Of the brothers, who are said to have arrived in the spring or summer of 1658, only Captain Thomas Stockett remained in Maryland, the others having, according to family tradition, returned to England. As stated in the {14} document just given, they settled in Anne Arundell county, and on the 19th of July, 1669, “Obligation,” a tract of 664 acres of land was patented to Captain Thomas Stockett, and a part still after the lapse of nearly two centuries remains in the family, being owned by Frank H. Stockett, Esq., of the Annapolis bar. By his wife Mary (_Wells_ it is supposed), Captain Thomas Stockett had one son, Thomas, born April 17, 1667, from whose marriage with Mary, daughter of Thomas Sprigg, of West River, gentleman (March 12, 1689), and subsequent marriage with Damarris Welch, the Stocketts of Maryland, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey are descended. The arms of this branch, as given in the family archives, are “Or a Lyon rampant sable armed and Langued Gules a cheife of y^e second a castle Tripple towred argent betwixt two Beausants—to y^e crest upon a helm on a wreath of y^e colours, a Lyon Proper segeant supporte on a stock ragged and trunked argent Borne by the name of Stockett with a mantle Gules doubled Argent.” These agree with the arms given by Burke as the arms of the Stocketts of St. Stephens, county of Kent. Thomas Stockett’s will, dated April 23, 1671, was proved on the 4th of May in the same year, so that his death must have occurred within the ten intervening days. He left his estate to his wife for life, then his lands to his son Thomas, and his posthumous child if a son, and his personal estate to be divided among his daughters. His executors were his brothers Francis and Henry and his brother (in-law) Richard Wells. His dispositions of property are brief, much of the will consisting of pious expressions and wishes. {15} To return to the early Maryland emigration, at the time there was evident need for some popular tract to remove a prejudice that had been created against that colony, especially in regard to the redemptioners. The condition of those held for service in Maryland had been represented as pitiable indeed, the labor intolerable, the usage bad, the diet hard, and that no beds were allowed but the bare boards. Such calumnies had already been refuted in 1656 by Hammond, in his _Leah and Rachel_. Yet it would seem that ten years later the proprietor of Maryland found it necessary to give Alsop’s flattering picture as a new antidote. The original tract is reproduced so nearly in fac simile here that little need be said about it. The original is a very small volume, the printed matter on the page being only 2 1/8 inches by 4 7/8. (See note No. 1). At the end are two pages of advertisements headed “These Books, with others, are Printed for Peter Dring, and are to be sold at his Shop, at the Sun in the Poultrey, next door to the Rose Tavern.”