xxxii               Introduction.

        two latter not guilty, the court thereupon also freed the servant that had pleaded
        guilty, probably because it felt all three really equally guilty, and it seemed
        unfair to penalize the one who had confessed his crime. Bawcomb, the master,
        was, however, bound over for twelve months for his good abearance. The
        sheriff's imprisonment charges and costs for the three, based on a rate of a
        twenty pounds of tobacco a day, amounted to a total of 10,200 pounds, a rather
        large sum of money for that period (pp. 601, 603, 604).
         Two Maryland planters living at the Cliffs, Calvert County, were brought
        before the Provincial Court in 1670 upon charges of barratry, a legal term
        applied only to troublemakers who were repeated offenders, and an offense
        almost unheard of on the Maryland dockets. The words of the presentment,
        identical in both cases, charge the barrators with so many offenses that one
        feels certain that neither of them could have been guilty of all the unpleasant
        things with which they were charged in the old legal form, which perhaps the
        new Attorney-General John Morecroft dug up to impress the court and the
        public. Be this as it may, the presentment in each case charged that the
        accused “was and yet is a Comon Barretor, a dayly and publique disturber of
        the peace of the said Lord Proprietary a comon and turbulent Calumniator, a
        Reproacher, a fighter, a sower of striffes and discords amongst his neighbors
        so that he hath moved procured and stirred up divers striffes brawlings and
        fightings then and there and at other places elsewhere amongst the good people
        of the said Lord Proprietary to the great disturbance of the said Lord
        proprietaryes Peace contrary to his rule and dignity” (p. 605).
         The two men charged with barratry were Captain Thomas Manning and
        Henry Mitchell, both of Calvert County, who were each brought before the
        court at its December, 1669, session although there was no connection between
        their offenses. Captain Thomas Manning, gentleman, and a member of the
        Calvert County court, was presented for an offense no details of which are
        disclosed, which apparently culminated on August 20, 1669 (p. 607). Although
        the presentment does not state why Manning found himself charged with
        barratry, an examination of the court record discloses a civil suit which throws
        light upon his character. This suit filed at the February, 1667/8, court by
        Richard Collett, High Sheriff of Calvert County, against Thomas Manning,
        while giving no details of the assault, shows that Manning was a man of
        violence. It is here alleged that while “officiating his office . . . . he was
        struckt and beaten . . . . whereupon by Warrt” from the Governor, Manning
        was arrested and bound over. When the case was called, Collett was “very
        sick and weak and not able to appear this court” (p. 244). He died soon
        afterwards, sometime between January 8 and April 28, 1668, very possibly as a
        result of his injuries. At the June, 1668, session, Manning entered his
        personal appearance at the court in connection with “the complaint formerly
        made against him by Richard Collett deceased” (p. 312). There seems to have
        been no formal prosecution. He was doubtless guilty of some other outbreak
        of violence when he was indicted for barratry two years later. When brought
        before the court at the December, 1669, session Manning seems to have offered
        no defense and “humbly submitted himself to the judgment of the Court”, and
        gave security in the sum of £50 for his good abearance during life (p. 607).