USA > Maryland > An historical view of the government of Maryland : from its colonization to the present day > Part 4
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
Proceedings of Clayborne and others, as Crom- well's Commis- stoners.
The commonwealth cause to which Clayborne in- clined, being at length triumphant, he, as a reward for his early services in its behalf in the colonies,
(20) Council Proceedings, from 1636 to 1657, page 50.
(21) 2d Burke's Virginia, 112. Bacon's Preface to his edition of the laws, and Chalmers, 217.
3
..
18
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS
[Intro}
was commissioned by the Council of State of the mother coun- try to subjugate the province, whence, but a short time before, he had been driven as a rebel. This commission, in which Fuller and others were associated with him, was issued in Sep- tember, 1651, and empowered them to reduce and govern the colonies within the Chesapeake Bay. (22) Virginia was soon re- duced, and in July, 1652, Stone, the proprietary's governor of Ma- ryland, acknowledged and submitted to the power of the common- wealth, and was permitted to retain and administer the government in the name of the keepers of the liberty of England. (23) In his hands it remained until July, 1654, at which time Cromwell's usurpation had commenced, when, after a spirited but disastrous effort on his part to maintain his power by force of arms, Stone was defeated and taken prisoner, and Clayborne and his associ- ates assumed the rule of the province in the name of the protec- tor, and appointed commissioners to administer it. (24) In April, 165S, the government was restored to the proprietary by treaty, and with this surrender the claims of Virginia and of Clayborne, were at once and forever extinguished. (25) No attempt appears to have been made to revive them after this period, and the rest- less Clayborne, dispirited and prostrate after a life of extraordina- ry vicissitudes, was no longer known in the affairs of the colony, and soon sank into that state where the wicked cease from troub- ling, and the weary are at rest.
The claim of Virginia to the province of Mary- Controversies land, being thus forever put to rest, the adjustment with Virginia growing out of the settlements on the southern part of the Eas- tern Shore. of the boundaries between the two provinces be- came the next source of contention. In all the grants of unexplored territory made by the English crown at that day, there is not one so precise and definite in its terms, nor one which is less susceptible of misconstruction, than that of the province of Maryland: and yet there is scarcely one which has given rise to more frequent, embittered and protracted
(22) See the instructions to these commissioners, in Hazard's Collection, 556.
(23) Chalmers, 221 and 222. Bacon's Preface.
(24) Stone was condemned to be shot : but the soldiers, by whom he was beloved, refused to carry it into execution. Bacon's Preface.
(25) See the articles of surrender in Council Chamber Records, Liber H. H. 12 to 20.
1
13
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND ..
Chap. I.]
contests about its boundaries. It will, however, be perceived, that these controversies have not originated in the terms of the grant itself, but in claims adverse to the grant, unfortified indeed by principle, or any sound rule of construction, but in some in- stances sustained and promoted even by the crown. On the side of Virginia, there were but two unascertained points in its boundary line, and these were. so described as to create no diffi- culty in their true location. The ascertainment of the first fountain of the Potomac and of Watkin's Point, was all that was necessary to render the southern and western boundary lines definite throughout. As the settlements of Virginia and Maryland were not extended to their western borders, for a long period after the establishment of these colonies, their re- spective rights to western territory were not drawn into ques- tion until the middle of the eighteenth century. The location of their boundaries near the sea-board, along which their respec- tive settlements were rapidly progressing, soon became the sub- ject of enquiry : and hence the claim of Virginia to the province was scarcely at an end, when fresh disputes arose as to the situ- ation of Watkin's Point, upon which depended the true loca- tion of the boundary line between the Eastern shores of Virgi- nia and Maryland. As early as 1661, a commission was issued by governor Philip Calvert, to Edmund Scarborough, John Elzey and Randall Rouell or Revell, which empowered them to make settlements on the southern parts of the Eastern Shore, and to grant lands on very favourable terms, to emigrants from the counties of Northampton and Accomack. Their offers to the cmigrants appear to have been gladly accepted, inasmuch as the report of Ronell to the governor and council of Mary- land, in the May following, informs us that at that early period after the commission, settlements had been made at Manokin and Annamessex, which then consisted of fifty titheables, and that the settlers had formed a treaty of amity with the empe- ror of Nanticoke. (26) The establishment of these settlements on the very borders of Virginia, and the inducements which they held forth to its inhabitants, naturally excited the jealousy of its government. Hence, about this period, their submission
(26) Council Chamber Records, Lib. II. H. 122, 137. Part II. 38, 39, 40, 103 and 164.
-
-
1
. ...
20
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS
[Intro.
to the authority of Virginia was required by colonel Scarbo- rough, for and on behalf of that government, and upon the re- fusal of Elzey, one of the commanders of these settlements, he was arrested at Accomack, by Scarborough, and released only upon a promise of submission, of an equivocal nature. (27) Scarborough's design was merely to terrify him into submission, and therefore, after exacting this equivocal promise, he avowed his determination to go up to the settlements for the purpose of exacting the same obedience of all, and declared he would put "the broad arrow mark," upon the houses of all such as should refuse. Pursuing these intentions, he entered these infant set- tlements in a hostile manner, when, partly by persuasion and partly by force, he succeeded in bending the settlers to a partial compliance with his will, and to a temporary submission. In the mean while, the governor of Maryland had been apprised by Elzey of all these violent proceedings on the part of Scarbo- rough; and had been importuned by him, to aid the settlers in repelling these hostile incursions, and in repressing the inso- lence of the surrounding savages: but the former preferring a resort to pacific measures, contented himself with apprising Berkeley, the governor of Virginia, of all these unwarrantable acts on the part of Scarborough, done avowedly under the authority of the latter. (28)
Final adjustment These acts of unprovoked hostility on the part Point, and the of Scarborough, were at once disclaimed by Berke- of Watkin's line thence to the ocean. ley as wholly unauthorised: and as the best mode of obviating all future difficulties, the governor of Maryland set on foot a negotiation with Berkeley for the purpose of effecting a final adjustment of the boundary line, between the respective possessions of the two governments on the eastern side of the bay. The entreaties and remonstrances of the former were at last crowned with success, and commissioners were appointed, viz: Philip Calvert, on the part of Maryland, and on the part of Virginia its surveyor-general, Edmond Scarborough, who were empowered to determine the location of Watkin's Point, and to mark the boundary line between the two colonies running thence to .. the ocean. By them this duty was fully discharged on the 25th June, 1668, and in consummation of it, certain articles of agree-
(27) Same pages, 170, 171 and 172.
(28) Council Chamber Records, Lib. H. II. 170 and 207.
-
1
1
21 2ยช
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
Chap. I.]
ment were drawn up and signed by each of them, on behalf of their respective governments, in one of which they designate " The point of land made by the North side of Pocomoke Bay, and the South side of Annamesser Bay, as Watkin's Point," and the divisional line between the two colonies, to be " An East line, run with the extremest part of the Westernmost angle of said Wat -. kin's Point over Pocomoke river, and thence over Swansecute's creek into the marsh of the sea side, with opparent marks and boun- daries." (29)
Thus ceased all the existing sources of controversy with the government of Virginia, about the validity or true location of the charter of Maryland: but not with them all the contests for the territory of the province. The proprietary seemed to be doomed to wage an eternal war for his grant: and controversy after con- troversy crowded upon him as the ghosts upon the sleeping Richard. He had now adjusted with Virginia the only points of difference which were likely to arise for many years, as to the location of his southern boundary, and even before these were adjusted, it became necessary for him to direct his attention to the preservation of his territory, on the northern and eastern borders of the province. In the unauthorised settlements in that direction which now required his attention, (although long anterior to the grant of Pennsylvania to Penn,) will be found the germ of all his dissentions with Penn, and one of the most efficient causes in producing the success of the latter. Unimpor- tant as they were in their origin, they planted the seeds of a controversy, which was to agitate the province for nearly a cen- tury, and which finally terminated in depriving Maryland, in de- fiance of every thing like justice, of some of the fairest and most fertile portions of her original territory. As the source of such results, the consideration of them forms an important part of her history, and is necessary here to elucidate the disputes with Penn about the northern and eastern boundaries.
Swedish and It has already been remarked that the northern
Dutch settle- boundary of Maryland, was at the time of its grant, n:ents along the
Delaware. the southern boundary of New England: but from the remoteness of the New England settlements, no disputes as
(29) See the report of these commissioners, and the several agreements connected with this negotiation, in Council Chamber Records, Liber C. B. Council Proceedings, 63 and 64.
r
1
AR
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS
[Intro.
to territory ever arose between them. The settlements to which we have above alluded, were the settlements made by the Swedes and Dutch along the Delaware or South river. It does not clearly appear at what time these settlements were commenced, nor is it a matter of much moment at this day. Chalmers, who had paid some attention to this subject, expresses the opinion, that they had made no permanent settlements any where along the Delaware river, before the year 1632, but that they might have traded to it before that period. Proud, on the other hand, asserts, that a fort was erected on the Delaware by emigrants from the Dutch or Manhattan's settlement, as early as the year 1623, which was, however, shortly afterwards abandoned. (30) Be this as it may, it is quite certain that if prior discovery gave title, (as was generally acknowledged by the European sove- reigns,) or even prior settlements, the claims of the Dutch not only to the territory along the Delaware, but even to their Man- hattan settlements, were wholly unfounded. The first voyage of discovery under which they could lay claim to any part of the continent, was made by Hudson in the year 1608 or 1609, and his voyage was not made for the purposes of settlement, but was merely one of exploration. Long ere this, the continent of North America had been explored by English navigators, and at that time, it will be remembered, that king James's grant to the Virginia Company, of the very countries explored by Hud- son, had been made, and the settlements of the Southern or London Company had already commenced. After Hudson's voyage, the Dutch continued to trade to Manhattan, and at length, in 1620 and 1621, the Dutch West India Company, which had just been created, established trading houses in the Island of Manhattan's, which laid the foundation of the present city of New York. (31) A colony soon followed, and a regular govern- ment was established. Under the direction and protection of the government of New Netherlands, as the Manhattan settle- ment was styled, the colonies to which we have above alluded, were planted along the Delaware; and about the same time, or very shortly afterwards, the Swedes established a trading house
(30) Ist Proud, 110.
(31) Chalmers, 568.
1
1
.
23
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
Chap. I.]
on the eastern bank of Delaware. (32) This establishment gave umbrage to the governor of Netherlands, who asserted the exclusive right of the Dutch, to the country along the Delaware or South river, and at length, in 1638, he formally demanded the submission of the Swedes to his authority, but without success. From this period each continued to assert their respective claims, but without any actual hostilities of a serious nature, until 1651, when a trading house and fortification attached to it, which had been erected by the Dutch near the site of the pre- sent town of New Castle, were seized by the Swedes under the command of Resingh, who bestowed upon them the name of Fort Casimer, and shortly afterwards erected another fort called Fort Christiana, about five miles above. Provoked by these hostili- ties, the Dutch West India Company dispatched an armament for the reduction of the Swedish settlements on the Delaware, which was at length finally accomplished in 1655, when the Swedish colonists became the subjects of the States' General, and submitted to the government of New Netherlands. (33)
During all this period, but little attention was paid by the pro- prietary or his officers, to the progress of these settlements, which were yet too inconsiderable and too remote to excite any appre- hensions, and of the advance of which, it is probable that for a long time they were scarcely aware. (34) At length in January,
Prometary's ef- 1659, Colonel Nathaniel Utye was ordered by the them from his governor and council of Maryland, "to repair to forts to remove territory. the pretended governor of a people seated in Dela-
(32) These Dutch and Swedish settlements are said to have commenced about the year 1628 or 1629. See the interesting note to Ist Proud 111.
(33) Chalmers, 630 to 634. Ist Proud, 118 and 19. 2d Anderson's Histo- rical Deduction, 574.
(34) It appears that a small band of emigrants from Maryland, had made settlements along the margin of the Schuylkill as early as 1642, of which they were dispossessed by the orders of the governor of New Netherlands, (Chal- mers, 632.) The existing records of the province of Maryland, furnish no evi- dence that this act of aggression was ever brought under the consideration of its government. This may be owing to the loss of the records during In- gle's rebellion : but apart from this, if the settlement was even planted under the authority of the proprietary, the distractions of the province, and the fre- quent revolutions in its government consequent upon that rebellion, the revo- lutions in the mother country, and the proceedings of Cromwell's commis- sioners within the province, are amply sufficient to account for the proprieta- ry's acquiescence.
.-
1
1
-
1
24
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS
[Intro.
-.
ware Bay, and to inform them that they were seated within his lordship's province without notice." The insiduous instruction was also given him, "that if he find opportunity he shall insinu- ate to them, that if they will make application to his lordship's government, they shall find good terms according to his conditions of plantation.". He bore a letter from the governor of Maryland addressed to the governor of New Amsterdam, (as the settlement was called) which commanded him and his subjects to depart the limits of the province. (35) Submission to this order was refused, and near the close of that year, Peter Stuyvesant the then gover- nor of New Netherlands, despatched Augustine Herman and Resolved Waldron on an embassy to the governor of Maryland, bearing with them a manifesto in which a full exposition is given of the pretensions of the States' General to the territory in ques- tion. In this manifesto they allege a grant from Spain to the States' General of all their conquests and settlements in America, (of which they say that Curacoa, Brazils and the New Nether- lands made a part,) and a grant from the States' General to the Dutch West India Company, of all the territory from latitude 38 to 42, as the basis of their title which they hold to have been con- firmed, even if doubtful by the treaty of 1652, and their purchases from the Indians. They also assert their previous possession and settlement of the country adjacent to the Delaware, and utter- ly deny the title of the proprietary : but at the same time profess their willingness to appoint commissioners to adjust certain of their boundaries, leaving their water limits on the Chesapeake Bay undefined. (36) In reply to this manifesto, the governor and council informed these ambassadors, that the title set up by them might be easily disproved, and that even admitting it, they did not believe that their settlements were sanctioned by the States' Gen- eral; and the submission of the settlements in question was for- mally demanded of them. This demand was promptly rejected, and thus terminated the negotiation. (37) In May, 1661, the sub- ject was again brought before the council of Maryland, when it was resolved, that as it was a matter of doubt whether New Am-
(35) Council Chamber Records, Liber H. H. Council Proceedings from 1656 to 1668.
(36) This singular manifesto is recorded at large amongst the Council . Proceedings of Maryland, Liber H. H. 38 to 54.
(37) Liber II. II. 57, 58 and 59.
Chap. I.]
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND. 25
sterdam, lay below the 40th degree of N. latitude, and as the West India Company appeared to have resolved to maintain their pos- sessions by force, and there was no prospect of any aid from the other colonies, in any attempts which they might make to reduce thom, all further efforts for their subjugation should be delayed entil the will of the proprietary could be ascertained, and that in the meantime some efforts should be made to determine whether the settlement was located within the limits of the grant. (3S) An agent was now dispatched to Holland, to enforce upon the West India company the claims of the proprietary to the territo- ry in question, and to repeat the demand that it should be aban- doned. Compliance with this demand was again refused, but orders were given by that company to its settlers, to withdraw from the territory about Cape Henlopen which they had pur- chased of the Indians. This was accordingly done, but New Amsterdam or New Castle, and the adjacent country, were still retained in possession. (39)
In the meantime the government of New Netherlands was continually laboring to extend its settlements to the north of Manhattan's and across to Connecticut river, until Charles
II. provoked by its continued encroachments, and Reduction of
them by the perhaps animated by that ill will which he is
Duke of York.
said to have always cherished towards the Dutch, determined to effect the conquest of the whole settlement. To accomplish this, in March, 1664, he granted to his brother James, Duke of York, all that tract of country extending from the west banks of the Connecticut to the Eastern shore of Del- aware, (including Long Island,) and conferred upon him the power to govern the same. To render this grant available, an armament was immediately dispatched by James, under the con- duct of Colonel Nicholls, for the reduction of New Netherlands. This was accomplished in September, 1664, and in the ensuing month, the settlements upon the Delaware, which were depen- dencies of the government of New Netherlands, were surren- dered to a detachment from Nicholls's forces, under the com- mand of Sir Robert Car. By the terms of the capitulation, the Dutch colonists were admitted to all the privileges of English
(38) Council Proceedings, Liber H H. 113.
(39) Chalmers, 631.
$
1
-
1
26
THE GRANT AND TERRITORIAL LIMITS
[Intro.
subjects under the new government, and from this period until the grant to Penn from the Duke of York, these settlements were the dependencies of the government of New York, although clearly within the limits of Maryland. (40) They, how- ever, embraced only a small portion of territory lying along the Delaware river.
Grant of Penn- sylvania. The grant of the Province of New York to the Duke of York had just been made, and a portion of the granted territory was yet in possession of the Dutch, when in June, 1664, he carved out of it the province of New Jersey, which was by him granted to the lords Berkeley and Carteret. The grant of the province of New Jersey, is here mentioned, because it first introduces to our notice the celebrated William Penn, the proprietary of Pennsylvania, who very shortly after the erection of the former province, became one of its proprie- tors. His connexion with it appears to have inspired him with the design of obtaining from the crown, a grant, as sole proprie- tor of the territory westward of the Delaware river. His interest in the New Jersey grant led to the discovery of the fertility of the Jands lying westward of the Delaware, and his entangling con- nexion with many other persons in the ownership and conduct of the province of New Jersey, made him most earnestly desire a separate and sole grant. Hence in 1680, he petitioned king Charles II. for a grant of lands westward of the Delaware, . and north of Maryland. His petition was submitted to the Duke of York's secretary, and to Lord Baltimore's agents, that it might be known how it would affect the respective rights of these proprietaries. In the reply of the latter, they desired for the protection of Baltimore's grant, that the grant to Penn, if made, should be north of the Susquehanna Fort, and of all the lands lying south of a direct line, running east and west from said Fort; that it should contain general words of restric- tion, as to any interest granted to Lord Baltimore, and a saving of all his rights, and that his council might be permitted to see the grant before it was passed. This was assented to, and the grant was finally made, on the 4th of March, 1681. (11) Its
(40) See the articles of capitulation in 1st Proud, 123.
(41) Chalmers, 656. In the reply of Weiden, the Duke of York's secre- tary, to the requests of Baltimore's agents, he remarks, " that by all which he
.
,
-
27
OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
Chap. I.]
boundaries which are said to have been settled by Lord Chief Justice North, were, "the Delaware on the east, whence it ex- tended westward five degrees of longitude, the 43d degree of latitude on the north, and on the south, a circle of twelve miles drawn around New Castle, to the beginning of the 40th degree of latitude." . 'T'his definition of its southern boundary, which, in its literal construction could not be gratified, and which, therefore, left open the question, whether this boundary circle was to be a circle of twelve miles in circumference, or to be drawn around a diameter of twelve miles passing through New Castle, or with a radius of twelve miles beginning in Now Castle, was the origin of one of the present boundary lines of this State, and was one of the principal sources of the conten- tion between Baltimore and Penn. (42)
Such being the grant, in May, 1681, Markham, Penn's grant from the Duke the kinsman of Penn, was dispatched. by the lat- of York, and bis negotiations ter to take possession of the granted province, with Baltimore. bearing with him the king's letter of April, 16SI, apprising Baltimore of the grant, and requiring the two proprie- taries to adjust the boundaries between their respective provin- ces, according to the calls of their charters. Upon the recep- tion of this letter by Lord Baltimore, (who was then in the pro- vince,) an interview took place between him and Markham, shortly after the arrival of the latter, at Upland, (now called Chester,) which, to the astonishment of all parties, resulted in the discovery from actual observation, that Upland itself was at least twelve miles south of the 40th degree, and that the boundaries of Maryland would extend to the Schuylkill. (43) This discovery at once ended the conference, and gave fresh incentives to Penn in his efforts to obtain from the Duke of
can observe of the boundaries mentioned in Mr. Penn's petition, they agree well enough with that colony which hath been ever since the conquest of New York by colonel Nicholls, held as an appendix, and part of the govern- ment of New York by the name of the Delaware Colony, or more particu- larly New Castle Colony, (that being the name of the principal place in it, and the whole being promiscuously planted hy Swedes, Dutch, Finlanders and English,) all of which have hitherto been under the actual government of His Royal Highness's Lieutenant at New York."
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.