January,
2002
The
Murder of Christopher Rousby, Part I
Christopher
Rousby came to Maryland about 1666 settling in what was
then called Calvert County, but is St. Mary's County. He
brought with him his younger brother John Rousby and eight
others for whom he claimed land rights. He was a merchant
and lawyer.
Sometime
between 1668 and 1670, Rousby married Elizabeth, the widow
of Richard Collett who had died in 1668. Through this marriage
he acquired "Susquehanna Point". He would eventually increase
his land holdings to almost 3,000 acres in several Maryland
counties. No one is sure when Elizabeth died, but she was
deceased prior to 1684 and there were no issue from this,
his one and only marriage.
Rousby
held a variety of offices in the new colony of Maryland,
including Sheriff of Calvert County (1669-1674); the Lower
House, as a representative from Calvert County (1676-1682);
and finally as the King's Collector of the Patuxent (1676-1684).
This last position, to which he was nominated by Lord Baltimore
and appointed by the King, would eventually put him at loggerheads
with Lord Baltimore and would ultimately be his downfall.
For
years, the relationship between Lord Baltimore and Christopher
Rousby had been friendly. But in March 1678 several witnesses
came forth and stated that Rousby had made disparaging remarks
about Lord Baltimore. From the records, it would appear
that problems had been simmering for some time. There does
not appear to be one single cause as to why these two men
came to dislike each other, and it may simply have been
a clash of egos spurred on by the incessant gossip that
flourished in St. Mary's City.
Whatever
the reason, by 1681 Lord Baltimore wanted badly to have
Rousby removed from the position of King's Collector and
he began to accumulate evidence toward that end.
On June 6, 1681, Vincent Lowe deposed that the previous
April he had been at Rousby's house and they had a discussion
about political affairs in England. Lowe stated that during
the course of conversation, Rousby (referring to the King
and members of his Court) said to him "great men were great
knaves and turncoats, and {had} begun to piss backwards."
The
Archives of Maryland is replete with allegations being made
by one individual against another and these were all dealt
with immediately. Why was this allegation made two months
after the incident supposedly occurred? Why was it made
after Rousby sailed for England in early May?
Further,
keep in mind that Vincent Lowe was the brother-in-law of
Lord Baltimore. Jane Lowe, Vincent's sister, married first,
Henry Sewall about 1654 and secondly, Charles Calvert in
1666.
On June 7, Lord Baltimore wrote to the Earl of Anglesey,
enclosing a copy of the deposition of Lowe, reminding him
that he had already requested, twice before, that Christopher
Rousby be removed as the King's Collector. He stated that
Rousby was a
"great
knave to the king, and as great a disturber of the trade
and peace of my province…..how seditious and wicked he is…..and
that he is a great traitor, in his heart, to the King."
In
this same letter, Lord Baltimore also alleged that Christopher
Rousby and Nicholas Badcock (Surveyor of the Customs in
Maryland) were erroneously attempting to collect the penny
per pound tax on tobacco leaving Maryland when the ships'
captains had certificates of bonds (which would have waived
that requirement).
After
Rousby's departure in May, Lord Baltimore and his Council
approached Nicholas Badcock (Surveyor of the Customs in
Maryland). Lord Baltimore instructed Mr. Badcock not to
collect customs from those captains that had such certificates,
unless he could affirm they were counterfeited. But Badcock
(who was the King's appointee), wasn't backing down, because
as Lord Baltimore further stated in his letter of complaint,
"yet he had the impudence to tell me before some of my
Council, that he would complain to the Commissioners of
the Customs, that I hindered his discharging his office."
True
to his word, Mr. Badcock did complain about Lord Baltimore.
Letters were written on May 26th and on July 10th stating
that Lord Baltimore had
"obstructed the due execution of the Acts of Parliament
relating to trade and hindered the said Badcock from performing
the duty of his office."
Lord
Baltimore concluded his letter to the Earl of Anglesey by
stating
"By
this your Lordship may see what hungry indigent fellows
are appointed to service his Majesty here, such as would
dishonor the King, cheat his subjects, and drive all manner
of trade out of my Province."
He asked that the Commissioners of the Customs be directed
to appoint
"some
persons of good estates and livers in my Province to serve
the King here; for such will be careful to discharge their
trust faithfully and will also have some respect to the
government."
Rousby, still in England, was provided with the correspondence
from Lord Baltimore and required to respond to the allegations
made against him. Christopher Rousby quickly responded,
charging that the only reason Lord Baltimore wanted he and
Mr. Badcock removed was so that he could put his own appointees
in the positions, specifically his two sons-in-law.
Rousby
may have had a point. Lord Baltimore had already nominated
Capt. Digges ("who married one of his Lady's companies daughters"
employed in the place of Rousby). He later changed his mind
about Digges and asked for the appointment of Philip Calvert,
"another is his Lady's sons-in-law".
He
emphatically denied that he had made the statements attributed
to him by Vincent Lowe and said that if Lowe had made such
a statement about him, it must have been when he (Lowe)
was drunk "which was a thing very frequent with him, as
can be proved." He also pointed out that he found it remarkable
that he was supposed to have made the statements attested
to by Lowe in April, yet Lowe waited until June 6 to speak
out and only did so after Rousby left Maryland for England.
He also questioned why Lord Baltimore had not approached
him directly. All of which were very good points.
Allegation: That Lord Baltimore had written to the
Commissioners of his Majesty's Customs on several occasions
to complain about Rousby, but that Rousby had intercepted
his letters. Rousby denied that he had intercepted any letters,
nor was it within his power to do so.
Allegation: That Rousby had caused Maryland to lose
trade with New England. Rousby acknowledged that Maryland
had lost some trade, but it was with some New England men
(and perhaps others not qualified to carry tobacco out of
the province) who were attempting to take the tobacco out
of Maryland without paying any tax at all. "And now because
I have used all lawful endeavors to suppress and prevent
that course and trade of defrauding his Majesty's customs,
and to reduce the traders and dealers in that Province to
a compliance with the law, my Lord Baltimore goes about
to persuade my Lord Privy Seale that this is a crime in
me for which I ought to be turned out of my place to make
room for his Lady's son-in-law."
Allegation:
That Rousby was imposing fees unjustly, seizing cargo, and
making unnecessary demands on ship captains. Rousby responded
that he was following the instructions provided to him.
He stated that he only interfered with those ships not having
the appropriate certificates. He also denied that he had
prevented the ship captains from carrying their certificates
to his Lordship's officers.
Allegation:
That Rousby was exceeding his authority.
"I
utterly deny that I ever pretended to have other powers
than what I really had from your Honors by commission and
instructions or that I ever went about to wrest or strain
them beyond their true and natural sense, or any ways thereby
to thwart and oppose or as his Lordship terms it, to nose
{in on} him or his government. But I confess I have ever
had an awful regard to the instructions received from time
to time from your Honors and thought it my duty as far as
possibly I could to pursue the same always looking upon
them as sufficient warrant to."
Allegation:
That Rousby had expressed sentiments that were against the
King (per the statement by Vincent Lowe). Rousby denied
having made any such statements and said that
"none but a madman or a fool can be imagined to speak
such idle words."
He
stated again that neither Lord Baltimore nor any of his
officers had called him to account for his supposed statements
prior to his departure to England.
Allegation:
Debauchery, lewdness, and villainy. Rousby responded that
this was Lord Baltimore's way of trying to prove that he
and Nicholas Badcock (now deceased) were
"too
infamous to be capable of our employments…..and though his
Lordship has no cause or grounds for same, he hopes that
by casting much dirt, some might stick to work his ends
against us."
Mr.
Rousby remained in London during this time to defend himself,
but he wrote regularly to his law partner, Robert Ridgely.
In one letter, dated December 6, 1681, he stated
"You
will doubtless think it strange to hear that I am not yet
out of my trouble occasioned by my Lord Baltimore……and though
the character given of me by his Lordship be as black as
hell, yet am I not looked upon to be so profligate or despicable
a rogue as he sets me forth but have met with fair, honorable,
and just dealing and {have met}several unexpected friends
and some not of the meanest rank."
In
January, 1681/2, the Lords of the Treasury voted to report
to the King that they had investigated the allegations made
against Christopher Rousby by Lord Baltimore and stated
that they found that Lord Baltimore had "proceeded in a
very unusual manner" by making such serious allegations
against Rousby but not telling him about them prior to Rousby's
departure from Maryland in May. They also stated that Lord
Baltimore had not provided sufficient proof to support the
allegations. They recommended that the King instruct Lord
Baltimore to allow Rousby to "execute his office and to
afford him all the encouragement therein with the law requires."
The
King, following the recommendations made, wrote the following
letter to Lord Baltimore. It is dated February 8, 1682.
.
"We
are not a little surprised to find by a number of undeniable
testimonies we have received as well as by the confession
of your own letters that you have obstructed our service
and discouraged our Officers in the execution of their
duty. And although by several letters we have already
directed you by yourself and your Officers to be aiding
and assisting to the Collector and other Officers of our
customs in our Colony of Maryland, in all matters relating
to their respective offices; and particularly in the due
collection of the impositions payable unto us by an Act
of Parliament.
We
are nevertheless informed that instead of being aiding
and assisting to our said Officers in the due collection
thereof you have hindered and forbidden them to receive
the same.
We have been given to understand by Nicholas Badock that
he did demand from the masters of the ships (Note: three
ships had arrived in the St. George's River in May, 1681)
the penny per pound due in such case for all tobacco which
they should lade on board the said ships, but that he being
refused by them he attended you several times and desired
your assistance for the collection thereof but that you
refused to give him any countenance or assistance therein
and that our said surveyor pressing you several times in
this matter and urging the said law you ordered him to appear
before your Council at St Mary's which he accordingly did,
and there in our name prayed and required your aid to levy
our duties upon the lading of the said ships or to make
seizure of the goods; but that he was absolutely denied
the same, and told that he should not meddle with them for
that he had nothing to do therewith.
And
we are further informed that by a letter under your own
hand to our Commissioners of our Customs bearing date the
seventh of June last {in which}you acknowledged to have
denied him the receiving of our duties on the said ladings
and to have hindered him from molesting the said Masters
by means whereof the said ships went away with their ladings
of tobacco without passing any of the said duties to us
whereby we are demnified in our customs to the value of
25OO lbs. sterling.
We
have been also made acquainted with the complaints insinuated
by you against our trusty and well-beloved Christopher Rousby,
Collector of our Customs in our said Province as if he had
behaved himself in such violent and unwarrantable manner
as tended to the discouragement of trade, diminution of
our customs, and disturbance of the public peace. It has
been presented to us that you have proceeded in a very unusual
manner by charging the said Rousby with so great enormities
in his absence without giving him any notice of those accusations
before his departure from Maryland, which was well known
to you at least four months before he embarked, nor have
you transmitted sufficient proof upon the matters complained.
{We}
do hereby require and command you to permit the said Rousby,
peaceably and quietly, to execute his Office, and to afford
him all the encouragement which the law requires. And we
do think {it} fit to give you this caution--that if you
shall hereafter have any cause of complaint against the
said Rousby or any other person you do first give him or
them a particular charge thereof and receive his or their
answer thereunto and then transmit the said charge and answer
to us with the proofs thereof to the end we may direct speedy
justice to be awarded according to the merit of the case.
And although your proceedings abovementioned in the obstruction
of our officers and contempt of our laws are of such a
nature as that we might justly direct a writ of quo warranto
be thereupon issued out. We have nevertheless, out of
our great clemency thought fit for the present only to
require the Commissioners of our customs to charge you
with the payment of the said sum of 2500 lbs. and to cause
a demand to be made from you for the same and that you
adjusting of what shall appear to be truly due to us to
cause the same to be passed by you to our Receiver General
and Cashier of our Customs for the time being residing
in London.
And
we do strictly command you for the future to take care
that all our laws relating
to the trade of our Colony and Plantations be duly observed
and put in execution and that all encouragement and assistance
be given to the several Officers of our Customs under
your government And so wee bid you farewell. Given at
our Court at Whitehall the 8th of February in the 34th
year of our Reign."
To
be continued.
NOTE:
In the case of quotations from the records, I have corrected
spelling, added punctuation, and added words, in brackets,
to make the information more readable and understandable.
Prepared by: Linda Reno, January 2002
Bibliography:
A
Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789
by Edward C. Papenfuse, Alan F. Day, David W. Jordan, and
Gregory A. Stiverson.
Archives
of Maryland.
|
