“The principall place or Towne is called St. Maryes ... other places wee have none, that are called or cann be called Townes. The people there not affecting to build nere each other but soe as to have their [houses] nere the watters for conveniencye of trade and their Lands on each side of and behynde their houses, by which it happens that in most places there are not ffifty houses in the space of thirty myles. And for this reason it is that they have been hitherto only able to divide this Provynce into Countyes without being able to make any subdivision into Parishes or Precincts which is a worke not to be effected untill it shall please God to encrease the number of the People and soe to alter their trade as to make it necessary to build more close and to Lyve in Townes.” When Lord Baltimore offered to the Lords of Trade this explanation of the dearth of municipal life in Maryland, he emphasized precisely those facts which have distinguished the political development of the South from that of the North, and unwittingly explained the late appearance upon the map of America of the city which now perpetuates his family name. Boston had lived and grown for nearly a century, New Amsterdam had been New York one half that time, and a whole generation of Philadelphians had passed away before the future metropolis of the South came into being. A half-century passed, and the Revolution found the town upon the Patapsco about the size of Salem or Providence; in another half-century it had become the third city in the United States. The pre-eminence which Baltimore thus attained was many years ago termed “an unsolved problem in the philosophy of cities.” Now, when one views this phenomenon in a longer perspective, it is possible, perhaps, to discern more clearly some of the elements which combined to give rise to it. Certainly, late years have brought to light much which one is enabled to add to the story of historic Baltimore that the fathers have handed down.