USA > Maryland > Maryland, 1633 to 1776 : being an account of the main currents in the political and religious development of Maryland as a proprietary province > Part 2
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
Ingle returned the following year and was immediately de- tained by the authorities, but released on his promise to deposit a barrel of powder and four hundred pounds of shot as security for appearing in February to answer charges but he left the colony, without keeping his promise, taking Cornwalleys with him.
At this time Claiborne was secretly visiting Kent Island and seeking to incite a rebellion, assuring the inhabitants that he held a commission from the King. Soon after, Ingle returned from England in command of an armed ship and with letters of marque and reprisal from Parliament. Claiborne and Ingle, drawn together by the common desire to avenge themselves upon the Maryland government, joined forces, enlisted such elements of disaffection and credulity as they could prevail upon to recognize their authority, seized St. Mary's and dispossessed the proprietary government. Governor Calvert and the members of his govern- ment were compelled to flee to Virginia, where they remained for two years, Claiborne and Ingle meanwhile holding full sway in Maryland. Their rule was a succession of imprisonment, plunder and violence. They seized tobacco, corn and cattle, dis-
' Proceedings of the Council, 1636 to 1667, page 167.
2
-
18 -
mounted and disposed of machinery, and broke up the Roman Catholic missions. Even the house and plantations of Ingle's benefactor and friend, Thomas Cornwalleys, were pillaged. But reaction soon set in and at the end of two years Gov. Calvert organized a force of Maryland and Virginia soldiers, marched on St. Mary's and drove out the Claiborne and Ingle government, but both the insurgent leaders escaped. Ingle was later prosecuted in England and answered with an address to Parliament that he had plundered only "malignants and papists" in order to relieve the oppressed Protestants, a flimsy excuse as the Protestants in the province were in great majority.
The trend of events in England at this time convinced the Lord Proprietor of the advisability of avoiding all possibility of giving offence to the Puritan Parliament of England. He therefore removed Gov. Greene, a Roman Catholic, whom Gov. Calvert had appointed shortly before his death in 1647, and replaced him by William Stone, a Protestant and friend of Parliament. Thus attacks on the government on the pretext of religious hostility could no longer be urged. But in November 1650, Gov. Stone went to Virginia for a few days and during his absence, Greene, his substitute, proclaimed Charles II. heir to the English throne.1
The Virginia Assembly went further, denouncing the execution of Charles I. and proclaiming his son heir to the throne. In addition it was made treason to utter anything against the house of Stuart or in favor of a Puritan Parliament. Virginia's unyielding attitude, when brought to the attention of the home government, led to the issuance of a parliamentary commission designed to coerce her into acceptance of the turn of events. Maryland was likewise included, but the Lord Proprietor showed that there was no opposition to the Puritan government in Maryland, that the proclamation of Charles II. as king was the unwarranted act of the substitute governor during the absence of the regular governor. Maryland was therefore omitted from the commission. Yet a single passage referred to "all the plantations within the Bay of Ches- apeake", thus including Maryland. It seems likely that Claiborne was responsible for this, especially as he was appointed one of
1 Proceedings of the Council 1636 to 1667, pages 243, 244.
19
- -
the four commissioners for the reduction of the two provinces. Virginia was immediately reduced and brought under the control of the commissioners and in 1652 Maryland suffered the same fate.
Gov. Stone was removed and then reappointed, after the representatives of the Lord Proprietor in the Council had been removed and arrangements made for legal processes to run in the name of the "Keepers of the Liberties of England".1
Upon Cromwell's dissolution of Parliament in 1653 and his assumption of the role of protector, he was proclaimed in Mary- land. Cromwell and the Puritan army now composed the govern- ment of England. Parliament and with it, the Keepers, were no more. Therefore authority delegated by the Keepers in the parlia- mentary commission to Claiborne and the remaining three com- missioners was no longer valid. Baltimore acted on this theory and undertook to regain control of his province. He instructed Stone to exact the customary oath of fidelity to him of all taking up lands and to see that legal processes ran in his name as was the case up to the time of the parliamentary commissioners.2
Stone succeeded in resuming his duties as governor, but a military force under Commissioners Claiborne and Bennett marched upon Maryland, compelled his resignation, and placed Capt. William Fuller, a Puritan of the settlement of Providence, with nine other commissioners in charge of the government. When the Lord Proprietor was informed, he rebuked Stone for surrend- ering with so little resistance and directed him to resume office. Stone thereupon collected a military force of a hundred and thirty men and set out for Providence, Puritan headquarters. But a land attack under Fuller at the head of one hundred and seventy five men combined with the fire of two merchant vessels lying in the Severn river resulted in the complete defeat of the Lord Proprietor's forces.
In 1656 Baltimore succeeded in securing an order for the restitution of his property from the Protector and the following year an agreement between Commissioner Bennett and Baltimore provided for the complete restoration of the Maryland government.3
1 Proccedings of the Council 1636 to 1667, page 271.
' Proceedings of the Council 1636 to 1667, page 300.
' Proceedings of the Council 1636 to 1667, page 332 on.
-- 20 -
This marked the end of Claiborne's active opposition to the Maryland government. He had however been the chief obstacle to the peaceful development of the colony during the first twenty years of its existence.
In July 1656 Josias Fendall was appointed governor of the province to succeed William Stone. A short period of quiet then set in. But during the session of the Assembly of 1659-1660 an internal conspiracy was aimed at the Lord Proprietor's authority. Acting on the theory that the provincial Assembly was a minia- ture parliament, the Lower House notified the governor and Council that it was the opinion of that body that it held power independently of any power outside of the province. The members of the Council were then informed that they might take seats in the Lower House but that the delegates of the latter could not recognize them as having any power as the Upper House or Council. Gov. Fendall and several members of the Council acquiesced in this point of view, the former surrendering his com- mission as governor and receiving a new one from the Assembly. An act was then passed making it criminal for any one to disturb the existing government. In addition Fendall issued a proclamation providing for recognition of no authority except that of the King and the Assembly. Baltimore was thus entirely unrepresented. What led the conspirators to this action is not apparent. It seems to have been a mere intrigue for power. Soon after, Charles II. became king and the Lord Proprietor obtained letters from him confirming his authority. He thereupon sent his brother, Philip Calvert, to the province as governor and on his arrival the Fendall government collapsed of itself and the legally constituted govern- ment of the Proprietor was restored without resistance.1 The succeeding twenty years held no menace to the charter.
In 1675 Cecilius, Second Lord Baltimore died and was suc- ceeded by his son Charles. The former had successfully led the colony through the dangers and attacks of more than forty years and by his judgment and talent for government had firmly estab- lished the colony.
Charles, third Lord Baltimore, though determined and experi- enced in government, lacked the insight and tact of his father.
' Proceedings of the Council, 1636-1667, pages 392-399.
~ 21 -
He was constantly at the head of a minority and though generally successful in attaining his ends it was often at the cost of his popularity. His private purse and his personal interests were paramount; the future of the colony and his people's welfare were secondary.
The grant of Pennsylvania in 1681 to William Penn brought with it fresh complications for Maryland. Pennsylvania's southern frontier was to be measured "by a circle drawn at twelve miles distance from New Castle, northward and westward to the begin- ning of the fortieth degree of north latitude, and thence by a straight line westward".
Before the charter had been granted it was agreed that the 40th parallel, Maryland's northern boundary, should be respected. It was later found that Newcastle was twenty miles south of the fortieth degree. But Penn then refused to accept the 40th parallel as the boundary. When he proposed that Baltimore move his southern and northern boundaries thirty miles south in order that Pennsylvania might have access to Chesapeake Bay1 it became evident that a water outlet was the reason for his unwillingness to respect Baltimore's prior claim. Two conferences between the two proprietors resulted in no agreement.
Penn had likewise received a deed of enfeoffment from the Duke of York, for the territory from the west bank of the Con- necticut River to the eastern shore of the Delaware granted him by his brother Charles II., on his restoration. Prior to granting this land to Penn, the Duke of York had reduced the Swedish and Dutch settlements on both sides of the Delaware and thereafter claimed the land on both banks, although the west bank was within the Maryland grant.
After the unsuccessful efforts to settle this question Baltimore left for England in 1684 to plead his case before the king. Soon after his arrival the duke of York whose friendship Penn enjoyed became King James II. The latter referred the case to the commis- sioner , of plantations and trade with appropriate instructions. A judgment was returned adjudging the land lying between Delaware Bay and extending from the latitude of Cape Henlopen north to
1 Proceedings of the Council, 1667 to 1787-1788, pages 374-394.
-- 22 -
the 40th degree, to the crown. The king then confirmed Penn in his possessions. Bui the northern boundary was not settled and as long as Baltimore's charter held there could be no doubt of his prior jurisdiction. Penn therefore decided to use his in- fluence with the king to find a means of insuring his claim to the disputed territory. The result was the issuance of a writ of "quo warranto" in April 1687 to nullify the Maryland charter, but before it had been executed the revolution of 1688 which saw the flight of James II. and the advent of William and Mary took place and the charter remained unimpaired. The controversy thereafter declined into a private dispute.
A messenger despatched to Maryland by Baltimore with in- structions to have William and Mary proclaimed died en route.1 Meanwhile they had been proclaimed in Virginia and New Eng- land; Maryland alone seemed to be unwilling to accept the change. This fact lent color to a rumor in March 1689 that the Maryland Catholics had entered into a conspiracy with the Indians to murder all Protestants in the province. Enemies of the Proprietors had on former occasions tried to stir up the people by similar rumors, but without success. But with the failure of the Maryland govern- ment to proclaim the Protestant monarchs, William and Mary, after a revolution which put to flight the Roman Catholic King James II., there was no difficulty in securing the ear of many of the Protestants. There were no untoward events at the moment, but a Protestant Association was formed with John Coode at its head. The latter had been a minister who had foresworn his calling, later openly attacking Christianity and the church.
Soon after the March rumor, a report was spread that the government buildings were being fortified. Coode and some of the Associators went to investigate. On arriving they seized the records and took prisoner the deputy governor and a force of eighty men that he had been able to collect. The association then took over the goverment. William and Mary were proclaimed and addresses were sent to the King explaining that the Asso- ciators had felt obliged to do this in the interests of the crown.
1 Proceedings of the Council, 1687-1688 to 1693, pages 113, 114,
- 23 -
In addition a list of grievances were sent to the crown. It was maintained that under the Proprietor none but Roman Catholics held office, that the Roman Church was encouraged whereas the Church of England was utterly neglected; that freedom of elec- tions was violated; that the proprietor used his power of veto to an unjustifiable extent and that excessive fees were charged by government officers.1 It was true that Charles, third Lord Baltimore had effectively alienated all sympathy by his selfish regime. The chief offices were filled by members of his family, who were Roman Catholic, although the majority of the people were Protestant; he had been guilty of summoning only onehalf of the delegates elected to the Lower House on the plea of economy but in reality to exclude those who opposed him; and he had vetoed bills several years after they had been passed. But these were mistakes of policy rather than violations of his charter.
But William was eager to bring the colonists under the crown and augment the royal revenues so that he might have greater freedom of action for his European policies. The murder of John Payne, a collector of customs in Maryland, the second incident of the kind, the state of affairs with the Protestant associators, and Baltimore's Roman Catholic faith, made him feel that this was a favorable opportunity for bringing Maryland under the crown.
On August 21st, 1690 an order in council instructed the Attorney General to proceed against Lord Baltimore's charter with the object of canceling it. The opinion of Lord Chief Justice Holt given in June 1690 gives the status of the case perfectly. "I think it had been better if an inquisition had been taken, and the forfeitures committed by the Lord Baltimore had been therein found before any grant be made to a new governor. Yet since there is none, and it being in a case of necessity, I think the King may by his commission constitute a governor whose authority will be legal, though he must be responsible to the Lord Baltimore for the profits. If an agreement can be made with the Lord Baltimore, it will be convenient and easy for the governor that the King shall appoint. An inquisition may at any time be taken if the forfeiture be not pardoned, of which there
' Proceedings of the Council, 1687-1688 to 1693, pages 128-147.
--
- 24 -
is some doubt."1 It was thus evident that the legal basis for the forfeiture of the charter was unjustified and that the procedure was purely a matter of policy.
Thus in 1691 Maryland became a Royal Province. In 1693 the capital was transferred from St. Mary's to Annapolis. This system continued until 1715. The Lord Proprietor continued to enjoy his territorial rights, but all officers were appointed by the crown. It exercised veto power, and all writs and legal processes ran in its name. In brief, the Lord Proprietor's sovereign rights were no more. His position was simply that of owner of the land.
On February 20, 1715, Charles, third Lord Baltimore died and was succeeded by his son, Benedick Leonard. But the latter was to bear the title only a few months, as he died soon after, whereupon his son Charles, a minor, succeeded to the title and estates.
Benedick Leonard had publicly renounced the Roman faith and become a member of the Church of England a few years before and his children were then educated as members of the English Church. As the province had been taken from Charles, third Lord Baltimore, on account of his Roman faith, Lord Guil- ford, guardian of the 5th Lord Baltimore, petitioned that as this reason no longer held good, the province be restored to the present holder of the title, - a petition which was granted. But the period of royal government had witnessed political practises and developments which were to prove that the early proprietary rights had been considerably curtailed.
1 Proceedings of the Council, 1687-1688 to 1693, page 185.
3
25
ยท
CHAPTER III. THE CHURCH AND TOLERATION IN MARYLAND.
One of the motives impelling George Calvert, 1st Lord Bal- timore, to establish a colony in America was to provide a refuge for those persons who belonged to a religious communion other than that of the Established Church in England and were there- fore persecuted in England. Cecilius doubtlessly shared in large measure his father's liberality of mind. But the liberality which inspired this project would have been insufficient in itself to insure success without the skillful leadership and extraordinary tact of Cecilius, second Lord Baltimore. It has been urged that the latter's course of action was largely determined by practical considerations yet his sincerety is clearly demonstrated by his refusal to renounce his Roman faith, although such action would have instantly silenced his enemies and removed most of his difficulties.
In his original instructions to his brother, Cecilius outlined the religious policy to be followed in the province. Roman Catholics were to perform their religious duties quietly and to refrain from all religious discussions. What was of more direct moment, the individuals charged with governing the colony, who were exclusively Roman Catholics, were to administer the province with absolute impartiality in the case of Protestants as well Roman Catholics. This was a policy unique at the time.
Of the practical reasons leading to toleration Charles, third Lord Baltimore gave the following account in 1678:
"At the first planting of this Provynce by my ffather Albeit he had an Absolute Liberty given to him and his heires to carry
IWW HORUIET SHT PRAM
- 26 -
thither any Persons out of the Dominions that belonged to the Crowne of England who should be found Wylling to goe thither yett when he came to make use of this Liberty He found very few who were inclyned to goe and seat themselves in those parts But such as for some Reason or other could not lyve with ease in other places And of these a great part were such as could not conforme in all particulars to the several Lawes of England relating to Religion Many there were of this sort of People who declared their Wyllingness to goe and Plant themselves in this Provynce so as they might have a General Toleration settled there by a Lawe by which ali of all sorts who professed Chris- tianity in General might be at Liberty to Worship God in such Manner as was most agreeable with their respective Judgments and Consciences without being subject to any penaltyes whatsoever for their so doeing Provyded the Civill peace were preserved And that for the secureing the civill peace and preventing all heats Feuds which were generally observed to happen amongst such as differ in oppynions upon Occasion of Reproachful Nick- names and Reflecting upon each Other Oppynions It might by the same Lawe be made Penall to give any Offence in that kynde these were the conditions proposed by such as were willing to goe and be the first planteis of this Provynce and without the complying with these conditions in all probability This provynce had never beene planted." 1
Reference to and quotations from a proclamation prohibiting disputes and controversies regarding religion, supposedly issued after the founding of Maryland, are found in the record of a case arising in 1638. The proclamation itself has never been found, but it seems to have been the established custom of the province to follow ont the spirit of Cecilius' instructions of April 1633, from the beginning.
But two violations are recorded in the first fifteen years of the Province's existence. In 1638 William Lewis a Roman Ca- tholic, employed by Thomas Cornwalleys, found two of his fellow servants reading aloud from a book of sermons written by a Protestant minister. After railing against the author and Prot-
1 Proceedings of the Council, 1667 to 1687-1688, page 267.
- 27
-
estant ministers in general, he insisted that they cease reading the book in question. Brought to trial before Gov. Calvert, Secretary Lewger and Thomas Cornwalleys, all three Roman Catholics, Lewis was fined five hundred pounds of tobacco for this offence and required to give security for future good behavior.
The second case occured in 1642. Thomas Gerrard, a Roman Catholic, removed certain books and the key from a chapel at St. Mary's. The Protestants who worshipped there were thereby deprived of the use of the chapel. They appealed to the Assembly for the restitution of the articles removed, where- upon the Assembly issued an order that they be returned and imposed a fine of five hundred pounds of tobacco to be applied to the maintenance of the first minister who should arrive. 1 It thus appears that no Protestant minister had up to that time arrived in the province.
The charter reserved to the Lord Proprietor the patronage and advowson of churches and authorized him to build and consecrate chapels of the English communion. No mention was made of establishing others, but on the other hand their founding was not specifically prohibited, and soon after the arrival of the first colonists a Roman Catholic chapel was erected and consecrated.
The Jesuit priests in the province were active and successful in their labors. They ministered to the religious needs of the colony and penetrated the wilderness, learned the Indian languages and converted many of the Indians. In 1640 the Chief of Pascataway, the sovereign of the neighboring tribes, was baptized and married according to the Christian rite and his seven year old daughter was brought to St. Mary's to be edu- cated. These were events of importance. The friendship of the neighboring Indians was thereby assured and Maryland was spared the Indian wars and massacres that constantly threatened the existence of other colonies. Yet these successes brought with them a certain danger.
The Indians eager to express their appreciation of the Jesuits' labors offered them large tracts of land as gifts, which
1 Proceedings and Acts of General Assembly, 1637-38 to 1664, page 119.
1
28
-- -
were accepted on behalf of the Jesuit Order. The question then arose as to whether these lands were to be considered as com- ing under ecclesiastical jurisdiction or under that of the proprietary government. The Jesuits claimed that all the rights that the church had at any time enjoyed under the canon law extended to these grants. As a part of this law, the Papal Bull "In Coena Domini", ecclesiastics and ecclesiastical property enjoyed complete exemption from secular jurisdiction.1 Further, control of marriage and testamentary cases were to be administered by the church. This would have meant the surrender of important rights by the Lord Proprietor in large sections of the province. Cecilius on learning of this immediately sent out John Lewger as Secretary of the Province with instruction as to the protection of his rights. Lewger, though a Roman Catholic, agreed with the Lord Proprietor that the recognition of the Church's claims could not fail to pre- judice the authority of the State, and consequently opposed the designs of the priests.
Father Copley in a letter written to the Lord Proprietor in April 1638 complained of the Secretary's attitude and then outlined the claims of the church. These included the right to accept gifts from converted Indian chiefs given in gratitude for the salvation of their souls; the right of sanctuary for churches and priests' dwellings; the right of priests, their domestic servants and half their planting servants to exemption from public taxes, the rest of their servants and their tenants to be exempted by private agreement. It was also desired that the priests and their servants be allowed to go freely among the Indians and trade with them without license from the government, and that the surrender of 'any rights should be voluntary, on the part of the Church. Father Copley further added that the restriction of ecclesiastical liberty might be construed to constitute an offence sufficiently grave to endanger the standing in the church of any one who should be responsible for it.
The claims were supported not alone by the priests but by a powerful minority in the province, chief of which was Thomas Cornwalleys, the military leader of the colony. He wrote Baltimore
1 C. C. Hall, The Lord Baltimore and the Maryland Palatinate.
- 29 -
that an unstained conscience was his first consideration and that he preferred to sacrifice everything he had rather than to prejudice in any way the honor of God and the Church.
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.