USA > Maryland > Maryland, 1633 to 1776 : being an account of the main currents in the political and religious development of Maryland as a proprietary province > Part 1
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7
Gc 975.2 Sch6m 1753457
REYNOLDS HISTORICAL GENEALOGY COLLECTION
ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 1833 02243 7518
Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016
https://archive.org/details/maryland1633to1700scho 0
MARYLAND®
1633 to 1776
BEING AN ACCOUNT OF THE MAIN CURRENTS IN THE POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT OF MARYLAND AS A PROPRIETARY PROVINCE
THESIS
PRESENTED TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BERNE BY RUDOLF EMIL SCHONFELD OF WASHINGTON
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Von der philosophischen Fakultät auf Antrag des Herrn Prof. Dr. Woker angenommen.
BERN, den 9. Dezember 1920.
Der Dekan: Prof. Dr. P. GRUNER.
BERNE / BÜCHLER & Co., PRINTERS / 1921
563
MD
G3194.
1753457
FOREWORD
The following pages, written as part requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Berne, are designed to briefly trace the history of Maryland from the date of its foundation to the Revolutionary War. My especial thanks are due my father, Dr. Herman Schonfeld, at whose suggestion this work was undertaken, and to Prof. P. Woker, under whose guidance it was achieved-to both of whom I make grateful acknowledgement of indebtedness. I also desire to thank John J. Meily, Esquire, American Consul at Berne, and Mr. Jean Alle- mann for valuable assistance.
BERNE, Switzerland, March 1921.
R. E. S.
--
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chap. I. Founding of Maryland and its Charter
7
Chap. II. Attacks upon the Maryland Charter .
14
Chap. III. The Church and Toleration in Maryland
25
Chap. IV. Form of Government and Influences toward Democracy
40
Chap. V. People vs. Proprietor . 51
Chap. VI. The People of Maryland vs. the Home Government .
72
1
---------
--
--
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ARCHIVES
Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1636-37 to 1697.
Proceedings of the Council, 1636 to 1692.
Journal of the Upper House, Md. Historical Society, Baltimore.
Journal of the Lower House,
id.
Acts of the General Assembly, id.
THEN
Proceedings of the Council, id.
NEWSPAPERS
The Maryland Gazette. State Library, Annapolis.
BOOKS
BACON, T., Laws of Maryland at Large.
BOZMAN, J. I .. , The History of Maryland from its Settlement in 1633 to the Restoration in 1660. 2 Vol.
BROWNE, W. H., Maryland, the History of a Palatinate.
BROWNE, W. H., George and Cecilius Calvert.
DOYLE, H. A., English Colonies in America, Virginia, Maryland and the Carolinas.
FISKE, J., Old Virginia and her Neighbours. 2 Vol.
HART, A. B., Editor of the American Nation. Vol. 4, England in America, by L. G. Tyler. Vol. 5, Colonial Self-Government, by C. Mcl .. Andrews. Vol. 6, Provincial America, by E. B. Greene. ,
HALL, C. C., The Lords Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate.
MERENESS, N. D., Maryland as a Proprietary Province.
McMAHON, J. V. L., Historical View of the Government of Maryland. STEINER, B. C., Beginnings of Maryland, 1631 to 1639. THOMAS, J. W., Chronicles of Colonial Maryland.
الله
CHAPTER I.
FOUNDING OF MARYLAND AND ITS CHARTER.
In the year 1623, England and Spain, hereditary enemies since the days of the Reformation, were to be brought together through the marriage of Charles I., then Prince of Wales, with . a Spanish Infante. Such was the plan of George Calvert, prin- cipal Secretary of State at the time and a powerful faction of the English court. However when the plan became known, it was so violently opposed by the people and Commons, that its erst- while sponsors, with the exception of Calvert, repudiated it.
Calvert believed that the hatred between the two nations should give way to a period of sympathetic understanding and that the alliance would serve this end. In addition, in his own case, there was a strong religious motive. His tendencies were distinctly Roman Catholic. As a member of the English govern- ment he was necessarily a member of the Church of England, but at heart he had become a Roman Catholic. Therefore on the collapse of the policy that he had sponsored he announced his conversion to the Church of Rome and retired from political life. In spite of this, his personal influence with James 1. re- mained unaffected and he was even raised to the Irish peerage as Baron Baltimore of Longford County, Ireland.
As a result of this relinquishment of power Baltimore was free to turn his full attention to colonization enterprise in North America. He had been a pioneer in colonization there. As coun- cillor of the New England Company and a member of the Vir- ginia Company during the precarious years of its early existence, he had been identified with British colonial enterprise in America practically at its inception. In 1624 when the Virginia charter
L
- 3 -
was revoked and it became a crown colony, he was appointed one of the provisional council for its government. In 1620 he purchased the rights over the southeastern peninsula of New- foundland, called Avalon, from Sir William Vaughan and the fol- lowing year sent over a body of colonists.
In 1625 James I. of England died and was succeeded by his son, Charles, who sought to retain Baltimore's services by offering to dispense with the oath of supremacy in his particular case. But the latter pleaded the necessity of visiting his colony, Avalon. In this connection Baltimore wrote Sir Thomas Went- worth in 1627:
"I must either go and settle it in better order, or else give it over, and lose all the charges I have been at hitherto, for other men to build their fortunes upon. And I had rather be esteemed a tool by some, for the hasard of one month's journey, than to prove myself one certainly for six years by-past, if the business be now lost for the want of a little pains and care."1
In 1628 Baltimore moved to Avalon with forty colonists and his family, with the exception of his eldest son Cecilius, who remained in England. But in a few months he decided to dis- continue his efforts to develop this colony. In a letter to the king he explained that he had been deceived, that everything was completely frozen from October till May and that the climate was so rigorous as to render the colony valueless except as a fishing station. He closed with a petition for a grant of land more to the south.
Leaving Avalon with his family, Baltimore made his way down the coast to Virginia. His reception there was anything but cordial. He was first of all, a Roman Catholic, a fact par- ticularly distasteful to the Virginians. In addition, he had been one of the commissioners appointed by James I. for the control of Virginia, and it was feared that part or perhaps the whole of the colony might be granted him. To deter him from remaining he was tendered the oath of allegiance which required him to swear that he believed the king to be "the only supreme governor in his realm and dominions in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things
1 W. H. Brown, Maryland, The History of a Palatinate, page 9.
----
- 9 -
or causes."1 As a Roman Catholic he naturally declined, soon after left the colony, and after examining the coast, returned to England.
On his arrival he petitioned the King for a grant of land south of the James River. But upon the counter petition of Wil- liam Claiborne, a member of the Virginia government, who had been sent to England by the Virginia Assembly for the express purpose of preventing any encroachment on Virginia's territory, and who urged that Virginia desired to establish sugar plantations on these lands, Baltimore agreed to renounce this patent and requested that the unsettled territory north of the Potomac River be granted him.
On April 15, 1632 before this grant had received the imprint of the great seal, George Calvert, 1st Lord Baltimore died and the charter was granted to his son Cecilius, 2nd Lord Baltimore. George Calvert, though of a religious faith that involved political disfranchisement in England, had won and retained the friend- ship of two wayward and changeful British monarchs and by the force of his personal influence, had assured a charter to his son, upon which was to be built the State of Maryland, a permanent monument to the House of Baltimore.
The charter of the new State, issued in June 1632, modeled upon the palatinate form of government of the Bishopric of Durham, provided for the erection of a similar form of govern- ment in the new world with the Barons of Baltimore as Lords Palatine. The boundaries of the province were to be: the fortieth parallel on the north; on the west a line drawn due south from the fortieth parallel to the farthest source of the Potomac River; on the south, the lower bank of the Potomac River to the Chesapeake Bay, across the Bay to Watkins Point, thence due east to the Atlantic Ocean. This territory included not only the present state of Maryland but also territory which forms the pres- ent state of Delaware, a large part of Pennsylvania, and a part of Virginia.
Cecilius immediately undertook to plant a colony. The Ark and Dove, ships of three hundred and fifty and fifty tons respec-
1 Maryland Archives, Proceedings of the Council, 1636 -1667, pages 16, 17.
-- 10 -
tively, were to carry the prospective settlers to the New World. Of the company, about twenty were of gentle blood and chiefly Roman Catholics, whereas the great buik of the remaining two hundred and more were artisans and craftsmen, chiefly Prot- estants. Cecilius had planned to accompany his colonists but was prevented by the necessity of protecting his charter against powerful interests which had unsuccessfully opposed its passing and were now intent upon securing its revocation.
The Ark and Dove had left Gravesend, when the Star Cham- ber received a report that the crew had failed to take the oath of allegiance. Cecilius' Roman Catholic faith had given rise to numerous rumors as to the purpose of the expedition, some as ex- treme as that the ships were to carry nuns and soldiers to Spain. An order to Admiral Pennington guarding the straits arrived in time to enable him to intercept the ships and administer the neces- sary oath. That complete, they were allowed to proceed. At the Isle of Wight two Jesuit priests were taken aboard, Andrew White and John Altham. After a three month's trip the ships arrived at Old Point Comfort, rested a week, then sailed up the Potomac River and landed at St. Clements' Island.
The expedition was in charge of the brother of the Lord Proprietor, Leonard Calvert. The latter arranged through Henry Fleet, a Virginian, who knew the Indian languages, to purchase land already cleared and cultivated, from the Yaocomic Indians. The latter harassed by the neighboring Susquehannoughs, were preparing to leave and gladly gave title to their land to the English settlers in exchange for a few axes, hoes and cloth. Upon this land was founded the town of St. Mary's, the first town in the province of Maryland.
The land was rich and possessed many natural advantages, the many rivers and the Bay made communication easy, the climate though cold in winter was not rigorous,-and of vital importance, food existed in abundance. The Yaocomic Indians assisted the settlers in learning to cultivate the native corps of corn and tobacco, the latter scon becoming the staple product for export from the province and even its currency. Under such favorable circumstances the colonists began an existence which can be characterized as successful from the beginning.
-
11 -
The system of government, though modeled on that of Durham, was nevertheless unique. It has been correctly said that it was "more ample in terms than any similar charter ever granted by an English king." 1
The new province, which the charter provided should be called Maryland, in honor of Charles' Catholic queen, Henriette Maria, was to be held in free and common socage by Lord Baltimore, his heirs or assigns, for all time, in return for the annual payment of two Indian arrows at Windsor and one fifth of all gold and silver mined. It was expressly provided that it was not to be held "in capite, nor by Knight's service" ? thus specifically exempting him from all services, military and other- wise, except those specifically mentioned.
Lord Baltimore, and his heirs were to be "the true and ab- solute lords and proprietors of the region aforesaid saving always the faith and allegiance and sovereign dominion" due the crown of England. He was empowered to "to ordain, make and enact laws, of what kind soever ... whether relating to the public state of the said province, or the private utility of individuals, of and with the advice, assent, and approbation of the freemen of the said province." He was further empowered "to make and con- stitute fit and wholesome ordinances from time to time, to be kept and observed within the province aforesaid, as well for the conservation of the peace, as for the better government of the people inhabiting therein." These ordinances were to be "in- violably observed" as long as they were "consonant to reason" and not repugnant or contrary to the laws, statutes, or rights of England. He and his heirs were further to have the right of making war and peace; even as "full and unrestrained power, as any captain-general of an army ever hath had" and to be able "to summon to their standards, and to array all men, of what- soever condition, or wheresoever born, for the time being, in the said province of Maryland, to wage war and to pursue even
1 MacMahon, J. V. L. An Historical View of the Government of Mary- land .- Vol. 1, page 155.
2 Bacon, T., Laws of Maryland at Large (Translation from the Latin). Like- wise quotations which follow.
6
-- 12 --
beyond the limits of their province, the enemies and ravagers aforesaid, infesting those parts by land and by sea."
They were given the right to establish courts of justice, appoint judges and magistrates and other civil officers, execute laws, pardon offenders; "and do all and singular other things belonging to the completion of justice, and to courts, pretorian judicatories, and tribunals, judicial forms and modes of proceeding, although express mention thereof in these presents be not made."
It was further provided that in view of the remoteness of the region, and as "every access to honors and dignities may seem to be precluded, and utterly barred, to men well born, who are preparing to engage in the present expedition, and desirous of deserving well, both in peace and war, of us and our kingdoms" ... plenary power was granted to the Baron of Baltimore then holding the title as well as his heirs or assigns "to confer favors, rewards and honors, upon such subjects, in- habiting within the province aforesaid, as shall be well deserving, and to adorn them with whatsoever titles and dignities they shall appoint (so that they be not such as are now used in England)".
The Lord Proprietor was further to have the patronage and distribution of benefices of churches and the privilege to found, erect, dedicate and consecrate churches and chapels.
The King bound himself and his successors to lay no taxes, customs, subsidies or other contributions whatever upon the people of the province, and in case of such a demand being made the charter expressly declared that this clause should be pleaded as a discharge in full. The freemen could be called to assembly at such time and in such manner as the Lord Proprietor saw fit but they were to have no representation in the English Parliament and the latter was to have no right to make laws for them.
Such were the primary provisions of the charter. They pro- vided for rights that were nothing short of royal and the province was indeed "a kingdom within a kingdom".
The rights of the people were safeguarded more by impli- cation than express provision. They and their descendants were to remain English subjects; all laws were to be made with their advice and assent; no ordinance should be made depriving them
-
13 -
of life, freehold, goods or chattels; all laws should be reasonable and agreeable to the laws of England so far as they conveniently might be; and the people of Maryland should be entitled to " all the privileges, franchises and liberties" which other English subjects enjoyed.
The Proprietor was the source of all power, - civil, military and religious. But the granting of privilege did not necessarily imply the means to enforce it, and opposition to royal prerog- ative witnessed in many controversies in the province of Mary- land ended in less than a century and a half in complete triumph of popular liberty and overthrow of autocratic control.
The principal inducements held out to prospective colonists were two: the possiblity of becoming land owners and the assurance of freedom from religious pressure and persecution in the event of their being of a faith other than that of the Church of England.
In a letter of instructions written by Cecilius to his brother Leonard the latter was directed to give colonists of the first immigration who had brought five men to the colony two thousand acres of land subject to an annual quitrent of four hundred pounds of wheat. Colonists who emigrated to Maryland in 1634-1635 bringing over ten men were to receive the same allotment of land at a rental of six hundred pounds of wheat annually. This proportion was to be continued for immigrants arriving in suc- ceeding years.
These instructions further dealt with the question of the relationship of colonists of different religious faiths. There was to be absolute impartiality of treatment of Protestants and Catho- lics. The latter were to perform their religious ceremonies as privately as possible and refrain from becoming involved in reli- gious discussions. In the light of succeeding events, it may be confidently stated that Cecilius Calvert, possessed a liberality of mind as regarded religious freedom rare at that time, and that it was this liberality as much as the recognition of the advisa- bility of such a policy which caused Maryland to become the refuge of persecuted protestants and catholics alike.
14
CHAPTER II.
ATTACKS UPON THE MARYLAND CHARTER.
Close upon the granting of the Maryland charter, the crown was presented with a petition from the governor, council and planters of Virginia, which maintained that the newly granted charter of Lord Baltimore included territory previously granted to Virginia, that part of this territory was inhabited by Virginians and that colony was now cut off from certain of its places of trade.1 As the rights granted by the original Virginia charter of 1609 had reverted to the crown in 1624 when Virginia became a crown colony, the basis of the Virginia claim could scarcely be considered valid. In a hearing of the case before the Privy Council, Baltimore's grant was upheld and a royal order was sent to the Virginia government commanding that Maryland be afforded all lawful assistance.
However these orders were not to be complied with without friction. William Claiborne, a member of the Virginia council and secretary of state of that colony, had established a trading post on Kent Island, in the Chesapeake Bay, within the Mary- land grant, under authority granted him by a patent issued in 1631 under the Scotch signet. Cloberry and Company of London were interested in the post and furnished the capital for the enter- prise. They were to send out men, indented servants and freemen as well as suitable wares for trading with the Indians and to re- ceive in return beaver skins and corn for sale in England.
Shortly before the settling of St. Mary's Claiborne was told that Kent Island was situated within the Maryland grant and that he would have to surrender it. But the Island had sent a
' Proceedings of the Council, 1636-1667, pages 18 to 22.
.
T
- 15 -
member to the Virginia House of Burgesses and was considered a part of that colony. Therefore Claiborne requested instructions from the Virginia government as to the propriety of complying. The-latter replied March 14, 1633 -- 1634 that it failed to see any more reason for giving up Kent Island than for giving up any other part of the colony. '
In his original instructions dated November 13, 1633 to his brother, Cecilius directed that friendly relations with Claiborne be established, that a curteous letter be written him assuring him of all encouragement in his enterprise consistent with the Mary- land charter. He was then to be invited to a conference. If he refused to come, he was to be left alone for a year, and the Lord Proprietor informed.
Soon after the arrival of the colonists, the attitude of the Indians, hitherto friendly, suddenly changed. It was rumored that Claiborne had caused this change by telling the natives that the new colonists were Spaniards. This seems to have been false, but the Lord Proprietor was meanwhile informed and immediately sent instructions that Claiborne's settlement be seized and he himself held prisoner pending further instructions. 2
The capture of a pinnace belonging to Claiborne by the Maryland government for trading in Maryland waters without a license brought about hostilities. Claiborne in retaliation armed the shallop "Cockatrice" and manned her. with thirty men under Ratcliffe Warren and empowered him to seize any vessel belong- ing to the St. Mary's government. On hearing of this, Gov. Calvert, sent out two pinnaces, the Sts. Helen and Margaret, under command of Thomas Cornwalleys. The opposing boats met April 23, 1635 in the Pocomoke River and the "Cockatrice" was taken.8 May 10th another encounter occured. Claiborne favored further hostilities but the Virginia government feared the consequences of continuing to run counter to express royal in- structions and therefore sent commissioners to Maryland who made arrangements whereby Baltimore's authority was acquiesced in, if not formally acknowledged.
" Proceedings of the Council 1667 to 1687-1688, page 164.
2 Proceedings of the Council 1667 to 1687-1688, pages 165-168.
' Proceedings of the Council 1667 to 1687 -1688, page 169.
- - 16
Toward the end of 1636 Cloberry and Co., dissatisfied with profits, sent George Evelin as their representative to Kent Island with full power to take over the post from Claiborne. The latter was to return to England to settle his accounts. Evelin was inclined to dispute Baltimore's title to Kent Island until a visit to St. Mary's where he was shown a copy of the Maryland charter and a copy of Claiborne's license convinced him that his claim could not hold. He therefore decided to recognize Mary- land's jurisdiction and obtained a commission from Calvert as "Commander" of the Island. An effort to induce the inhabitants to submit to Maryland authority failed. Evelin then proposed that Gov. Calvert reduce the Island by force. In December 1637 a Maryland force of forty men made a surprise landing on Kent Island and captured the Island without bloodshed.
Evelin made no effort to safeguard the interests of the in- habitants, but on the contrary appropriated to his own use equipment belonging to the settlement valued at from £ 8,000 to £ 10,000.1 His mal-administration caused a revolt which necessitated a second reduction of the Island. However by 1640 the Kent Islanders had taken oath of fidelity to the Maryland government and had had their property grants confirmed to them. Meanwhile Evelin had become the owner of a manor in Mary- land and Claiborne absent in England had been deprived of all his possessions in the province by a bill of attainder passed by the Maryland Assembly. 2 Opposition from that quarter thus seemed to have been effectively crushed, but this reverse merely marked the beginning of a long period of persistent opposition on the part of Claiborne.
The charter continued to be the object of open and covert attack. In order to quiet opposition for all time King Charles I. in 1637 confirmed his grant and ordered the Commissioners of Plantations to countenance no commission which unfavorably affected the rights of Baltimore. He himself would prevent the passage of any "quo warranto" proceedings designed to over- throw or nullify any clause of the Maryland charter. But de-
1 Beginnings of Maryland 1631-1639. Bernhard C. Steiner.
' Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly, 1637-1639 to 1664, pages 23-24.
-
17 -
spite this confirmation, the charter was to experience three quarters of a century of persistent and often successful attack.
Toward the close of 1643 Richard Ingle, commander of the merchant ship "Reformation" appeared in St. Mary's harbor. He was arrested while in port for violent and treasonable speeches against the king. Arrested by the. Maryland authorities, he was released by Capt. Thomas Cornwalleys. The latter, appointed Captain-general of the province on Gov. Calvert's departure for England in April 1643, was the chief military figure in the colony. He had commanded the forces against Claiborne, concluded peace with the Naticoke Indians and led an expedition against the Susquehannoughs. But he had become disaffected through the Lord Proprietor's failure to grant certain concessions to the Assembly and his policy of restricting the rights of the Roman Church. His action with regard to Ingle caused considerable resentment in the colony. When brought to trial he was fined 1000 pounds of tobacco. 1
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.