USA > Maryland > A sketch of the history of Maryland during the three first years after its settlement : to which is prefixed, a copious introduction > Part 17
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 (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28
* Leland's Ilist. of Ireland, Vol. 2, (ch. 8,) p. 479.
·
259
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
of the pope's power of excommunicating kings, and thereby deposing them, yet many of the moderate English Catholics, soon after the making of the sta- tute of 3 Jac. 1, in the year 1606, thought that they could with propriety, and actually did, take the path prescribed by that statute; and in this they were encouraged by George Blackwell, who had been established as the archpriest or superior of the Catholic church in England, and who gave it as his opinion that the English Catholics might with safety take this oath of allegiance. But pope Paul, by a brief, in 1606, forbade them to take it. Blackwell refused to publish the brief, and on that account the English Catholics conceived, that it was a forged one. The pope, however, renewed his prohibition, and cardinal Bellarmine wrote a sharp letter of re- proof to Blackwell, exhorting him to redress his fault, and rather suffer martyrdom than continue that course. Blackwell answered Bellarmine, that since the ablest divines did not believe that the pope had any power over the temporals of princes, he thought that he might in conscience take the oath ac- . cording to that opinion .* This letter of Bellarmine
* Blackwell probably alluded here to some controversial writings, which the then recent dispute between pope Paul V, and the republic of Venice, had occasioned. That pontiff had thought that some laws or decrees of the senate interfe- red with his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and demanded by his nuncio, that they should be revoked. The senate supposing that these laws concerned only matters which were properly the subjects of their internal police, refused the demand. Two clergymen also, who had committed crimes, were about to be punished. He demanded, that they should be delivered up, to be tried by his ecclesiasticad judges. This also the
SF.CT. IX.
1628.
1
240
INTRODUCTION TO A
SECT. and the two briefs of the pope, drew forth the pen IX. of king James, who was alivays glad of an opportu- 1628. nity of displaying his talents for theological contro- versy ; and it is said,* he clearly demonstrated that the cardinal had confounded the two oaths of supre- macy and allegiance, and thereby shown, that he did not understand the subject. The intended dis- tinction between them, appears to have been, that the oath of supremacy obliges the subject to ac- knowledge the king for supreme head of the Church of England, as well as to bear allegiance to him ; but the oath of allegiance, prescribed by the statute of 3 Jac. 1, requires only submission and obedience to the king, as a sovereign, independent of any other power upon earth.t So that it was supposed, that every Catholic could safely take this new oath, un- , less he was one of those who thought, that to be a true Catholic it was necessary to believe, that the pope had power to depose kings, and give away their dominions. It is said also,¿ that the commons having put into the rough draught of the oath, " that the pope has not power to excommunicate the king," James observed, that these words might . 1
,
senate refused. The consequence was, that his holiness pro- nounced the doge and the republic excommunicated. This dispute occasioned many books to be written, in different parts of Europe, relative to the bounds of division between ecclesiastical and political power ; in which many sound Ca- tholics attempted to maintain the independence of princes and states against the papal power. See Dupin's Hist. of the Church, Cent. 17, chap. 2 and 3.
* Rapin's Hist. (Tindal's edit.) Vol. 8, p. 65.
t Ibid. Vol. 8, p. 62. ¿ Ibid.
N
SECT. IX. 1628.
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
possibly offend his good Catholic subjects, and it would be sufficient to assert, that the pope's ex- communication could not authorise subjects to rise against their sovereign. Whether foreigners, espe- cially Catholics, really understood these distinctions or not, it seems that soon afterwards, in conformity to the sense of it at the court of Rome, the English Catholics generally adopted the resolution of reject -. ing both oaths alike. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, that lord Baltimore should on this occa- sion, have also pursued that line of conduct.
Whether lord Baltimore personally, at the time Lord Bal- of his visit to Virginia, explored that tract of coun- forms the timore try now denominated Maryland, of which he after_ scheme of
Maryland.
settling a wards procured a grant, we are not positively in- colony in formed. But, as the obtaining a more complete knowledge of the country bordering on the Chesa- peake, than he could otherwise possibly have from report, must have been the principal object of his visit, we cannot but suppose, that he must at this time, notwithstanding the discouragement of his pursuits by the Virginians, have made the tour by water of the principal parts of the Chesapeake bay. Although it is highly probably, that the Virginians had then been for some time in the practice of trad- ing and bartering with the Indian natives inhabiting the shores of that bay, even to its head, at the mouth of the Susquehanna; and might, indeed, as it is said, have established trading-houses on some of the islands toward the head of the bay, * particularly perhaps on the isle of Kent ; yet, if the " ancient
* Holmes's Annals, Vol. 1, p. 261.
2 H
الأندلس : TH ans
242
INTRODUCTION TO A
SECT. records" of Virginia, before-mentioned, and cited . IX.
by a late historian of that state, be authentic to 1628. prove that this visit of lord Baltimore to Virginia, was in the year 1628, which we have here taken as. granted, there are strong grounds to presume, that at this time there had been no actual settlements made, either by the Virginians or any other Euro- peans, within the lines and limits of any part of that country for which the lord Baltimore afterwards ob- tained a grant, unless a colony of Swedes and Fins, which had arrived in the Delaware, in the preced- ing year, (1627,) and may be supposed to have been in this year settling themselves at the mouth of Christina creek, near Wilmington, in what is now called the Delaware state, be considered to have been within the limits of his lordship's patent. It may be proper to take some further notice here, of this attempt at colonisation by the Swedes, inas- much as it was made the ground of a charge in the bill in chancery, filed by the Penns, proprietors of Pennsylvania, in the year 1735, against lord Balti- more, in a dispute concerning the bounds of their provinces, that his lordship had set forth, in his pe- tition to the king for his grant, what was not true ; that is, that the country for which he prayed a grant, " was not then cultivated and planted, though in cer- tain parts thereof, inhabited by certain barbarous people ;" by means of which false suggestion, it was contended that his patent was void, at least for so much as was within their claim.
* From a MS. copy of the above-mentioned bill in chance- ry, in my possession, the following clause is abstracted : " and
-
243
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
It appears, that in the year 1626, under the reign SECT. IX. of Gustavus Adolphus, king of Sweden, a scheme was formed in that kingdom, for settling a colony 1628. in America. This was chiefly promoted by the great commendation which William Ussellin, (or colony of Swedes on Useling,) an eminent Swedish merchant, gave of the Dela- the country in the neighbourhood of what was then ware.
your orators further show unto your lordship, that on the eastern side of the said peninsula or tract, and also above the said peninsula or tract, within, the main land or continent, and towards the sea and the estuary and river of Delaware, there was, of very early and ancient times, (the beginning whereof is not known.) a settlement and plantation, made and planted and inhabited bu Christians of the Swedish nation ; and the said settlement and plantation was afterwards held and inha- bited in the year 1609, and for many years then after, by Christians under the dominion of the States General, of the United Provinces." Mr. Murray, (afterwards lord Mans- field,) who drew this bill, was certainly misinformed as to two " facts exhibited in this allegation. No authentic history has ever yet undertaken to show, that the Swedes were settled on the Delaware, in " times the beginning whereof is not known," nor indeed prior to the year 1627, as is stated in' Proud's Hist. of Pennsylvania; and it is, moreover, entirely inconsistent with the early events of the History of Virginia, wherein no circumstance to that purpose is recognised. The other fact stated, seems to be in consequence thereof, evi- dently groundless, to wit : that the Dutch had " afterwards, in the year 1609, held and inhabited the said settlement of the Swedes." Now it seems to be agreed on all sides, that cap- tain Hudson did not make his voyage of discovery, under the authority of the Dutch, until the year 1609 ; and it was not until the next year, (1610,) that the Dutch colony was sent out, which settled on Manhattan (now New York) island. It would necessarily take some years for them to have extended their possessions and habitations to the Delaware. Accord- ingly, the historian of Pennsylvania, (Proud;) makes the first
Settle- ment of a .
£
.
العشرة
244
INTRODUCTION TO A
SECT. IX. called New Netherlands, now New Jersey and New York. . Gustavus was thereby induced to issue a 1628. proclamation, exhorting his subjects to contribute to a company associated for the settlement of a co- lony in that country. Considerable sums were raised by contribution ; and in the next year, (1627,) a number of Swedes and Fins came over to America. They first landed at Cape Inlopen, the interior Cape of Delaware bay,* which, from its pleasant appear- ance to them, they named Paradise-point. They are said to have purchased of some Indians, the land from Cape Inlopen to the falls of Delaware, on both sides of the river, which they called New Swedeland stream ; and made presents to the Indian chiefs, to obtain peaceable possession of the land so purchased : with whom they appear to have lived
settlement of the Dutch on the Delaware, to have been in the year 1623, "near Glocester, in New Jersey ;" which appa-' rently indicates, that their first exploring excursions to the Delaware were from Manhattan across the Jersies; and this was, as Proud asserts, " before any of the Swedes came into America." See Proud's History of Pennsylvania, Vol. 1, p. 110.
* A note is here made by Mr. Proud, (in his Hist. of Penn- sylvania, Vol. 1, p. 111,) as follows : " this cape is frequently confounded with Cape Hinlopen, the exterior, or the False Cafe, in Fenwick's island, being written in the same manner, and sometimes Henlonen ; said to be a Swedish word, signi- fying entering in. It was also formerly, sometimes called Cape Cornelius, and afterwards, by William Penn, Cape James." From this it would appear, that the aspirate letter HI, in the Swedish language, prefixed to the word Inlopen, altered the sense of it, from the interior to the exterior cape, · the latter of which was at Fenwick's island.
D
245
1
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
în much amity ;*. but they were frequently disturb- SECT. IX. ed by the Dutch settled at Manhattan, now New York, who, extending their territories, which they. 1628. called New Netherlands, so as to include the western shores of the Delaware, built a fort in the year 1630, on a small creek near Cape Inlopen or James, call- ing it Hoarkill, since called Lewis town. t While we are upon this subject, it may not be improper to observe further, that it seems to be agreed by his, torians, that in the succeeding year, (1631,) the Swedes erected a fort on the west side of Delaware, at a place near Wilmington, upon the river or creek, which still, from the name of the fort, is called Christina, or commonly Christeen, t where they had laid out a town, and made their first settlement. §
* Smith, in his Hist. of New Jersey, says, it is uncertain whether they bought the land of those natives, who could properly convey it. Holmes's Annals, Vol. 1, p. 242.
t The building of this fort at Lewis town, is differently re- lated in Holmes's Annals, Vol. 1, p. 259, under the year 1630. He says, " the Dutch continuing their pretensions to the land settled by the Swedes, one of the Swedes built a fort (this year) within the Capes of Delaware, " at a place called Hoar- kill ;" for which he cites Smith's Hist. of New Jersey, 22. So that from him it would seem, that the fort above-mention- ed was built by the Swedes, and not the Dutch, as it is stated in Proud's Hist. of Pennsylvania, Vol. 1, p. 113 ; from whence what is said above in the text here, is taken.
# This is sometimes corruptly spelt Christiana, but as the name of Gustavus's mother was Christina, and he had a daughter, born in 1626, called Christina, who succeeded him as queen of Sweden, and was much celebrated in history, it is probable that Christina is the true name of the fort and creek.
§ Proud's Hist. of Pennsylvania, Vol. 1, p. 115. It seems to have been the opinion of two very judicious annalists of our
246
INTRODUCTION TO A
SECT. IX.
1628.
Supposing this settlement of the Swedes at Chris- tina, in the year 1631, to have been the first perma- nent settlement made by them on the Delaware, as it would appear to be, although temporary habita- tions might have been erected by them before that time at Hoarkill, or other places, for the purposes of traffic with the natives, it goes very far to justify the suggestion of lord Baltimore before-mentioned, that the territories for which he prayed a grant, were " hitherto unsettled ;" which receives further con- firmation by the possibility of his being ignorant of the first trafficking voyage of the Swedes to the Delaware, in the year 1627, which was but the year preceding that of his visit to Virginia. But allow. ing that he had full knowledge of the arrival of the Swedes in the Delaware, in the year 1627, it was natural for him to have considered them only as in- terlopers, intruding into the British dominions ; *
country, that neither the Swedes nor Dutch had, prior to the year 1629, formed any permanent settlements on the Dela- ware. In Holmes's Annals, Vol. 1, p. 251, (under the year 1629,) it is said : " Although the subjects of different nations now traded with the natives in the bay of Delaware, no settle- ments appear to have been formed on either margin of it, by the Dutch or Swedes ;" for which he cites Chalmers, 1, 227.
* That all other nations who attempted to make settlements in any part of North America, especially in those parts of it lying between the colonies of Virginia and New England, were considered by the English at this time, as intruders within their dominions, is evident, not only from the preced- ing expedition of captain Argall, against the French and Dutch as before-mentioned, but from their subsequent con- tests with the Dutch about their settlement at Manhattan. This claim of theirs was founded on the right of prior disco- very by Sebastian Cabot ; to demonstrate which, a small tract
-
1
£
247
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
and therefore, in his representation to his majesty, SECT. IX.
1628.
not entitled to be considered as persons, whose set- tlements could obstruct his grant. The Dutch, whatever their subsequent claims might have been, had then certainly made no permanent settlements within the limits of his grant. With regard to the extent of his patent to the fortieth degree of latitude, 1 (inclusive,) it is to be observed, that the latitudes of the different places of such a new country, must
or essay was drawn up by some anonymous writer, most pro- bably towards the end of the Dutch war in 1654, but publish- ed in Thurloe's State Papers, under the year 1656 ; (see it in Hazard's Collections, Vol. 1, p. 602,) entitled " A Brief Nar- ration of the English Rights to the Northern parts of Ame- rica ;" in which the author, after some laboured reasoning, and metaphysical distinction between general and particular rights, concludes, " that as the general and particular rights of the English to those northern parts of America, are so plainly and perspicuously laid down, so upon a due examina- tion it will be found, that the Dutch have no right at all, either in the general or particular, but have intruded into and anti- cinated the English in their rights." Agreeably to this right of the English, preparations were made by the New Eng- landers, in 1654, for conquering the Dutch settlement at Manhattan ; but Oliver, desirous that the two sister republics, the English and Dutch, should be well with each other, . clapped up a sudden peace in April, 1654, which put an end to the hostile intentions of New England, and left the Dutch for some years in quiet possession of New Netherlands. In the next year, (1655,) the Dutch made a conquest of all the Swedish settlements on the Delaware. Smith's Hist. of New York, 18, 19 : but Oliver, charmed with the fine character of Charles X, king of Sweden, made a treaty with him in the year 1656, in which he promised to grant such of his ma- jesty's Swedish subjects as should be recommended by him, " special licence" to trade in America. See Hazard's Collec- țions, Vol. 1, p. 605, and Hume's Hist. ch. 61.
1
·
D
248
INTRODUCTION TO A
SECT. IX. have been subject to much error, being often taken and so set down by unskilful persons ; and, as lord 1628. Hardwicke observed, in the great case of these two proprietors, (the Penns and lord Baltimore,) before referred to, it is a fact, that latitudes were then fixed much lower than they have been since found to be by more accurate observations: A mistake of the latitude, in extending his northern bounds, might therefore have been very unintentionally made .*
The Vir- ginians oppose the bord Balu- more's scheme.
As both the second and third charters of Vir- ginia, before-mentioned, unquestionably compre- hended the whole of the country afterwards called Maryland, it was to be expected that the colonists of Virginia, would make some objections to any grant, whereby a part of their territory should be lopped off from them and transferred to others. But, although some apprehensions on this ground of supposed injury to them in their rights, were art- fully raised among them, so as to induce them in a few years afterwards, to prefer a petition to the king and council, against any grant of their territory to lord Baltimore, as will hereafter be seen in its pro- per place ; yet it appears, that they had too much discernment, not to perceive, on more mature re- flection, that a colony planted so near to them as that of Maryland, so far from being injurious, would be highly beneficial to them, particularly in contri- buting to their greater security from the hostile in- vasions of the savages. And when we reflect upon the enormous extent of those territories included within the lines of their charters, to wit : " from the
* See note (H) at the end of this volume, before referred to.
£
.
249
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
point of land called. Cape or Point Comfort, along the sea-coast to the northward, two hundred miles, and in equal distance to the southward, and from sea to sea, west and northwest ;" that is, from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean, it leaves the question of policy, and indeed of right and justice, easily to be decided at this day. We may here further ob- serve, that inasmuch as these charters of Virginia had been all annulled by the judgment of the court of king's bench, in the year 1624, (whether right- fully or not, could not be questioned but in a legal manner, by writ of error or appeal to a superior tri- bunal,) all political right of the colonists in Virginia to any territory whatever, except to the particular tracts which each individual colonist occupied, must have been taken away from them by such judgment until reversed. It seems, therefore, with regard to the colonists in Virginia, in a corporate capacity, to have been an act perfectly justifiable in lord Balti- more to apply for, as well as lawful for the king to grant, all that territory included within the lines of his patent. $
But the most formidable objection raised against his grant, seems to have been founded on a circum- stance, apparently immaterial to the public, however it might interfere with the private rights of some individuals. It has been alleged, on a variety of occasions, that settlements had been established by the Virginians, under the authority of William Clay- borne, within the country afterwards denominated Maryland, prior to the date of his lordship's charter of grant for the same, * and that as it was suggested
₱ June 20th, 1632. 2 1
SECT. 1X.
1628.
will Scom
7
الخلـ
250
INTRODUCTION TO A .
SECT. therein, that the country was hitherto unsettled, IX. " hactenus inculta," his grant became thereby void.
1628.
But it seems to be extraordinary, that although his- tory recognises this objection as being frequently made, yet it furnishes no authentic proof of the fact on which it is founded. If lord Baltimore's visit to Virginia was in the year 1628, as we have supposed on the authority of the History of Virginia, before- cited,* there are some established facts in history, which seem to indicate very strongly, that at the time of his visit to Virginia, whatever there were at the time of his grant, no such settlements had been made. Temporary habitations, for the purposes of traffic with the natives, might have been before that time erected, both on the isle of Kent and at the mouth of the' Susquehanna, as contended ; but these were certainly not such settlements as could preclude the right of the crown to grant, or the jus- tice and policy of planting in that country a nume- rous colony. It may be proper, however, to inves- tigate the claim of William Clayborne a little more minutely.
.
William Clay- borne's claim.
When king James had caused the charters of Virginia to be dissolved by a judgment in the court of king's bench, as before-mentioned, and had vest- ed the supreme direction of the affairs of Virginia, in a provisional council, in England, he afterwards, also, as before observed, issued his commission, bearing date the 26th day of August, 1624, to Sir Francis Wyat, and others, vesting the government
* " Ancient Records," mentioned in Burk's Hist. of Vir- ginia, as before-cited.
-
297-
.
251
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
in Virginia, in a governour and council, who should SECT. IX.
reside in the colony. Among those so nominated of the council, was William Clayborne. From whence we may infer, that he was then, or shortly afterwards became a resident in Virginia ; and was a man, who by some merit, had attracted the royal notice. When king Charles, on the death of his father, renewed the commission for the government of Virginia, to Sir George Yardley, and others, of the 4th of March, 1625, Clayborne was continued as one of the council. Moreover, in the same com- mission, towards the conclusion thereof, he was ap- pointed secretary of state in Virginia, in the follow- ing remarkable expressions: " and forasmuch as the affairs of state of the said colony and plantation, may necessarily require some person of quality and trust, · to be employed as secretary, for the writing and an- swering of such letters, as shall be from time to time directed to, or sent from the said governour and council of the colony aforesaid, our will and pleasure is, and we do by these presents, nominate and assign you the said William Clayborne, to be our secretary of state, of and for the said colony and and plantation of Virginia, residing in those parts ; giving, and by these presents granting unto you, the said William Clayborne, full power and autho- rity to do, execute, and perform all and every thing and things whatsoever, to the said office of secretary of state, of and for the said colony and plantation of Virginia, incident and appertaining." By the sub- sequent commission to John Harvey, esquire, and others, of the 26th of March, 1627, for the govern- ment of Virginia, Clayborne was again continued
1623.
252
INTRODUCTION TO A
.
SECT. one of the council, and re-appointed secretary of IX. state, in the same words just cited from the former 1628. commission ;* from whence we are enabled to collect some ideas of the character and standing of this gentleman, who afterwards proved so trouble- some to lord Baltimore and the early settlers of Ma- ryland. As it seems to have been a practice with many of the first colonists of Virginia, especially those of note and influence, to endeavour to derive some emolument to themselves, by carrying on a traffic or bartering with the Indian natives, particu- larly those inhabiting the shores of the Chesapeake, for their peltry, and such other commodities as would afford a profit, when sold in the province, or exported to Europe, we find that Mr. Clayborne was one of those, who availing himself of his sta- tion and influence, carly sought to better his for- tunes in this way. But it seems, that this species of traffic could not be carried on without a special licence, either from the king himself or the gover- nour of the province ; for reasons founded, without doubt, in the personal danger of the colonists in ge- neral, by too indiscriminate an intercourse with the natives, especially in furnishing them with fire-arms, and the means of forming conspiracies. Accordingly, we find that Clayborne, in the year 1631, several years after lord Baltimore's visit to Virginia, obtained a licence, under his majesty's hand and the signet of Scotland, " to trade with the Indians of America, in such places where the said trade had not formerly
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.