not live at Home, For refuge to these Worlds did roam.”  “What homely Diet they must fare on…Which scarce a hungry dog would lap…[where] Conversation’s lost, and Manners drown’d.” After the Factor’s arrival, he gave a hilarious account of his first night’s stay at a planter’s house, “Which seldom felt the weight of a Broom.”  He was served rum that “Got so soon into my Head.”  His sleep was interrupted by dogs and a noisy flock of geese, so he retreated to the orchard expecting peace.  Instead “Hoarse croaking Frogs did ‘bout me ring,” then he mistook the hissing of mosquitoes for a rattlesnake and climbed a tree to escape [only an Englishman would consider that a refuge].  He was tormented all night by those mosquitoes.  After breakfast and a “Glass of Rum” he witnessed “Indians strange …in hot pursuit of wounded Deer…[their] tawney thighs, and Bosom bare…[their] Widows and Wives… bathed in grease.” [their mosquito repellent] The Factor precariously rode in a “Canoo… while standing erect, with Legs stretch’d wide.” In an amusing description of the county court, Cooke portrayed the townsfolk drinking toasts until “the cryer did the Court declare…this Drunken Worship [judge was ready]…and Lawyers broke the peace…With brazen Lyes and Allegations.”  “The Court adjourn’d in usual manner, In Battle Blood and fractious Clamour.”  Outside, “A Herd of Planters on the ground, O’erwhelmed with Punch, dead drunk, we found.”  After finding a quiet corn-loft to sleep, he awoke distressed to find his shoes, hat, wig and stockings missing and thrown in the fire.  Then “this cursed seasoning I remember, Lasted from March to cold December [seasoning was the term for illnesses that commonly affected new arrivals].”  As an afterthought he recalled his original mission and headed to the Eastern Shore where a pious Quaker, “Who neither swore nor kept his Word,” purchased his Oronooke tobacco and failed to pay.  The Factor hired a pharmacist-turned-lawyer to take his case to court and he was swindled again.  Finally, he boarded a ship and “left this dreadful Curse behind.”

With humor Cooke also united his colonial readers.  They were different than their English forbearers.  A rough-edged, toughened crowd that had strong opinions and would fight for them… and a few decades later in 1776, they did just that.

Tobacco Tussle, Annapolis Print Media Born, Duel Avoided

With the 1700’s came depressed tobacco prices with loud calls for government regulation.   Proposals to limit planting time, number of plants, and burning of inferior leaves were hotly debated in taverns and legislature. Oversupply was the popular theory and regulation was promoted.  William Parks, a printer and journalist who favored regulation, started The Maryland Gazette–Maryland’s first newspaper.  It was born in Annapolis in 1727 out of the tobacco controversy and is still being published.  Opponents of tobacco regulation warned of the unintended consequences and impossible enforcement.  Tobacco politics became so polarized -the disagreements teetered on violence.  Roving mobs destroyed tobacco crops.  

In July 1726 tempers flared. Pro-regulation advocate, Charles Carroll of Annapolis (son of Charles Carroll, the Settler and Mary² Darnall) challenged Lower House member, James Hollyday to a duel and Hollyday accepted.  Both were arrested and fined, the challenge was rescinded, and death avoided. As an alternative Henry² Darnall (Elinor Hatton‘s son, who had inherited ½ of John Darnall’s estate) spearheaded an unsuccessful mission to unite English merchants and the colonial planters.  Their goal was to control the supply side of the tobacco market and combat the French government’s purchasing monopoly.  He published a pamphlet, A Just and Impartial Account of the Transactions of the Merchants in London, for the Advancement of the Price of Tobacco… It detailed the efforts for consensus that failed when the English merchants’ support collapsed. 

In October 1728, the Lower House and the Council including Part DeLaBrooke Manor owner, Nicholas Lowe, heard an eyewitness account of sword-carrying Major Samuel Perrie. The outburst occurred at a tavern with “punch,” “dice” and bravado flowing freely. After threatening a patron, Perrie boasted he would bring 100 Prince George’s County supporters to force the legislature into passage of tobacco regulation.  He also accused Richard³ Bennett of offering “a thousand pounds to Subvert the Government” and influencing James Hollyday to oppose the tobacco regulation.  After weighing the evidence, the Council unanimously determined the accusations against Hollyday were “false and scandalous.” They were silent on Bennett, but many of the General Assembly members were Bennett relatives through the Lloyd family. 

Nicholas Lowe, Esq – Who Was Mary?

Anglican bachelor, Nicholas² Lowe inherited Part DeLaBrooke Manor from his father. He had a front-row seat amidst this turmoil as an Upper House member, Council member and practicing attorney.  He witnessed the contentious tobacco debates, including the Major Perrie affair on 31 October 1728.  He also presented papers directing the laying out of Seymour Town (later Leonardtown, the County seat). The following month, Nicholas suddenly died at home in his 30’s.  The nascent Maryland Gazette printed not only a one-line death notice but devoted a half page to Ebenezer Cooke’s “Elegy” and “Epitaph.”  Some excerpts from his satirical pen:

“[on] the Death of the Honourable Nicholas Lowe, Esq:

What means this Mourning, Ladies has Death led.

Your Brother Captive to his Earthly Bed?…

And Very rarely moisten would his Clay

For Fear he should a final Visit pay….

No human Art can brittle Life prolong,

Our Days are numbered and we must be gone…”

(“Clay”- refers to a clay pipe.  “For fear…a final Visit pay”, was this a tobacco health warning, circa 1729?)

Six months after Nicholas died, Mary Young filed suit against Nicholas’ executors, Charles³ Digges and Henry Darnall.  Mary was single, “a spinster” in the terminology of that era.  She lived with Nicholas and the contents of her room were part of his estate inventory.  This arrangement was far from the norm in the 1700’s.  We learn from the remaining court documents the following:  She and two men were present when he died.  Michael Philips discovered papers in Nicholas’ closet.  He read them to Mary, and Nicholas granted her a legacy.  Robert⁴ Brooke (great grandson of DeLaBrooke owner, Robert¹), also present at Nicholas’ deathbed, stated:

“…Mr. Lowe was telling [him] of some scandal raised by Ebenezer Cooke upon said Mr. Lowe and ___ M. Mary Young [and] that the said Lowe said he did not regret it for his own part so much but as for the Young woman he was troubled for her he never saw any harm by her and she did not deserve it, for she had lost her good name in his house and he thought in Conscience he ought to see that she had satisfaction made for it…  

An unsigned, undated and unwitnessed will was found.  So, in May of 1729, after learning that Nicholas’ personal estate was being divided and fearing she would lose her legacy, Mary Young sued the executors to prove the Will and grant administration.  Multiple witnesses including Nicholas’ neighbor, Edward Cole, Jr. of Cole’s Farm testified that the handwriting was that of Nicholas’.  The Will gave his “Great Plantation” (Part DeLaBrooke Manor) to his sister, Elizabeth² Lowe Darnall, wife of Henry³ Darnall of Portland Manor (grandson of Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall). Mary Young was to receive a life interest in “Workington”, 4 Negroes, 20 head of cattle, 20 sheep and 20 pigs. Nicholas also directed “that no Negro families be parted when his residual estate was divided” amongst his four sisters, Susannah (Charles) Digges, Elizabeth (Henry³) Darnall, Mary (Edward³) Neale and Dorothy (Francis²) Hall.  

On 4 June 1733, even though only Elizabeth Lowe and her husband, Henry³ Darnall were to inherit DeLaBrooke Manor, she and her living sisters and their husbands jointly signed a deed of partition among the four parties granting a “1000” acre DeLaBrooke tract to Charles³ and Susannah² Digges as part of a redistribution of jointly inherited lands. The Digges’ held the Manor for eight days then transferred it to Thomas³ Taney.  Why Taney?  The answer may be that all the living Lowe children had established family plantations (Susannah Digges at Warburton (PG Co.), Elizabeth Darnall at Portland Manor (AACo.) and Dorothy Hall at Pleasant Hill (PG Co.).  Thomas³ Taney was Susannah Digges’ second cousin through the Neale line and lived across the Patuxent River from DeLaBrooke Manor.  His older brother, Michael³ would receive the Taney plantation, Berry, per the English custom of primogeniture.  As the second son, he needed to forge his own path.  But, there was more…

Part DeLaBrooke Manor Restored to Brooke Descendants

It was always a priority to keep land “in the family.”  Intermarriages amongst the landowners were prevalent and appeared to be designed for that goal. It is not surprising that Thomas³ Taney and his wife, Mary⁴ Neale were related as second cousins. But through both of their families, each were direct descendants of DeLaBrooke Manor’s original owner, Robert¹ Brooke. This would have pleased Elinor Hatton Brooke Darnall.  Her home plantation had returned to the Brooke line. (See Figure 1)

Thomas³ Taney was the great grandson of Robert¹ Brooke (son of Michael² Taney and Dorothy³ Brooke-Roger² Brooke-Robert¹ Brooke).  

Mary was not only the great granddaughter of Robert¹ Brooke (daughter of Raphael³ Neale and Mary³ Calvert Brooke- Baker² Brooke- Robert¹ Brooke), but a direct descendant of the 1^st Lord Baltimore (Mary⁴ Neale-Mary³ Brooke-Ann² Calvert- Gov. Leonard Calvert- 1^st Lord Baltimore George Calvert). 

In summary, these Part DeLaBrooke Manor owners weathered the court disputes, Catholic persecution, premature deaths, tobacco depressions and associated political unrest.  Resilience was a necessary colonial trait.  They strengthened their family ties through strategic marriages, diversified their businesses beyond tobacco and left their mark in colonial history.  In Part 4 the saga will continue with the Taney-Hill-Ford-Lewis family stories.  

I want to thank my sister, Lynn Wheeler, for her invaluable editorial assistance and my cousin, Don Ferber, for his graphic design of Figure 1.. 

Figure 1