Samuel Peele, MSA SC 5496-51567

Archives of Maryland
(Biographical Series)

Samuel Peel(e) (b. ? - d. 1733)
MSA SC 5496-51567
Property Owner, London Town, Maryland

Biography:

Samuel Peel(e) was a merchant who lived in London Town during the later part of his life.¹ He was the second son of a silk merchant, Samuel Peel(e).² His father was a member of the Church of England and his mother a "Dissenter."³ He had four brothers, William, Roger, John, and Robert, and one sister, Anne. It is known that his brother, Roger, was born on Bishopgate Street "near the magpye and sieve" in London, Great Britain.⁴ Thus, it is a possibility that Samuel Peel(e) lived there as well since his father's home was connected to the silk shop he ran with his brother-in-law.

Samuel Peel(e) owned a number of lots in and around London Town. In 1716, Samuel Peel(e) purchased lot 19 from Edward Milchell.⁵ This is the first known appearance of Peel(e) in the Anne Arundel County land records. A year later, in 1717, he bought lot 28 from Thomas Gassaway,⁶ and lot 92 from John Duvall.⁷ He acquired lot 30⁸ and 91⁹ from Benjamin and Mary (nee Macklefish) Freeman in 1719. He also bought another lot in London Town referred to as "Col. Thomas Taylors lott" from Thomas Macklefish in 1726.¹⁰

Samuel Peel(e) made a number of other land purchases, mortgages, sales, and other deals appearing in the land records. He purchased land in Annapolis from Patrick Creagh in 1722¹¹ and 1725.¹² He bought tobacco produced on the tract called "What You Will" from Richard Sympson in 1730.¹³ His brother in London, John Peel(e), appointed Samuel Peel(e) as his attorney in 1726.¹⁴ Peel(e) made numerous transactions with men, such as Anthony Bale,¹⁵ Benjamin Freeman,¹⁶ Benjamin Dufour,¹⁷ the executors of William Nicholson's estate,¹⁸ Humphrey Godman,¹⁹ David Macklefish,²⁰ Henry Bateman,²¹ Thomas Howard,²² Thomas Tilley,²³ Richard Sympson,²⁴ and William Pearce.²⁵

Samuel Peel(e) was a wealthy and successful man. His inventory was valued at 3593 pounds, 30 shillings, and 14 pence.²⁶ About 58 percent of his inventory consisted of merchandise or material goods.²⁷ It runs about 29 pages long and is divided up into specific categories such as "Linnen," "Gloves," "Stockings," "Sadles," "Cuttlary Ware," and "Tinn Ware."²⁸ Clearly, Peel(e) was well off since his inventory needed to be divided into such specific groups and spanned so many pages.

Twenty-seven percent of Peel(e)'s inventory consisted of slaves.²⁹ He owned at least forty-six slaves (to see a complete list, click here).³⁰ One of Peel(e)'s slaves ran away in 1729. His name was Lime-House and he was thirty years old. Three runaway advertisements appeared in the Maryland Gazette requesting that Lime-House be returned to Peel(e) in London Town or to his overseer at Turkey Hill.³¹ Since, Lime-House did not appear in Peel(e)'s inventory taken in 1734, it is not known what happened to him.³²

Samuel Peel(e) died intestate in May 1733, meaning he died with no legal will. He was also unmarried and did not have any children.³³ Thus, his brothers were to inherit his estate. William Peel(e), his older brother and another merchant in London Town, took out the "letters of administration."³⁴

However, in 1734, Roger Peel(e) Jr., the son of William and Samuel Peel(e)'s younger brother, Roger, took William Peel(e) to court. At the time, Roger Peel(e) was a shipwright living in Salem, Massachusetts. He was representing himself and his two brothers who were out to sea, Robert and Samuel.³⁵

Roger Peel(e) Jr. demanded that he and his two brothers receive a quarter of Samuel Peel(e)'s estate and a third of Robert Peel(e)'s estate. Robert Peel(e), a tailor, was another brother of William, Samuel, and Roger Peel(e) and he died intestate in September of 1733 with no wife or children. Roger Peel(e) Jr. asked "in a friendly manner" to be paid his due.³⁶ He even "offered to give Security to Refund in Case of Latent Debts."³⁷

William Peel(e) refused to pay Roger Peel(e) his share because he needed proof that Roger was in fact the legitimate son of his brother. He stated that his brother, Roger, "had for many years been absent from Great Britain and from his friends and Relations."³⁸ After Samuel Peel(e), the father of Samuel and William Peel(e) died, their younger brother, Roger, was "bound an Apprentice" to a Captain Gourney, commander of a Man of War called Defyance.³⁹

However, Captain Gourney died in Barbados before the end of Roger Peel(e)'s indenture, so he set off for Newfoundland. William Peel(e) did not hear about him until 1700 when Roger was in New England. William Peel(e) then wrote to his brother, Samuel Peel(e) in London Town, stating that their brother was in fact alive.⁴⁰

Roger Peel(e) died intestate on June 8, 1723 and left his estate to his three sons, Roger, Robert, and Samuel. In order for Roger Peel(e) Jr.to prove that he was in fact the son of Roger Peel(e) and the nephew of William, Samuel, and Robert Peel(e), he had to produce a pocketbook with proof of his father's handwriting.⁴¹

He also produced the marriage certificate of his parents. His father, Roger, married Margaret Kempton, widow, on November 15, 1709. They were married in Salem, Massachusetts by Minister Nicholas Noyes. Roger was born on August 5, 1710, Robert was born on August 29, 1712, and Samuel, named after his grandfather and uncle, was born on March 23, 1716/7.⁴²

In order to gather even more proof, five members of the Salem community were interrogated: Perez Webb (age 57), Margaret Stone (age 55), Sarah Peard (age 52), Margaret Cook (age 41), and Daniel Webb (age 48). They all agreed that Roger Peel(e)'s marriage and sons were legitimate and that they often heard him talk of his family in Great Britain.⁴³ Margaret Stone was so specific in her description that she discussed how many siblings Roger Peel(e) had, what his father did, and that he "had an aversion or antipathy to Choose", just like his father.⁴⁴

It seems there was a delay in making a decision because the court needed to hear from William, Samuel, Robert, and Roger's other brother, John, a merchant in London, in regards to the case.⁴⁴ In 1743, William Peel(e) exhibited Samuel Peel(e)'s accounts and paid Roger Peel(e) and his brothers their share.⁴⁵

Return to Samuel Peel(e)'s Introductory Page

This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.

Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!

Archives' Home Page
   |
Maryland Manual On-Line
   |
Reference & Research
   |

Search the Archives
   |
Students & Teachers
   |
Archives of Maryland Online

Governor     General Assembly    Judiciary     Maryland.Gov

� Copyright September 14, 2012 Maryland State Archives