USA > Maryland > An historical view of the government of Maryland : from its colonization to the present day > Part 22
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 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54
-
203
Chap. II.] TO THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.
proceedings in the mother country. The course of the colo- nists was at once prudent, and justified by their own condi- tion. Their government was removed from the oppressions of the crown, which had excited the discontents in England ; and the proprietary administration of it was full of gentleness and benevolence. The recitals of the acts of Assembly of that period, overflow with expressions of gratitude to the proprie- tary, for his kindness to the colony; and their enactments con- tain more substantial evidence of that gratitude, in the volun- tary grants of revenue. If they had even been predisposed to revolutionary movements, the short yet baneful experience which they had of them in the results of Clayborne and Ingle's rebellion, and the contrast between their administration and that of the proprietary, were sedatives sufficient to allay the spirit. They had no motives for entering into a revolution excited by oppressions they had never felt, which, in its excesses, might ultimately prostrate even their cherished government and institu- tions, as a part of the old order of things. At the same time, now that the ascendancy of the parliament had become complete, an open adhesion to the cause of the crown would only have brought down destruction upon their government, and jeopardy to their liberties.
The course of neutrality was therefore to them the course of discretion ; and it appears to have been invariably observed during the reign of Charles I. Immediately after Departure from t in ono in- his death, this course was for a moment departed Etance. from by a single act of loyalty, which the proprie- tary had reason to regret for many years. On the 15th of No- vember, 1619, the accession of king Charles II. was formally proclaimed in the province, by a proclamation issued by Greene, who was the acting governor, under a commission from governor Stone, then temporarily absent. (14) Stone soon returned and resumed the government ; and this most unwise and aimless act on the part of Greene, was not followed by any measures calcu- lated to give offence to the dominant party in England : yet the memory of the act remained.
(14) Sce this proclamation in Council Proceedings, from 1636 to 1657, page 321.
-
-
204
HISTORY FROM THE COLONIZATION [Iist. View.
As soon as the triumph of the Commonwealth cause was con- summated by the death of the king, the parliament directed its attention to the subjugation of the colonies which had been disaffected to that cause. Amongst these, Virginia had been conspicuous for her loy- alty, and was selected as one of the first victims.
Proceedings ' of the Parliament at Council of ttate for the re- duction of the Colonies adher- ing to the royal cause. In October, 1650, an ordinance was passed by the parliament, prohibiting trade specially with Virginia, Barbadoes, Bermudas, and Antigua, and declaring them to be in a state of rebellion. The parliament asserted its right of jurisdiction over them, as colonies established "at the cost and under the authority of the nation, and settled by its people :" and for their reduction, it authorised the council of state to despatch commissioners with a fleet, to compel the obedience of all who stood in opposition to the authority of parliament. (15) Mary- land was not mentioned in the ordinance, and does not appear to have been within the contemplation of the powers conferred by it. She had never arrayed herself in direct opposition to the parliament authority, and had committed no act of rebellion 10 place her in the predicament described. But the finger of her "ctil genius" is visible in the commission issued under this ordi- nance by the council of state. That commission was issued in September, 1651, to captain Robert Dennis, Richard Bennet, Thomas Stagg, and captain William Clayborne: and the instruc- tions which accompanied it, authorised them, upon their arrival with the fleet at Virginia, to use their best endeavors "to re- duce all the plantations within the Chesapeake bay to their due obedience to the parliament of the commonwealth of England." Ample authorities accompanied this general instruction, to render it effectual. They were empowered to offer pardon to all volun- tarily submitting, and to use force to reduce the unwilling : and they were even authorised to give freedom to the servants of re- bellious masters, upon condition of entering as soldiers into the service of the commonwealth. Upon the reduction of the colo- nies, they were directed to administer to the inhabitants an oath of allegiance to the commonwealth, and to cause all process to
(15) First Hazard's Collection, 556; 2d, Anderson's History of Com- merce, 546 ; Chalmers, 221.
4
Chap. IL.]
TO THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.
205
be issued in the name of the Keepers of the Liberties of England, by the authority of parliament. (16)
Virginia was finally reduced by them in March, 1651; (17) and their attention was now directed to the government of Maryland.
Submission of Like poor Tray of the fable, she was to suffer for her the proprietary proximity to Virginia. Clayborne, who had now government
the parliament
commissioners.
the power, wanted no excuse to justify its exercise.
Hle and the other commissioners assumed the ground, that whatever had been the conduct of the colonies, an express submission and recognition by them of the authority of parliament, was necessary to shelter them from the powers of the parliament commission: and this was accordingly re- quired of Stone, who was still the governor of Maryland. Stone did not at once accede to their demands ; and they immediately issued a proclamation, divesting him of his government, de- claring void all the commissions of the proprietary, and consti- tuting a board of six commissioners, for the government of the province, under the authority of parliament. (18) Before any acts of force were resorted to, to compel obedience to this pro- clamation, Stone, finding all further opposition useless, effected an arrangement with the commissioners, under which he and three of his council were permitted to retain and exercise their powers, saving to them their oath of fealty to the proprietary, until the pleasure of the commonwealth government, as to the ultimate disposition of the province, should be known. This arrangement answered the purposes of both. (19) By his reser- vation of the proprietary rights, the governor relieved himself from the responsibility of a voluntary surrender; and the commis- sioners escaped from the hazard of an unauthorised or at least doubtful exercise of power.
So stood the government until July, 1654. In the interme- diate period, it appears to have been administered by Stone with
(16) See their commission and instructions in 1st Hazard's State Papers, 556.
(17) 2d Burke's Virginia, 81.
(18) See this proclamation of 29th March, 1652, in Council Proceedings from 1636 to 1657, 26, 23 and 29.
(19) Council Proceedings, 1636 to 1657, 269 and 270. The submission of Stone and the arrangement between him and the parliament commissioners, under which he was permitted to retain his power as governor, took place in June, 1652.
------
206
HISTORY FROM THE COLONIZATION [Hist. View.
Usurpation of the fidelity to the commonwealth, and to have kept pace government by commis- moncrs, in the Bune and under the authority of the protector. with all the revolutions in the home administration. It was indeed alleged against him, that in 1653 he had attempted to reintroduce the proprietary govern- ment, by requiring the inhabitants to take the oath of allegiance to it. (20) If this be true, it was not incompatible with the arrange- ment under which he was permitted to retain his power. That ar- rangement manifestly contemplated the reservation of the proprie- tary dominion, until the will of the English government was known: and by the latter, no act had yet been done to divest it. Crom- trell had even less reason than the parliament, to be dissatisfied with Stone's administration ; for the latter, as soon as he received certain intelligence of Cromwell's elevation to the protectorate, voluntarily recognised and proclaimed him as protector. (21) Neither the records of the province, nor the allegations of his ene- mies, furnish any evidence of a falling off from the allegiance which he had thus professed. But Clayborne was still there, the dominant spirit in the direction of the colonies: and to him the vision of the proprietary government, sustained by the approba- tion of the protector and the people, was as that to Haman of Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate. To overthrow it, the usual expedients of power were resorted to. The charge of defection could not be sustained by acts; and it was therefore only necessary to allege unexecuted and unmanifested inten- tions, always casy to be charged, and difficult to disprove. Alleging these, they claimed the privilege of resettling the gov- emment of Maryland; and Stone, being without the means or hope of effectual resistance, at once surrendered his powers with- out a struggle. His submission and proffer to administer the government, in the name and under the authority of the com- monwealth, were all unavailing. He was utterly divested of it; and its administration was confided to a board consisting of ten commissioners, deriving their appointment from Clayborne and his associates. (22)
(20) Sce Hazard's Collection, 626.
(21) This proclamation of Cromwell, as protector, of 6th May, 1654, is recorded in Council Proceedings, from 1636 to 1657, 303.
(22) The commissioners thus appointed were, captain William Fuller, Richard Preston, William Durand, Edward Lloyd, captain John Smith, Mr.
1
207
TO THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.
Chap. II.]
Stone now resolved upon resistance; but the inclination came too late. He succeeded in raising a force of about two hundred Fruitless efforts of men ; and actual hostilities were commenced. . The governor Stone to regain the gov- contest was unequal. The commissioners were ernment. backed by all the powers of Virginia which was now completely under their control; and by all the strength, which the general ascendancy of the commonwealth power was calculated to impart. An engagement soon took place near the Patuxent, in which Stone was utterly defeated and taken prisoner. He was doomed to death; but such was the respect and affection en- tertained for him even by the opposing forces, that the very sol- diers, who were detailed to carry the sentence of death into exe- cution, refused to perform the service. This, and the general intercession of the people, procured a commutation of the sen- tence into imprisonment, which was continued with circumstances of severity, during the greater part of the protectorate adminis- tration. (23) The province being now in the undisputed pos- session of the commissioners, an Assembly was convened, by which their authority was fully recognized. In the course of the next year, the protector, when informed of the proceedings of the commissioners, gave his sanction to their acts, and to the gov- ernment which they had established.
The dominion of the proprietary seemed now to be at an end; and in the moment of its downfall, the stale claims of Virginia to his territory, were again revived and urged upon Revival of the Virginia claims in opposition to the protector, with every circumstance of objection the restitution of to the charter. On the other hand, the proprietary the proprietary. was as urgent in his requests for the restoration of his province ; and to counteract these, the cause of the Virginia claims was espoused and advocated with great earnestness by Bennet and Matthew, two of the commissioners then adminis- tering the affairs of that colony. In opposition to the restitution, several documents were transmitted by them to the protector,
Lawson, John Hatch, Richard Wells, and Richard Ewen ; of whom Fuller, Preston and Durand, to be the quorum. See their commission in Council Proceedings, 1636 to 1657, 306 to 309, and Land Records, Liber I, 618 to 621. (23) Ist Hazard's State Papers, 621 to 626. Preface to Bacon's edition of the Laws.
..
-------
--
203
HISTORY FROM THE COLONIZATION [Hist. View.
which embodied every possible objection to the rights of the pro- prietary, and are as conspicuous for their ingenuity as their ma- lignity. In these, the very origin of the charter was assailed, under the allegation that it was obtained by the false representa- tion that the territory granted was uncultivated, and inhabited only by savages; and the story of Clayborne's wrongs was portrayed in the most vivid colors. The proclamation of Charles II. the course of Stone before his final submission, and his sub- sequent efforts to retain the government by force, were detail- ed with every coloring calculated ,to impress the truth of their general'allegation, " That the proprietary, if restored, would be as ready to oppose his highness the protector, as he ever had been to slight and oppose the authority of parliament, which he hath manifestly and boldly done, and that with a high hand." The supposed fanaticism of the protector was approached, with the insidious objection to the religious toleration, which had ever existed under the proprietary government, and was incorporated with its laws and institutions. But all of these objections were feeble, when compared with the political reasons advanced by them to inculcate the necessity of union. They are worthy of preservation for the policy which they urge. "The peace and common good of these plantations (say they) require, that they should be united and kept under one government, whereby dissensions, quarrels, and cutting of throats, likely continually to arise between such near plantations, will be prevented: his highness's authority established; trade encouraged; the exces- sive planting of tobacco restrained, so as to make way for the more staple commodities, such as silk, &c. the running away of criminals and debtors checked; and the whole strength against the common enemy, the Indian or any other enemy, the more readily conjoined upon all occasions." (21)
Cromwell's fanaticism was always the dress of the occasion; and it was laid aside, whenever it interfered with his enlarged
(24) See their letter and the several documents transmitted with it, con- taining these objections, in 1st Hazard's Collection, 620 to 630. In the re- ference given to these papers above, page 14, it is erroneously printed as a reference to the 2d vol.
1
1
209
Chap. Il.]. TO TIIE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.
Course of the pro- lector with refer. views of public policy. Urged by Baltimore's pre- encetothesecon- tensions on the one side, and the Virginia claims ficting claims to the province. on the other, he had, as early as January, 1655, in his letter sanctioning the assumption of the government, special- ly enjoined it upon the commissioners of Maryland, to preserve peace and prevent all differences between the plantations of Ma- ryland and Virginia in relation to these claims ; and to leave them wholly to the determination of the council at home. (25) The sub- ject of these conflicting claims had previously been referred by him to the lord commissioners, Whitlocke and Widdrington; and their report was referred to the committee on trade and plantations. By this committee, a report was made on the 16th September, 1656, which appears to have sustained the claims of Lord Balti- more; and it was in reference to and in opposition to this report, that the above mentioned objections were preferred by Bennet and Matthew. (26) Either from this opposition, or from the policy of the protector, in retaining the proprietary to his interests, by keeping his rights in a state of dependance, this report of the committee of trade was kept open for future determination. (27)
Yet the proprietary seems to have expected a speedy decision in his favor; and in the event of delay, to have resolved to regain
Condition of the his province, by force. The condition of affairs
province favora- ble to the propri- etary claim. there, offered hopes of success. Even in the face of the protectorate dominion, there was at all times a large party in Maryland, attached to his governinent, and de- voted to his person and interests. His goverment had never been characterized by oppression. It had fallen without a crime, before the ambition of leaders, not bound to the inhabitants of the province, either by the ties of interest or affection. The revival and support of the. Virginia claims by the prominent amongst the commissioners, was calculated to arouse the pride and indignation of persons of all parties. Even after the sup-
(25) Ist Hazard, 594.
(26) Council Proceedings, Liber H HI 10 and 11; 1st Hazard, 620.
(27) Council Proceedings, HI H 10 and 11; which recite the proceedings of the protector, and refer to this report of the committee of trade.
27
210
HISTORY FROM THE COLONIZATION
[Hist. View ..
pression of Stone's rebellion, there were many persons in the province, who openly adhered to the interests of the proprietary, and advocated the restitution of his government.
Amongst these was conspicuous Josias Fendall, who was des- tined to play a prominent part in the affairs of the colony; although entirely unknown in them, before the esta-
nie and charac-
ter of Jcsias Fen- blishment of the protectorate government. The dali.
transactions of the province exhibit him to us for the first time in October, 1655, when he was brought in custody before the provincial court, charged with having disturbed the government under pretence of a power from the late governor Stone; and was then, by his own consent, remanded to prison, to remain there until the protector should finally determine as to the government of the colony. (28) In the next notice of him, we find a record of an oath purporting to have been taken by him, by which he engaged, that he would neither directly nor indirectly disturb the existing government until the protector's determination; (29) and the very next occasion exhibits him as an open insurgent against it, acting under a commission from the proprietary, as governor of the province. At this day, the char- acter of this individual can be collected only from the acts with which he is identified; and these mark him as " fit for treasons, stratagem and spoils." His treachery is conspicuous in almost every transaction with which he is connected. The province was surrendered to him by Cromwell's commissioners, under a treaty, which contained an express stipulation for the security of the acts and orders passed during the defection ; and the very first act of his administration was not merely to declare them void, but also to direct, "that they be razed and torn from the records." In return for the distinction conferred upon him by th . proprietary, by selecting him as governor at a period when he appears to have had but little note in the colony, he selected the Hardest opportunity after the restoration, for the treacherous surrender of his rights. Yet all his acts prove him at once bold and intriguing, and as such, well fitted to conduct a revolution.
(22) Land Records, Liber 3, 158 and 159.
(2)) Council Proceedings, 1636 to 1657, 314 and 315.
211
TO THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.
Chap. II.]
Fendall received his commission, as governor, from the pro- prietary, in July, 1656; (30) and armed with this, he soon suc- ceeded in exciting a rebellion against the commis- sioners. The records do not inform us, in what man-" ner he procured his release from the imprisonment, to which he was subject in 1655 by his own con-
Fendall commis- sioned as gover- nor by the pro- prietary; and the province fady surrendered to him in March, 1659. sent; but from the record of his oath of adhesion shortly afterwards, there is every reason to believe that he was then discharged. From that period until the restoration of the proprietary government in 1658, the existing records do not furnish us the means of tracing his operations in opposition to the protectorate government. We learn from them only, that he succeeded in exciting a rebellion, which was attended with considerable distress and expense to the province; (31) and that he was never finally subjugated by the commissioners. In the latter part of the year 1657 and the beginning of 1658, there seems to have been a kind of divided empire in the province; the commissioners holding the courts and administering the go- vernment at St. Leonard's; and Fendall and his council sitting and acting as such at the city of St. Mary's. Through the inter- ference of a common friend, and to put a stop to the distresses arising from this state of things, an arrangement was entered into in England, in November, 1657, between Lord Baltimore, and Bennet and Matthews (the same commissioners who had been so vindictive in their opposition to his rights;) under which it was agreed that the province should be surrendered to the former, upon certain conditions, for the indemnity of those who had acted in opposition to him. This being communicated by the proprietary to Fendall, he immediately addressed letters to Ful- ler, Preston, and others of the protectorate commissioners, inviting an interview at St. Leonard's in the March following, for the purpose of carrying this agreement into effect, and perfecting the treaty of surrender. The interview according- ly took place at St. Leonards, on the 20th of March, 1658,
(30) Ilis commission dated 10th July, 1656, is recorded in Council Pro- ceedings, Liber H HI, 7.
(31) Ordinance 8th of the Acts and orders of September, 1657, and Coun- cil Proceedings, HI II, 10 and 11.
1
HISTORY FROM THE COLONIZATION [Hist. View.
(new style) when this was accomplished, and the province formally surrendered to Fendall as the proprietary's governor. (32) 1
Fendall being now in full possession of the government, he was prepared to react the part which Cromwell had played in the administration of England. Under the sanction and His intrigues for
the overthrow of the proprietary direction of Parliament, Cromwell had accomplished dominiou.
·complete success for the commonwealth cause : and then he turned the parliament out of doors. Fendall, in the name and under the authority of the proprietary, was now the undisputed ruler of the province; and his next move was to kick away the ladder by which he had climbed to power. At the Assembly convened in February, 1659, the lower house, as emu- lous as Fendall of revolutionary examples, in a message trans- mitted to it by the upper, claimed for itself to be the Assembly and highest court of judicature in the province, without depen- dance on any other power; and demanded the opinion of the upper house upon this claim. This was a pretension, which struck at the very existence of the upper house, and of the most essential powers of the proprietary; and although upon the face of the proceedings themselves, it appears to be one originating merely in the ambition of the lower house, and made in invitum as to Fendall and his council, the memorials of that day give a very different character to the transaction. It is represented, on all hands, to have been a scheme concocted by Fendall, and promoted by his adherents in the house, only to give a color to hi- designs; and his course as to the demand, fully sustains these representations, and illustrates his policy. In their reply to this message, the upper house desired to know whether the lower house, in making this pretension, considered themselves an Assembly without the governor and upper house, and as such, independent of the proprietary. The house now asked a con- ference, which was granted; and the designs of Fendall were at length unmasked. He at first affected some little reluctance ; but he, and Gerrard and Utye, two of his council, soon came into the measures of the lower house. Many of the members of the
(32) Council Proceedings, H II, 10 and 11. The terms of the treaty of surrender have already been described. Supra page 15, note (17.)
1
i
213
TO THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION.
Chap. II.]
upper house still proving refractory, the lower house, headed by its speaker, repaired in a body to the upper, and announced their determination not to permit its members to sit longer as an upper house; but at the same time accorded thein the privilege. of taking seats in the lower house. The lower house agreeing, that the governor should be its president, with the reservation of the right to adjourn or dissolve itself, the upper house was then dissolved by Fenda !!. Carrying out his intentions, he now surren- dered to the lower house his commission from the proprietary, and accepted from them a new commission for himself and his council; and to give stability to the new order of things, an act was passed declaring it felony to disturb the government as estab- lished by them, and a proclamation was issued by Fendall, com- manding the inhabitants to recognize no authority, but that which came immediately from his majesty, or the grand Assembly of the province. (33)
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.