| Notes |
- Maryland headright claims for land: per wiki
A headright refers to a legal grant of land given to settlers during the period of European colonization in the Americas. A "headright" includes both the grant of land and the owner (the head) that claims the land. The person who has a right to the land is the one who paid to transport people to a colony.[1] Headrights are most notable for their role in the expansion of the Thirteen Colonies; the Virginia Company gave headrights to settlers, and the Plymouth Company followed suit. The headright system was used in several colonies, including Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. Most headrights were for 1 to 1,000 acres (4.0 km2) of land, and were granted to those who were willing to cross the Atlantic and help populate the colonies. Headrights were granted to anyone who would pay for the transportation costs of an indentured laborer. These land grants consisted of 50 acres (0.20 km2) for someone newly moving to the area and 100 acres (0.40 km2) for people previously living in the area. By ensuring the landowning masters had legal ownership of all land acquired, the indentured laborers after their indenture period had passed had little opportunity to procure their own land. This kept a large portion of the citizens of the Thirteen Colonies poor and led to tensions between the laborers and the landowners.
- https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/speccol/sc4300/sc4341/html/intro.html
During the first years of his Province of Maryland, 1633-1681, Lord Baltimore rewarded people who transported themselves or others with rights to land, usually called headrights. For most of the period, the reward was a right to 50 acres of land per person transported. To enter and exercise his rights, a person had to give the names of those, including himself, whom he had transported. Therefore, the records of these transactions include the names of the settlers.
From these records, lists of settlers have been made since early in the nineteenth century. But only in 1968 was one published. This was Gust Skordas's The Early Settlers of Maryland, immediately a cornerstone of genealogy. In 1997 A Supplement corrected and enlarged The Early Settlers. Now The New Early Settlers of Maryland, a complete revision, replaces Skordas's work.
In 1975 Russell Menard wrote that the "best estimate" of immigration to Maryland between 1634 and 1681 is 32,000 (Economy and Society in Early Colonial Maryland, 1975, pp. 175-6). The New Early Settlers has about 34,000 entries, which, allowing for duplications, is close to Menard's estimate.
except family members, most settlers transported by others were bound to serve their transporters, usually for four or five years. That is, they were servants and in the records are often so called. But the label "servant" was no stigma. In the seventeenth century it had meanings different from those of today. It denoted a person of low class and menial occupation. The settlers closest to the modern idea of servants were those shipped by the dozen. They are listed some times as "servants," some times as "persons," and some times as both.
- In helping us to understand better the records of migration to Maryland, Dr. Gibb has focused our attention on the headright system, not only whether its records are reliable, but also on when and why it ended. It was initiated by Cecilius Calvert, Second Lord Baltimore, as an inducement to those considering emigration to Maryland. The promise of land is a powerful attraction and figures often in the development of America. When and why it was terminated is not widely known. The title page and the entries in Early Settlers imply that it ended in 1680, but Warrants WC4 has warrants issued for headrights as late as spring 1682/83. These questions give a glimpse of the vicissitudes of administering a colonial venture.
Charles Calvert, the Third Lord Baltimore, first suggested that he was going to abolish the headright system in a proclamation issued June 3, 1676. He complained that his agents had not properly returned many of the rights to land proved before them to be entered among the records. Even when this was done, he was not certain that the secretaries had made the appropriate entries. Calvert believed that, as a result, "the titles of divers of the said adventurers to their land are dubious and questionable and may hereafter be questioned to the great prejudice of the inhabitants of this province in after times when things cannot be made appear." Having suggested that the current system was not effective, he stated his intention to cease offering land in return for providing transportation to the province within two years. (LAND OFFICE (Patents) 19:459-460 MSA S11-23)
Despite reiterating his desire to end the system of headrights in 1678 and issuing several further proclamations to that effect, the Proprietor issued two extensions that, in effect, appear to have kept the headright system alive. In June of 1678, he allowed eight more months for rights to land to be proved. The first was an order for the relief of residents in Somerset County dated June 14, 1678. It did not extend the time in which people could immigrate or be transported and claim a headright to land. It merely offered additional time to prove rights to land due to those already in the province. (LAND OFFICE (Patents) 19:636-637 MSA S11-23) The second proclamation, dated June 19, 1678, applied the terms suggested for Somerset County to the whole colony, however, noting that "severall inhabitants of this province have informed me, that by reason of the late troubles with the Indians, and other urgent occasions in their cropps hindering, they could not attend the Secretary's Office for finding out their Patents." It does not forbid the issuance of new headrights for new arrivals. (GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL (Proceedings) RR:164 MSA S1071-7)
Thus, it does not appear that the practice of granting land for immigrants ceased with either of these orders. Another proclamation, dated May 15, 1683, again stated that land would be sold for 100 lbs of tobacco per fifty acres. Lord Baltimore emphasized that "the taking up of land by rights within this our province of Maryland hath proved not only grievous and burthensome to the inhabitants -- for paying for the same extravagant and extortious rates when to be procured but also very injurious and prejudiciall to ourselves by undue and unjust probate made of such rights." (GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL (Proceedings) RR:190 MSA S1071-7)
Lord Baltimore's stated concerns in ending the system are essentially (a) that his agents had not been diligent in performing their duties, thus jeopardizing title to land for those who received grants; (b) the process was very expensive for the prospective landowner; and © he believed the administration of the system had deprived the Proprietor of a great deal of income.
The cause of these concerns was the speculative manipulation of the system. A thriving business had evolved in the rights assigned by those entitled to land. While a number of people appear to have prospered in this trade, Lord Baltimore did not profit. Further, while the market for the headrights was thriving and warrants for land were being bought and sold, the expected surveying and taking up of land did not follow. Lord Baltimore's revenue came from the fees for warrants, certificates of survey, and patents and from the quitrents paid on land once it was patented. So not only had the system not benefited Lord Baltimore, but the speculation that sprang from it may actually have hindered the settlement upon which his income depended.
Further complicating matters was the influence of the people involved in this speculation, most of Lord Baltimore's principal officials. John Llewellin, Clerk of the Council and Vincent Lowe, Surveyor General, received a number of assignments. So did other members of the Provincial Council: Henry Darnall, William Stevens, George Talbot, and William Digges. Their participation certainly is one of the reasons why the end of the headright system was delayed until 1683.
The occasion of the end of the system was probably the fall in the price of tobacco. It reduced the number of new settlers claiming land and thus made speculation in headrights a marginal undertaking. Considering the status of the participants, this must have been a convenient juncture at which to end the practice. Whatever may be learned in the future about the end of the headright system, what we have learned is partly due to Dr. Gibb's work.
|
Abt 1660 - 
Home
Search
Print
Login
Add Bookmark
Find
Surnames
Bookmarks
Places
Dates
Cemeteries
Search People
Search Families
Photos
Documents
Histories
Recordings
Videos
Albums
All Media
What's New
Most Wanted
Reports
Statistics
Notes
Sources
Repositories
Contact Us
Individual
Ancestors
Descendants
Relationship
Timeline
Suggest