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 24
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
* See the Acts of Congress of 1799, chap. 152 ; and 1802; chap. 13. -
-
المراه
1
344
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAP. very properly too, that the United States being I. about to fix a colony or settlers in that part of their 1638. territories, had made a grant of the same to a com- pany, who were about to settle thereon, and if he wished to possess any lands there, he must purchase of the government or of its grantees, like any other citizen, his purchase of the Indians being illegal and contrary to the true policy of the United States. Nay more, the president would be authorised by law to use military force, in driving him from those lands, of which he had so possessed himself. Now this statement precisely comprehends Clayborne's right and claim. Although king Charles I, might have had no right to dispossess the Indian natives, of the country which they inhabited, yet he cer- tainly, as the representative of the nation of which he was the monarch, had as much right to the In- dian lands of America, as the government of the United States now have : his grants thereof were equally just, and therefore equally valid. The pre- tended or real purchase of an individual licensed trader, (as Clayborne was,) of the Indian natives, could not, nor ought not to have precluded the king from making a grant thereof to a company, or to an individual possessing equal means, such as lord Bal- timore, who would undertake to transport thither, a numerous colony of his subjects, for the benefit of the mother country. The severance of a portion of the territory of Virginia, was really beneficial to that colony, inasmuch as the addition of such a number of their fellow-subjects, seated on their frontiers, would contribute much to their security from the hostile invasions of the savages. This benefit was
L
1月 LT
الحرطات
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
345-346
1638. '
not likely to arise from the manner in which Clay- CHAP. borne, with his fellow-traders, were going on. I. The colonists of Virginia soon saw the matter in this point of view, being quickly reconciled, we are ? told, to this dismemberment of their territory. Thus , it would seem, that there was in reality no injustice - done to any individual whatever, by the grant of the - province of Maryland to lord Baltimore; and, if the policy of planting distant colonies is really beneficial A to an over-populous country, and the measure be. dictated also, by the liberal generosity of indulging mankind in their religious opinions, the unfortunate .. Charles may be said to have done one act, at least, in his life, with which posterity ought not to re- proach him.
3
2
is
L
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
NOTE (A) p. 11.
THE reader ought to be apprized, that no circumstance attending modern history has occasioned more anachronisms than the variation of the commencement of the year in the computation of the Christian era. To this may be referred the difference of opinion among dif- ferent historians, not only as to the date of this commission to John Cabot, but as to the real date also of the voyage performed in conse- quence of it, either by him or his son Sebastian.
Although the period of time denominated a year is founded in na- ture, being the measure of time while the earth is performing its an- nual revolution round the sun, and therefore can never vary, yet the commencement of that year, like a point in the periphery of a circle, may be arbitrarily fixed upon without affecting its length or circumvo- lution. Hence different nations have fixed upon different periods of time for the commencement of their year, which has been commonly regulated by some remarkable event, from which as an epocha they compute their era. Agreeably to this, the Christian era is commonly supposed to be computed from the first existence of Christ upon earth, that is, when God first assumed a mortal nature, whether that be at the time of his incarnation or nativity. But this mode of computation did not take place among the Christians until more than five hundred years had elapsed from that remarkable epocha. Prior to this time the generality of Christians computed, either from the building of Rome, or according to such other computation as was in use with the people among whom they lived ; if with the Jews from the creation of the world, or with the Greeks according to the Olympiads. But as the number of Christians had in the sixth century very much increased, both in Greece and Italy, and from that circumstance began to assume somewhat more important consideration than formerly, and the eastern
1
1
1
N
348
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
and western or Greek and Latin churches experiencing some incon- venience from their different mode of computing time, it was propo- sed, by an abbot of Rome, called Dyonisius Exiguus, to adopt a new form of the year, with a new general era, which, consonant to their re- ligion should commence with the first existence of Christ upon earth, in a mortal nature. This proposition was adopted by the Christians, and the incarnation or time when Christ entered the virgin's womb was fix- ed as the great event or epocha from which they were to calculate their era; but they retained the Roman division of the year into months, as also the names of those months. It is to be observed, that the Romans had ever since the time of Numa Pompilius commenced their year on the calends of January, that is, on the first day of that month ; but the Christians now, from a pious zeal in their own religion, having fixed upon the incarnation, which according to the Roman computation of the months, they ascertained to be the 25th of March, as the day of the commencement of their era, fixed that day also as the day upon which their year was in future to commence. This prevailed for some time, but as it occurred to some good Christians, that the years of a man's life were not numbered from the time of his conception, but from that of his birth, which must have been nine months afterwards, a dif- ference in the commencement of the year took place among the Christian churches throughout Europe, some adopting the day of Christ's birth, to wit, the 25th of Decen:ber, as the commencement of the year, others adhering to that of his incarnation, and others again to the old Roman method of the calends of January, which last happened to be also the day of Christ's circumcision. The result was, that dif- ferent nations, and indeed different writers, considering the subject rather in a temporal than in an ecclesiastical point of view, regulated the commencement of their civil year in their own way, still how- ever computing from the supposed commencement of the Christian era ; from which disagreement it is supposed, that an error of one year at least, if not two, in the number of years elapsed of the Christian era, has crept into the vulgar computation now generally in use throughout Christendom.
Although the Roman calendar had been regulated by Numa Pompi- lius, and afterward by Julius Caesar, yet as astronomy was far from being so completely understood in those days as it was afterwards even in the sixteenth century, it was found in the lapse of several centuries, that the Roman computation disagreed much with the motion of the
T
349
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
earth, and that the holy feast of Easther, which was dependent on the vernal equinox, had got quite out of its place. Pope Gregory, there- fore, in the year 1582, to counteract so great an inconvenience to the church, procured a thorough correction of the Roman calendar. and by a bull commanded all the Catholic states of Europe to adopt his cor- rection, prescribing in the same bull also, that the commencement of the year should for the future be on the first day of January This reg- ulation, as may be supposed, was conformed to by most of the Cathc- lic states : but the Protestants at first peremptorily refused to receive it ; .. though at last, from the obvious propriety of the measure, it met with a general reception even among them. England, Russia, and Sweden held out in opposition to it longer than any, and it was not till the . year 1751, that an act of parliament was made, (stat. 25, Geo. 2, cap. 23,) prescribing the first day of January to be deemed for the future, - throughout all the British dominions, the first day of the year, and such alterations in the common English calendar were directed also as brought it to be the same as the Gregorian, then generally in use throughout the most of Europe.
As the British colonies in America, now United States, naturally adopted the mode of computation practised by their mother country, it is materially important to them to know the computation used in England by the historians of that country from the adoption of the Christian era in the time of Dyonisius before-mentioned, or at least from the time of the first British settlements in America, to the alter- ation of the style in the year 1751. It is alleged by Dr. A. Holmes, in his very judicious work-" American Annals," (Note I., annexed to his second vol.) " that Bedu," (sometimes called the venerable Bede, the oldest English historian except one, and who lived from the year 673 to that of 735, about a century after Dionysius Exiguus,) "took the Christian era from Dyonisius, and used it in all his writings ; and by that recommendation of it, occasioned its adoption and use in Great Britain, and the western parts of Europe." Although the Doctor does not expressly allege in the above-cited note, that Bede adopted the commencement of the year used by Dyonisius, to wit, the incarnation, the 25th of March, yet in the text to which it is subjoined he strongly leaves that inference. But I find that a contrary opinion as to fede is held by the anonymous writer of a learned " Dissertation on the ancient manner of dating the beginning of the year," (published in the Annual Register for 1759, a few years after the last alteration of the style in
;
L
350
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
England,) who is of opinion that Bede commenced the year at the na- tivity of Christ, at least in some instances, and cites a passage from him in proof thereof, wherein he plainly places January among the first and not among the later months of the year. The same writer pro- ceeds to trace this subject in the following manner ;- " From Bede'a time quite down to the Norman conquest, the constant way of compu- tation seems to be from Christmas-day. The Saxon Chronicle also, (which comprises a period from the birth of Christ to the death of · king Stephen in the year 1154,) begins the year from the nativity of our Lord."
"" " After the conquest, Gervase, a monk of Canterbury, in the preface to his chronicle, takes notice of many different ways of computation in his time, that is at the end of the twelfth, or the beginning of the thirteenth century. He says, that some computed from the annuncia- non, some from the nativity, some from the circumcision, and others from the passion of our Lord. The solar year, continues he, accor- ding to the custom of the Romans, and of the church of God, begins from the calends of January, (circumcision-day ; ) but he rather chooses to fix the commencement of it to Christmas-day, because we compute the age of men from the day of their birth."
" This shows there was no standing, fixed rule of computation in Gervase's time ; and the following observation confirms it, not only in his age, but also for several centuries after him. Matthew Paris, Matthew of Westminster, Ralph de Diceto, and Polydore Virgil, place the coronation of William the conqueror upon Christmas-day, A. D. 1067, that is, these authors begin their new-year with that day, at least in this instance ; whereas Thomas Walsingham, Roger de Hov-" eden and John Brompton, all refer it to Christmas-day, A. D. 1065, which proves that they do not in this place begin the year till after that day."
. This writer further observes, that " Thomas Walsingham, who liv. ed in the fifteenth century, although he was one of the most accurate of our monkish historians, does not always count from the same day." He adduces two instances to prove, that "he sometimes begins the year from the circumcision," (first day of January.) "and some- times from the nativity," (twenty-fifth day of December ;) for which he supposes the reason to be, " that in his Ypodigma Neustræ, he writes as a Norman, and that they con:puted. the year only from the arcumcision, whereas in his History of England he writes as an En-
351
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS:
glishman, who in his time," (about the time of Cabot's voyage,) " gen- erally reckoned from the nativity."
. " Hitherto nothing of our late custom of computing from the an- nunciation, has appeared in any of our old historians, except the bare mention of it in Gervase. There is good reason to think it began about the beginning of the reign of king Edward, IV .; "which was in 1461. In confirmation of this the author of this dissertation adduces the history of Croyland Abbey, and also a biographical account of \Vil-
· liam of Wickham, written by Thomas Chandler, who was chancellor of Oxford from 1458 to 1462, who dates the beginning of the year from the annunciation, and "about 15 or 16 years after," he says, " this custom" of beginning the year with the annunciation, that is, the 25th. of March, " seems to have been fully settled." -- This deduces the prac- tice of the English historians nearly down to the time of Cabot's com- mission.
. " At the'reformation in England, in Henry the eighth's reign, in the early part of the sixteenth century, both the civil and the ecclesiastical authority interposed, to fix the commencement of the year to the feast of the annunciation, by adding the following rubric to the calendar im- mediately after the table of moveable feasts for 40 years, viz. "Note, That the supputation of the year of our Lord, in the Church of Eng- land, beginneth the 25th of March, the same day supposed to be the first day upon which the world was created, and the day when Christ was conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary ;" which stood thus down to the Savoy conference, soon after the restoration, when it was thought proper to retain the order, and drop the reason given for it, and in this shape it was continued down to the late parliamentary cor- rection of the calendar, (in 1751,) which brings it back to the first of January, and is indeed the only legal settlement of it for civil affairs, for the rubric above-mentioned settles only the supputation of the Church of England, and says nothing of the civil government, which seems to have never used any other date than that of the king's reign, till after the restoration, not even in common deeds. During the usur- pation of Oliver Cromwell, the years of our Lord seem to have been in- troduced, because they did not choose to date by the years of the king's reign, and continued for convenience afterwards, without the interpo- sition of legal authority."
"Our neighbours the Scots, from time in memorial, have invaria- bly observed the 25th day of March on the first day of the year, till
F
352
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
November, 27th 1599, when the following entry was made in the books of the privy council : On Monday proclamation made be the king's war- rant, ordaining the first of January, in tyme coming, to be the beginning of the New-Year, which they have as constantly followed ever since.
As supplementary to the foregoing extracts from the before-men- tioned dissertation, it may be observed, that the neighbouring kingdom of France had also different dates for the commencement of their year at different periods of time. " During the reigns of the Merovingian race, the French year began on the day whereon the troops were re- viewed, which was on the first day of March. Under the Carlovin- gians it began on Christmas-day ; and under the Capetians, on Easther day, which last still remains the beginning of the French ecclesiastical year," (unless altered by the late revolution,) " but for the civil year, Charles IX., appointed in 1564, (but a few years before the pope's bull for that purpose before-mentioned,) that for the future it should commence on the first of January." See Chambers's dictionary, verb. year.
It will be acknowledged, we may suppose, that this variance in the commencement of the year would not affect the dates of any events mentioned to liave occurred out of the space of time contained between the first of January and the twenty-fifth of March. It is true that those who compute the Christian era from the incarnation or 25th of March, vary one whole year from those who compute it from the ca- . lends of January ; but that variance is only in the number of years which have elapsed from the birthi of Christ. It does not affect the date of any intervening event, occurring in the space of time to which those who calculate from different commencements of the year, affix the same date as to the year, that is, in the space of time between the 25th of March and the first of January next succeeding. To save much reason- ing, necessary to elucidate this, I will beg leave to cite a scientific au- thority upon the subject. In Keil's Astronomical Lectures, (lect. 282) published before the alteration of the style in 1751, are the following pas- sages ;- " The English reckon from the feast of lady-day, 1718, (that is, from the 25th of March, 1718,) that there are completed 1717 years ; but from the birth of our Lord, to the feast of the Nativity of the year 1717. they number only 1716 years elapsed ; whereas all the rest of the 1 Christian world count 1717 years .- But yet for all this, the English,
for the greatest part of the year, design it by the same number that the rest of the Christian world does ; but for three months, viz. from
353
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
the calends of January to the 8th of the calends of April," (that is, from the first day of January to the twenty-fifth day of March,) " they write one less." This is illustrated by the instance put by our Ame- rican annalist, Dr. Holmes, in the note last-cited from him; " it was customary" (says he) " to give a double date from the 1st of January to the 25th of March. Thus, February 8th, 1721, was written Fe- bruary 8th, 17 2º." This demonstrates, that in the remaining part of the year there was no difference between the English and the rest of Europe, as to the date of the year. It is true that the ten days thrown 'out by pope Gregory, in his reformation of the calendar, made that much difference from the English computation, in the days of the months, but as to the date of the year, which is the present question, it has no effect.
. Hence, therefore, as the commencement of the reign of Henry VII, who made this patent to Cabot, and whose reign is therein alluded to, is an event which occurs in that part of the year, wherein all " the Christian world" agree in their number, and this too whether it be fixed on the day of his accession to the throne, when he gained the battle of Bosworth from Richard III, which was on the 22d day of August, 1485, or on the day of his coronation, which was on the 30th of October following, in the same year, and the patent or commission to John Cabot bears date on the 5th of March, in the eleventh year of the reign of Henry VII, we are enabled to affix to this commission the year of Christ, as well as that of the reign of the king. For, calcu- lating the commencement of his reign from either of those events, to wit, the battle or the coronation, it will be found, that the 5th of March in the eleventh year of his reign, must be either in the year 1495 or 1496, according to the time of the commencement of the year 1496. If the commencement of the year 1496 is fixed on the 25th of March, agreeably to old style, the 5th of March of the ele- venth year of his reign, will undoubtedly be in the year 1495, which is the year to which Hackluit, Harris, and Robertson have referred the date of this commission; but if the commencement of the year 1496 is fixed on the first day of January, agreeably to new style, the 5th of March of the eleventh year of his reign will be in the year of Christ, 1496, to which year Rymer and Rapin have referred its date.
Before this subject is closed, it will be proper to take notice of an- other note subjoined by Dr. Holmes in the first volume of his " Ame- rican Annals," (p. 15, anno 1495). It is as follows: " Henry was 2 Y
,
354
-NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
crowned Oct. 30th, 1485. If that year be reckoned the first of his reign, this commission is rightly placed by Hackluit, Robertson, and others, in 1495; but, if the first year of his reign be reckoned from . 1486, the commission must be placed, where Rymer and some others have placed it, in 1496." This judicious annalist has accordingly adopted the former opinion, and in his work referred the date of the commission to the year 1495. But it must be observed, that his rea- soning here is either very inaccurately or very obscurely expressed. The word " from" being always exclusive, if the year 1486 is thrown out of the computation of the eleven years altogether, it would place · the date of the commission in 1497, contrary to his inference. Al- though the end of " the first year of his reign would undoubtedly be in 1486, to wit, either on the 22d of August, or 30th of October of that year, yet one year of his reign, being then complete and ended, it must be counted as one in the computation of the eleven years. The progression then would bring the end of the tenth year of his reign to the 22d of August or 30th of October, 1495, when the eleventh year of his reign would commence, and would end on the 22d of August, or 30th of October, 1496. It would then be obvious, that the 5th of March in the eleventh year of his reign, would be referable either to . the year 1495 or 1496, according to the commencement of the year ' 1496, as before-explained. . But as the new style, that is, the compu- tation of the year from the first day of January, is now generally adopted in the United States, as well as in Europe, perhaps by force of the English statute before-mentioned, and when a year is mentioned in history, it is so computed in the mind of almost every reader, unless otherwise expressed, it would seem to be most proper to refer the date of the patent or commission to Cabot and his sons to the year 1496. For the . same reason also, the author has thought it best, throughout this work to adjust the chronology of it according to what is called new style, commencing the year always on the first of January. It is hoped, there- fore, that although the date of this commission is a matter of little im- portance, yet, as the same variance in the commencement of the year pervades every part of the early history of the British colonies in America, the reader will excuse the length of this note.
7
NOTE (B) p. 24.
Mr. Holmes, in his " American Annals," Note I, at the end of his - first volume, expresses himself as satisfied, that Cabot sailed as fur
-
1
الجديدة
355
NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
south as Cape Florida. It is with great diffidence, that I venture on an opinion different from that of so accurate and judicious a writer. The passage which he cites from Peter Martyr, as the ground-work of his opinion, is according to him, thus : " Quare coactus fuit, uti ait, vela vertere, et occidentem sequi : tetenditque tantum ad meridiem, littore sese incurvante, ut Herculei freti latitudinis ferè gradum æqua- rit : ad occidentemque profectus tantum est, ut Cubam insulam à lavo, longitudine graduum tiene parem, habuerit."' - To which he immedi- ately afterwards adds,-" Obscure as this passage is, it satisfies me, that Cabot sailed to Cape Florida, which lies in 25 deg. 20 min. north lat." From the manner in which the last sentence of the above pas- sage from Peter Martyr, is printed in his " Annals," (to wit : in.Ita. lics,) it is to be inferred, that he laid a stress upon this sentence in par- " ticular, as warranting the opinion he gives. But to come fairly at the meaning of the passage, every part of it should be taken into conside- ration ; and it may be thus rendered into English : " Wherefore he was forced, as he says, to turn his course toward the west ; and he stretched so far to the south, the shore bending in, as to be almost in the same degree of latitude as the Mediterranean : and he went so far to the west, as to have the island of Cuba lying on his left hand, almost equal in the longitude of degrees." That the word "meridiem" is here to be rendered south is evident, not only because it is often so used according to the best Latin dictionaries, but that otherwise it would be here unintelligible, unless indeed it should be said to mean, " towards the equinoctial line ;" in which, it would be synonymous to south in this case. (N. B. In pope Alexander's bull, in 1493, before referred to, which is published at large in the original Latin, in Hazard's Col. lections, Vol. 1, p. 5, the word " meridiem" is used as synonymous to Antarctic or South Pole.) Then the extent of Cabot's voyage to the south, is here very clearly confined to the same degree of latitude as the Mediterranean ; almost to it, but certainly not beyond it. Now, the mouth of the Mediterranean, or Straits of Gibraltar, are well known to be in about 36º north lat., which brings the voyage here spoken of, along the coast of America no further south than Roanoke, or Albe- marle Sound, in North Carolina. But the word " fere," almost, is not to be altogether rejected as a mere expletive ; it plainly intimates that Cabot did not come down to the 36th degree of north latitude, and be- . ing indefinite as to the precise minute or degree above 36°, leaves the -extent of his voyage souther!y, to be collected from circumstances
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.