USA > Maryland > An historical view of the government of Maryland : from its colonization to the present day > Part 3
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
(7) The recitals of his commissions as Secretary of State for the Colony of Virginia, granted in 1625 and 1627, speak of Clayborne as a person ef quality and trust, and abundantly evidence the high estimation in which he was then held.
8
THIE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS
[Intro.
rity, but we are also informed that before Lord Baltimore's grant, they had even sent Burgesses to the Assembly of Virginia, (8) a privilege which they could not have exercised very frequently during the administration of governor Harvey, who ruled in Virginia, as did king Charles in the mother country, without the aid of Assemblies. (9)
Such were the origin, extent and condition of the English set- tlements, adjacent to or within the province of Maryland, when it was granted to Lord Baltimore. The causes of this grant, the circumstances which impelled Lord Baltimore to seek it, and the motives which induced king Charles to yield to his application, all serve to explain the grant itself, which was in its general charac- ter peculiarly favourable, both to the proprietary and the colonists, and which embodied in it provisions for the security of the poli- tical and civil liberty of the latter, in direct conflict with the known temper of the English crown at that day. We naturally ask, whence came these peculiar features of the charter; and, there- fore, the reply to this question makes a part of the history of the grant. The examination of these features belongs to another part of this work. At present, it is only necessary to enquire into the circumstances under which the grant was made, as ex- planatory of its character.
CECILIUS, Baron of Baltimore, to whom the char- The grant of Ma. ryland, and how ter was granted, was not the grantee for whom it obtained. was originally intended. The application for it came from, and the success of that application is due to, his father, George Calvert, with whom the design of obtaining and colonizing the province originated. He lived only to see all difficulties removed, to have all his wishes as to the terms of the grant complied with, and to leave as an inheritance to his heir, a title to it, based upon the highest moral considerations, and perfected in all but the legal forms. Calvert who was thus the
(8) Chalmers.
(9) This was certainly the general character and tendency of Harvey's administration, although, as is shown by Mr. Burke in his History of Vir- ginia, Robertson and other writers upon the affairs of that colony, were mistaken in supposing that no Assemblies were held during that administra- tion. It appears that there were several sessions of Assembly during that period, at one of which there was a general revisal of the laws of the colo- ny. Burke's History of Virginia, 2d vol. 41.
1
9
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
Chap. I.]
founder of the title, and fortunes of his family, was born in York- shire, in the year 1582. At an early age he became the secreta- ry of Sir Robert Cecil, through whose influence and patronage he was made clerk of the Privy Council, and ultimately became secretary of state to James I. The latter office he resigned in 1624, because of his conversion to the principles of the ~ Roman Catholic religion. Notwithstanding his avowal of these, and his resignation, he seems to have lost none of the royal favor which he previously enjoyed, inasmuch as he was con- tinued in the Privy Council, and received in the succeeding year the honors of knighthood, with the title of Baron of Baltimore, in the kingdom of Ireland. He had represented Yorkshire in Par- liament, and was, at the time of receiving knighthood, the repre- sentative of the University of Oxford. (10) During his secreta- ryship he obtained a grant of the province of Avalon, in New- foundland, where he made some efforts at a settlement, which, although they did not answer his expectations, instead of repress- ing his ardor for projects of colonization, had only the effect of directing his enterprising spirit in search of some more favora- ble location. Animated by this desire, he visited Virginia, and his sagacity'at once perceived the advantages which were likely to result from settlements upon the Chesapeake Bay, and the fa- cilities for their establishment presented by the adjacent country, of which the colonists of Virginia had availed themselves only, by the establishment of a few trading houses. (11) On his return
(10) For these details connected with the History of the Founder of Ma- ryland, see Chalmer's Historical Annals, and Bozman's Introduction to the History of Maryland, 231 to 234.
(11) The purposes of his visit to Virginia do not distinctly appear. If he had any views as to a permanent settlement within Virginia, they were all frustrated by the requisition made of him by the Assembly of that colony im- mediately upon his arrival there, that he should take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, the latter of which, as requiring his acknowledgment of the King as the head of the church, was inconsistent with his peculiar religious tenets. It was therefore promptly refused. It is said by Anderson, on the au- thority of Keith, that he intended to retire with his family to some part of Virginia, that he might there enjoy the free exercise of his religion: but that in consequence of the opposition made to him because of his religious tenets, he left it to explore the Chesapeake Bay in search of a settlement, and finding the country adjacent admirable adapted to his purposes, and as yet unsettled, he returned instantly to England to procure the grant of it. 2 Burke's His- 2
-
10
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS
[Intro,
- to England, he preferred his application for the grant of the pro- vince of Maryland, and sustained, as it was, by the considera- tions of distinguished services, untiring enterprise, and great moral worth, it was readily acceded to by the pliant king Charles, who never knew how to refuse the requests of favorites. It has been inferred by some, from the tenor of the character itself, and the extreme care with which the rights of the proprietary. are guarded by it, whilst the prerogatives of the crown and the eminent dominion of the mother country, are almost as cau- tiously excluded from view, that it was the work of Calvert him- self : but, be that as it may, there is but little doubt that the facile Charles permitted him to dictate its terms. Early in 1632, and when his charter was just ready for its passage under the great seal, he died, leaving the fruition of his grant to his son and heir Cecilius Calvert, to whom the charter of Maryland was finally granted on the 20th of June, 1632.
This brief view of the circumstances under which The various sour- ces of the territo- rial controversies in which the pro- prietaries of Ma- ryland were in- volved. the grant was made, will conduct us at once to the prominent causes and results of the territorial con- troversies to which the charter has given rise. The prior establishment of the colony of Virginia, and the settlements of Clayborne ;- the true location of Watkin's Point ;- the settlements of the Swedes and Dutch upon the Delaware ;--- the grants to Penn,-and the designation of the first waters of the Potomac, as the common boundary, at which the Western and Southern boundary lines of Maryland unite, have all given rise to controversies conspiring in their results to reduce the province of Maryland to its present limits. These will be 'briefly considered in the order in which they have been enume- rated, which is also the order of their origin.
Objections of the charter on the part of the colo- nists of Virginia. The causes of the dissatisfaction of the colonists of Virginia with the grant to Lord Baltimore, have already been partially disclosed. The grant lay within the limits of Virginia, as established under its charter go- vernment, and when these charters were annulled, and it became a royal government, it continued to retain its ancient limits until the period of this grant. The government of Virginia had also from time to time exercised its jurisdiction over the countries,
tory of Virginia, 25 Bozman, 236. Anderson's Historical Deduction of Com. merce, Vol. II. 465.
-
1
Chap. I.]
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
11
adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay, in the grant of licenses to trade therein, and the growing and prosperous settlement of Clayborne upon Kent Island, which was in subjection to that government, was just unfolding the resources of this territory, when it was granted to Lord Baltimore, The colonists of Virginia, therefore, f.It all the indignation which a people would naturally feel, whose enterprise had opened new sources of wealth, which were left open only until they began to realise all the hopes which they had awakened, and were then closed against them, in the very moment of fruition, whilst a more favoured people, who, in their opinion, had borne none of the heat and burden of the day, were seated, to then exclusion, in the midst of all the benefits of their discoveries. They saw, with deep regret, that they had been mere purveyors to the designs of the proprietary of Maryland, and with the feelings, which disappointment, in the moment of enjoyment never fails to excite, their imagination saw more in the advantages which they had lost, than they would have dis- covered in the actual possession and enjoyment of them. They, therefore, received with a very ill grace the command of their sov- creign, to yield every facility to Lord Baltimore, in his project of colonization, and were determined to omit no efforts to reclaim the territory which they had lost. Hence, shortly after the grant, a petition was preferred to the king by the planters of Virginia, in which they complain " that grants have lately been made of a great portion of the lands and territory of their colony, being the places of their traffic, and so near to their habitations, as will give a general disheartening to the planters, if they be divided into several governments: and a bar be put to that trade which they have long since exercised for supportation and relief, under the confidence of his majesty's gracious and royal intentions towards them " This petition was finally acted upon in the star chamber in July, 1633, when it was adjudged by the Privy Council, that Lord Baltimore should be left in possession of this grant, and the petitioners to their remedies at law, if they had any such, and that in the mean time, free commerce between the two colonies should be permitted, and that they should keep up a good correspondence with, and should mutually aid each other as members of a common government. (12) A proceeding of the
(12) See this order in council at large in Ist Hazard 337, and Bozman 381, note S, which recites the petition preferred by the planters of Virginia.
.
---
.
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS [Intro.
governor and council of Virginia very recently afterwards, is quite irreconcilable with these injunctions of the privy council, and forces upon us the conclusion, either that they were not then ap -. prised of them, or were determined not to respect them. In March, 1631, a petition was preferred to them by Clayborne, ir which he requests their advice as to the course he should pursue in his difficulties with Lord Baltimore. He apprised them that he and his colonists on Kent Island had been required, as resi- dents within the limits of Maryland, to renounce that state of dependence upon, and subordination to the government of Vir- ginia, in which they had hitherto lived. In their reply, the go- vernor and council express their surprise that Clayborne should ever have proposed such a question. They remarked, that they saw no reason for surrendering their right to the Isle of Kent, or .
to any other territory formerly granted to their colony by his ina- jesty's patent. "And, as" say they; " the right to my lord's patent is yet undetermined in England, we are bound in duty, and by our oaths, to maintain the rights and privileges of the colony. Never- ¿theless, in humble submission to his majesty's pleasure, we will keep a good correspondence with them, not doubting that they will not entrench upon the rights of his majesty's plantation." (13) Yet this decision of the Privy Council appears to have been ac- quiesced in for some time: and even when the proprietary was driven to extremities by the resistance of Clayborne; and the lat- ter was expelled from the province, and attainted, no open effort was made by the government of Virginia to sustain Clayborne's claims. It is probable that this acquiescence was occasioned rather by the exigencies of the colony of Virginia, than by its respect for the will of the king.' -. The condition of the latter from the year 1625, when it became a royal government, down to the year 1639, at which period Sir William Berkely became its go- · vernor, was truly deplorable. 'Throughout this interval it was in a great degree, under the uncontrolled sway of its governor and council. They legislated for it ; imposed taxes upon it with- out its consent ; disposed of the public property at their pleasure, and governed the colonists as a conquered and vassal people. (14) Harvey, their despotie governor, was at length recalled in
(13) Chalmers.
(14) It has already been remarked in note 8th to this chapter, that the
1
1
:
13
Chap. I.]
OP THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
1638, and the government of the colony was committed to the · prild and amiable Sir William Berkely, whose instructions requir- ed, and whose temper approved a much more liberal system of government, Yet delighted, as the people of Virginia were, rwith the substitution of Berkely for Harvey, the instructions to i the former, enjoined restrictions upon their trade, in which may be seen the geim of the exclusive claim to the colonial trade ever afterwards asserted by the mother country, and the sources of much dissatisfaction to the colonists. (15) In the meanwhile the discontents of the mother country were momently increas- ing. Charles I. who had resolved to govern, without the aid of : parliament, found it necessary to summon them again at a period when they served no other purpose than to hasten his downfall. In this state of things in the colony, and in the mother country, the malcontents of Virginia conceived the design of attempting to bring about the restoration of the old chartered government, and of thereby reducing the colony of Maryland under their dominion. Fortified by the opinions of some eminent lawyers, who held that the old charters of Virginia were still in force, notwithstanding the judgment on the quo warranto in 1624, and that therefore the charter of Maryland was void, they presented a petition to the House of Commons, in the name of the Assembly of Virginia, in which they prayed for the restoration of the ancient patents. This design was speedily contracted by the governor, council and burgesses of that 'colony, who, in their address to the king, ex- pressly disavowed the petition which had been preferred in their names, expressed an earnest desire to remain under his immedi- ate government, and remonstrated against the restoration of the charteis. The king's reply of July, 1612, put to rest all their fears
writers who treat of the condition of the Virginia colony at this period, have generally been mistaken in supposing that there were no assemblies held in it during Harvey's administration. Burke has corrected their errors in this respect : yet it is manifest from Burke's account of the condition of the colony during that period, that they were not mistaken as to the general character of the administration. Throughout it, the government was rather one of procla- mations, than of laws: and these proclamations of Harvey, not only assumed what probably belonged to legislation, but were regarded as having all its binding force.
(15) Sce these Instructions in Chalmer's Historical Annals, 132 and 33.
14
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS
[Intro.
on this score. (16) From this period, until the assumption of the government of Maryland, by the Commonwealth's commissioners, these claims of Virginia appear to have slept. Whilst Maryland remained in the hands of these commissioners, amongst whom was. Clayborne, the protector was urged by some of them, and their agents, to take its government wholly and forever out of the hands of the proprietary, and to re-attach it to Virginia as a legi- timate portion of that colony. The reader, who desires to see the various objections which were urged against Lord Baltimore's 'patent at that day, and the correspondence by which these claims of Virginia were reasserted, will see them at large in Hazard's state papers, vol. II. 591 to 630, and Thurlow's State Papers, vol. V. It will here suffice to remark that the protector gave no counte- nance to these claims; and that they were at length extinguish- ed by the surrender of the province of Maryland, in 1658, to Fendall, the - proprietary's governor, and do not appear to have ever been revived. (17) ;
Clayborne's flight and attainder. Clayborne's claims, although not of longer con- tinuance than those of the colony of Virginia, were much more warmly upheld, and were productive of much more calamitous consequences to the province. We have already scen in what manner, at what time, and under what authority, - his settlements were made, and that at the time of Lord Balti- more's grant they were subordinate to the government of Virgi- nia. His petition to the latter in 1634, and their reply have already been noticed. That reply it will be remembered, al- though made some months after the adjudication of the privy council, overruling the objections to the grant, yet asserted the claim of Virginia to dominion over Clayborne's settlements, in the most emphatic terms. Animated by this, Clayborne, who
(16) See Chalmers, 133.
(17) The various negotiations for this surrender, and the articles of agree- ment by which it was consummated, may be seen in Council Chamber Records, Liber II. H. 12 to 20. The principal stipulations of the articles were for a general indemnity from the year 1649, for the payment of fees and taxes in arrear ; for relief from the oath of fealty, in lieu of which the colonists were
. permitted to take and subscribe an engagement to submit to the authority of the proprietary, for the security of Acts or Orders of Assembly, passed since 1654, which were not to be declared void, because of any irregularity in the government, and for permission to the colonists to retain their arms.
------
.
Chap. I.]
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
seems not to have objected to the claim of sovereignty on the part of Virginia, under which his colony had grown up, contin- ued strenuously to refuse obedience to the proprietary's demand of submission. In September, 1634, the proprietary gave orders to seize him, in the event of his refusal to submit; and after re- peated efforts to rouse the jealousies of the savages, and to ex- cite commotions in the province, he was at length obliged to fly from it to Virginia. Determined to maintain his possessions by force, and, if practicable, to drive the colonists from the province, he had fitted out an armed vessel to commit depredations upon their property; but the immediate capture of that vessel deprived him of his last resource, and left him no hopes of safety but in flight. In Virginia, he had reason to expect security, from his past connexion with its government : but he had scarcely taken refuge there, before Commissioners were deputed from Maryland to demand his surrender. Harvey, the governor of Virginia, of whom this demand was made, and who appears to have had some connexion with Clayborne's enterprises, was too critically situat- ed, at that period, to avow the connexion, or to afford open countenance to his pretensions: but, under pretence of high respect for Clayborne's license from the crown, he declined surrendering him to the Commissioners, but sent him under their charges to England, to await the decision of the King. Being ithus put beyond the reach of the proprietary, he was attainted, and his property seized as forfeit. (18) After his return to England, he petitioned the king for a confirma- tion of his former license to trade, for a grant of other lands adjoining Kent Island, and for the power to govern them. To the influence of Sir William Alexander, who was the king's Secretary of State for the kingdom of Scotland, when Clay- borne's license was granted, and who was his associate in that license, may be attributed the king's order pending this petition. That order, after reciting the former license and its His petition to grants, sets forth that Lord Baltimore had notice the king in coun- of its existence, and that contrary to its injune- cil, and the order in council there- tions he and his agents had possessed themselves, on.
.
(18) Council Chamber Records : Assembly Proceedings, from 1636 to 1657, pages 26, 27 and 31. Bozman, 280 and 327. 2d Burke's Virginia, 41, and Chalmer's Annals, 210 and 232.
:
1
-
16
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS. [Intro.
by night, of Kent Island, and had seized and carried away the persons and estates of its planters, and that the king had referred to the commissioners of plantations the enquiry into the truth of these allegations. It then concluded with a mandate to Lord Baltimore and his agents, enjoining them to permit the settlers on Kent Island, to enjoy their possessions in peace, until that board had acted upon the subject. In Clayborne's petition, which elicited this order, he represents to the king, that he had not only made settlements upon Kent Island, but that he had also, at the instance of the Indians, made a settlement and es- tablished a factory, on a small island at the mouth of the river, at the bottom of the bay, in the Susquehanna country, by which he hoped to secure the fur trade from the lakes of Canada; that the injunctions of his license to trade had been wholly disregard- ed by the agents of the proprietary: that his boats and goods had been seized, his men slain, and himself accused of crimes, and dispossessed, or about to be dispossessed of all his settle- ments. It then concludes with a prayer, that the king would grant to him his settlements on Kent Island, and in the Susque- hanna country, and the adjacent territory southerly, for twelve leagues from the mouth of said river, down the bay, on each side, and northerly to the head of the river, and the great lakes of Canada ..
The reference of this petition to the commissioners, was made in February, 1637, (old stile) and in April, 1638, they finally ad- judicated upon it. This adjudication determined, that the right to all the territory within which Clayborne's settlements were made, was vested in Lord Baltimore ; that no settlements ought to be made, or commerce carried on in it, or with it, without his li- cense, and that no grant to it should be made to any other per- son. (19) From this period the claim of Clayborne does not appear to have been ever asserted before a proper tribunal; yet,
(19) See Clayborne's petition, and the order of the king in council there- on, in Council Records, Liber Council Proceedings, from 1636 to 1657-4 to 10, and in Ist Hazard's Collection, 430. The authenticity of these papers was denied by the Penns in their bill in chancery against Lord Baltimore, upon the agreement of 1732: but their genuineness is fully sustained by the facts set forth in Bozman, 338 to 342; and by the above order of the king pending the petition, which is extracted by Chalmers from the English Coun- cil Records.
-
Chap. I.]
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
17
although abandoned, it begat and nourished a deep rooted hos- tility to the proprietary and the colony, which never failed to manifest itself on every occasion. Having failed in his applica- tion to the king in council, he is, the next year, found in the attitude of a suppliant, to the governor and council of Mary- land, praying for the restoration of his confiscated property. Even this request, the gratification of which would probably have operated upon Clayborne as a peace-offering, and which seems to have been due to him, from a regard to the circumstances under which his settlements were made, and that conviction of his title to them, under which he manifestly acted, was yet sternly de- nied. (20) Had it been granted, it is probable that he would peaceably and silently have submitted to the decision against him. Its rejection made him, at all after times, the determined enemy of the colony, and hence, from that period, he lost no opportunity of exciting disturbances within it. All this intrigu- Clayborne and ing arts were put forth : and whilst the minds of the Ingle's rebellion, colonists were agitated, and restless, from a view of the commotions of the mother country, associating himself with . a certain Richard Ingle, who had previously been proclaimed a ' traitor to the king, and throwing himself upon the restlessness and discontent which then pervaded the province, he at length succeeded in exciting a rebellion against the proprietary's go- vernment, so formidable and so unexpected, that the governor was obliged to abandon the government, and to flee to Virginia for protection, early in the year 1645. The powers of govern- ment were then assumed by him in conjunction with Ingle; nor were they regained by the proprietary's officers until the close of the year 1646; and perhaps, even then, more by the misrule of these confederates, than by the force which the governor could bring to bear upon them. The deplorable consequences of this insurrection are felt at this day, in the loss of many of the records of the Province. (21)
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.