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 6
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
Quite apart from any question of logic or law, Carrol repre- sented the popular point of view. The elections of 1773 hinged on this question and the antiproclamation candidates were elected without exception. The people of Annapolis rejoicing to have found a champion who so ably represented their point of view, organized a mock funeral, placed a copy of the proclamation in a coffin, and to the beat of muffled drums, marched to the gallows, hanged, cut down and buried the proclamation. After the ceremony they instructed their newly elected delegates Wm. Paca and Philip Hammond to send a letter to Charles Carrol, assuring him of their approval and appreciation of his efforts. They wrote Carrol that "It is the public voice, Sir, that the establishment of fees by the sole authority of prerogative is an act of usurpation, an act of tyranny, which in a land of freedom, cannot, must not, be endured." A later article in the Gazette signed by Thomas Johnson, Samuel Chase and Wm. Paca asserted that final judgment and ultimate authority were to be found in the freemen of Maryland. This was indeed the unconscious
-
٢
64
-
attitude of the freemen of Maryland, and the collisions with the mother country begun in the last colonial war were within the next few years to crystallize that attitude into a conscious prin- ciple.
The controversies depicted up to this point had been of the nature of direct differences between the people of Maryland and the Proprietors and had had little influence upon the home government. But during the period of the Third and Fourth colonial wars, this policy of the Lower House was not merely extended and more aggressively waged, but the effort to coerce the Proprietor into surrendering certain of his privileges by withholding support from the British arms in its warfare against the French and Indians brought the province into direct opposition to the Crown.
The early history of the province with reference to military activity had been singularly quiet. Though militia bills had from time to time been urged upon the Assembly by the Ist Lord Proprietor, the people, occupied with more direct personal concerns and menaced from no quarter felt under no necessity of providing an efficient military organization.
In an effort to provide security against possible attacks, an act was passed in 1661, periodically renewed, and in 1704 made perpetual, providing for a 2 shilling duty on every hogshead of tobacco exported, one half of which was to be employed toward maintaining a constant magazine with arms and ammunition for the defense of the province and defraying other necessary charges of government. But the failure of the Lord Proprietor to use this income for military purposes offered the pretext to the Lower House for asserting the invalitity of the law three quarters of a century later.
Likewise, an act was passed in 1671 providing for the collection of an ostensible fort duty from all vessels, English and foreign, trading with Maryland, to the amount of one half a pound of powder and three pounds of shot per ton burden, or the equivalent. Fourteen pence were fixed as the equivalent, and this amount was collected for over a century by the Pro- prietor and kept by him for his personal account instead of for purposes of fortification.
£
1
65
- -
Unbroken peace and freedom from attack by the Indians and absence of military raids after the Claiborne episodes, had lulled the people of the province into a sense of complete secur- ity. As a consequence military questions had taken little of the attention of the Assembly, and not until the Third Colonial War were the people compelled to face such questions seriously.
At the beginning of this war the Assembly passed an act appropriating £ 2562 for carrying on the war against the French and Indians, and later raised three companies of soldiers, which were sent to Albany to cooperate in the northern campaign. But none of the fighting was in the vicinity of the province and the Lower House therefore saw no valid reason for burdening the pro- vince with expense for a far-off military campaign. The idea of fighting for the greater security and extension of the kingdom had no weight in the colony. As a consequence, when Gov. Ogle placed before the Assembly further requisitions for support- ing the Maryland forces, although they were to be paid only un- til Parliament could appropriate money to cover the entire cost, the Lower House replied that it had raised, provisioned and trans- ported the troops and could do no more.
Meanwhile the fortification of strategic points along the St. Lawrence, Ohio and Mississippi Rivers by the French was proceeding apace. But the Maryland governor could take no steps to check this activity. The lack of a standing military force with established laws for its maintenance left him powerless.
In 1753 several traders of the Ohio Trading Company were seized and held by the French and two of the company's trading posts were destroyed. Gov. Dinwiddie of Virginia sent Col. Wash- ington to the French garrison with instructions to require the evacuation of Virginia's territory. England and France were not at war and the attack could therefore not be justified.
When the home government was informed, the Earl of Hold- ernesse, Secretary of State, urged the governors of the colonies to resist the encroachments of the French. In following out these instructions Gov. Sharpe appealed to the Maryland Assembly to impose a tax to be devoted to military purposes, but the Lower House refused, stating that "We are sufficiently apprehensive of the great danger of suffering a foreign power to encroach upon
5
- 66 -
any part of his Majesty's Dominions, and we are resolutely deter- mined to repel any hostile invasion of the province by any for- eign power ... But as there does not appear at present to be any pressing occasion for imposing a tax upon the people for these purposes, we hope our unwillingness to do it at this time will be ascribed to the real motives of our conduct, a prudent care and regard to the interests of our constituents than any disin- clination to the service recommended." 1
Washington returned to Virginia in the early part of 1754 and reported that the French had built several forts along the Ohio River and further that their instructions from the King of France directed them to advance further and if opposed, to at- tack. Confident that this intelligence would convince the Assembly that the situation was fraught with danger, Gov. Sharpe asked for assistance and at the same time laid an appeal from the Governor of Virginia before the Lower House. But the latter unanimously resolved that "We are fully convinced that our own security is connected with the safety of our neighbours, and that in case of an attack we ought mutually to assist and support each other. But as it does not appear to us that an invasion or hostile attempt has been made against this or any other of his Majesty's colonies, we do not think it necessary to make any provision for an armed force, which must inevitably load us with expense." 2
In the same message Gov. Sharpe requested an appropriation of money for a gift to the Indian Tribes of the Six Nations, necessary for the continuance of the British alliance. The Lower House complied by appropriating £ 300 for this purpose and 200 for defraying the expenses of the commission to be charged with this mission, the money to be collected from reve- nue arising from licenses of ordinary inn-keepers, hawkers and peddlers. The Upper House amended the bill so that license money from inn-keepers alone should be mortgaged to the total amount, reserving the other license money to the Lord Proprietor but the Lower House declined to accept this amendment and
1 Lower House Journal, November 16, 1753.
2 Lower House Journal, February 29, 1754.
.
- 67 -
the bill was lost. Meanwhile the French and Indians were grow- ing more open in their hostility.
In May, Gov. Sharpe again convened the Assembly and in his opening address sought to bring home to the Assembly the necessity of contributing and assisting in the campaign to check French encroachment. The Lower House thereupon introduced a bill for raising funds, but if it were really interested in assist- ing, the bills recommended gave little evidence of it. They seemed rather to be an effort to exploit the situation in extending their own authority at the expense of the Proprietor's.
The bill introduced at this session provided for 5 shillings tax on each wheel of a coach, chair, chaise or chariot, increased duty on convicts, indented servants and negro slaves imported, and the diversion of the $3 hawkers' and peddlers' license to this use. In addition every lucrative office was to be taxed. But the Upper House, composed of the office holders of the pro- vince, objected to the clause imposing taxes upon its members, and likewise protested against the use of the Proprietor's license money for public purposes. It therefore rejected the bill. A con- ference between the two Houses failed to result in a settlement. But before the end of the session £ 500 in currency was ap- propriated for a present to the Tribes of the Six Nations and £ 150 for meeting the expenses of the commission charged with this matter.
Virginia thus saw that no aid was to be expected from Mary- land and Washington accordingly set out with three hundred Virginia troops for the invaded territory. But an attack by a superior force of French and Indians compelled him to retreat after heavy losses. When this news reached Maryland and the further news that the French were building Fort Duquesne, at the confluence of the Allegheney and Monogahela Rivers, a stra- tegic position menacing the frontier settlements of Virginia and Maryland, Gov. Sharpe hurriedly convened the Maryland Assembly and in his opening address on July 17th said :
"The designs of the French must now be evident to every one. They have openly and in violation of all treaties invaded his Majesty's territories and committed the most violent acts of hostility by attacking and entirely defeating the Virginia troops
L
- 68 -
under Col. Washington." He then urged the necessity of appro- priating money to be used for defence.
The same day the Lower House voted to raise £ 6000 which were to be collected in the same manner as the bill in the previous session had provided, with the exception that offices were not to be taxed but instead a duty of 2 shillings per gallon on Madeira wine was to be imposed. Although this bill con- tained the clause relative to hawkers' and peddler's licenses, the Governor and Upper House considered the need so pressing as to justify its acceptance. The governor then enlisted two com- panies and sent them against the French.
In December 1754 the fourth session of Assembly of the year was called and Gov. Sharpe stated that the recent appro- priation was exhausted and urged appropriation of additional funds. The Lower House promptly passed a bill for raising £ 7000 by continuing the same taxes, but the Lord Proprietor had meanwhile instructed the governor to assent to no bills applying his license money to public uses, and the bill was therefore lost.
In 1755 Gen. Braddock with a thousand troops of the British regular army arrived in America to conduct operations against the French. On his arrival he held a conference at Alexandria, Va., at which it was recommended that Maryland furnish £ 4000 to the campaign for expelling the French. The Lower House voted to raise £ 5000 provided that the license money amounting to £ 645 annually be used for that purpose. But the Upper House and the Governor obedient to their instructions would not agree to such a bill.
Gov. Sharpe thus found himself bound hand and foot. Dur- ing this year, after the Lower House had refused to appropriate the funds for keeping three hundred men on the western fron- tier, he sought to order the few companies of militia then under arms to march to the frontier but the Lower House protested. A reply from the governor maintaining his right to such action elicited the following protest from the Lower House. "We are . really at a loss to conceive what could induce your Excellency to be of the opinion that you had a power under that law to march the militia of this Province whenever and wheresoever you pleased, and that in order to prevent as well as to repel an in-
*
L
1
69
- --
vasion. But surely there are no words in that law that can give you that authority, nor can anything be farther from the intent and design of it; for such an authority would put it in the power of the Governor of this Province, whenever he found himself opposed in any views or designs that he might have tending to destroy liberties of the people, to compel the whole militia of the Province at any time when he might suggest danger to march to any part of the Province he pleased, and keep them there until the Representatives had complied with all his demands, let them be never so extravagant or injurious to the people. Such a power we conceive is not given nor could ever have been intended to have been given by any men in their senses ... We are apprehensive unprejudiced persons may infer that those who advised your Excellency to take that measure intended under the specious pretence of affording present protection to a few, by degrees to introduce an arbitrary power, the exercise of which must in the end inevitably enslave the whole." 1
Meanwhile Braddock had embarked on a campaign against Fort Duquesne. On July 3, 1755, he was ambuscaded by a body of French and Indians and his army practically annihilated, 800 being killed and Braddock himself so severely wounded that he died a few days later. The citizens of Frederick County were fleeing from the frontiers, Dunbar with the remnant of the army was retiring toward Philadelphia, thus leaving the frontier defence- less. But, fortunately for the settlers the Indians had disbanded as was their custom after a successful attack and the French garrison of Fort Duquesne had retired to the north to parry possible attacks against Forts Niagara and Grown Point.
A council of war of the English leaders was then held at New York, where a plan of operations and the quota of supplies to be furnished by each province were decided upon. Gov. Sharpe reconvened the Assembly February 23, 1756 and informed it of what was desired.
The Lower House immediately voted to raise £ 40,000 for various military purposes. The sources of this money were to be an excise and import duty on wine, rum, brandy and spirits, an
1 Lower House Journal, April 15, 1758.
:
1
£
-
- 70 -
import duty on horses, pitch, turpentine and tar, an additional duty on convicts and negro slaves, a tax on billiard tables, bachelors and law suits, a tax of 1 shilling per hundred acres of land, if owned by a Protestant, and double if owned by a Roman Catholic, taxes upon the Proprietor's manors and continued use of license money for this fund. Two bills framed upon this basis were rejected by the Upper House. When a third bill was before the Lower House, the Upper House requested a conference at which it was agreed that the clause concerning convicts should be omitted, certain modifications regarding taxes upon the Pro- prietor's manors were to be made, and the commissioners who were to be enstrusted with the expenditure of the money and whom the Lower House wished to have the exclusive right of appointing, were to be appointed jointly. The bill was then accepted despite certain evident unfortunate features. But this proved to be the last supply bill.
Nominally France and England had been at peace all this time but war was formally declared July 18, 1756.
During 1757 efforts were again made to secure funds. The appropriation of the year before was nearly exhausted. The Lower House passed a bill for defending the frontier but freedom of action of the officers commanding the three hundred troops pro- vided for, was so restricted that Gov. Sharpe, after consultation with Gen. Loudon, vetoed it on the grounds that it was an un- desirable precedent to permit a colonial assembly to limit the operations of his Majesty's officers.
In 1758 Gen. Forbes set out on a campaign to reduce Fort Duquesne. Maryland was requested to contribute to this campaign but the Lower House continued its old policy, passing a bill for raising £ 45,000 largely on the same lines as the preceding one for £ 40,000. But the Upper House rejected it, as it provided that the Lower House should have exclusive control over the appointment of the commissioners entrusted with expenditure of the money, that a double tax be imposed on Roman Catholics, and that a tax on the Proprietors quit-rents 'and his cultivated and uncultivated lands be imposed. It was indeed difficult to conceive how the Lower House could be so unreasonably grasping as to seek to tax the Proprietor's lands and quit-rents. This would
1
:
:
7
1
-
-- 71 --
have meant the annihilation of the last vestige of his power. But the Lower House undoubtedly inserted these clauses with no expectation of their being accepted but to insure the rejection of the bills and thus free the people from contributing to the mili- tary campaigns of the mother country.
Gen. Forbes, learning from a deserter that Fort Duquesne was but scantily garrisoned, hastened his march and captured it. This success heightened the people's indifference toward mili- tary affairs and in spite of repeated urgings the Lower House failed to pass another suitable supply bill. In all nine were rejected, five in the space of eighteen months.
But as the main theater of war between England and France had been in Europe the military campaigns in the colonies were not of decisive importance. The treaty of Paris of February 10, 1763 saw the annihilation of French power in Canada and North America east of the Mississippi River and with it a change in England's policy toward her colonies.
.
.
-
Big forhal
72
CHAPTER VI.
THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND vs. THE HOME GOVERNMENT.
Maryland's exaggerated jealousy of her rights during the colonial wars had exasperated the home government to the ex- treme. During this period England had been too preoccupied with the more pressing questions of warfare with France to be able to give colonial questions the attention she would have liked. But with the treaty of Paris in 1763 which saw the annihilation of French power in Canada and North America east of the Missis- sippi River, England was again free and decided to bring her colonies more definitely under her control. As a part of this pol- icy it was felt that they should bear part of the large war debt incurred in fighting the French.
Financial and commercial impositions upon Maryland were not without precedent, although the charter had guaranteed free- dom of trade and freedom from taxation in the province's relation to England. But the Navigation Act of 1662 imposing an export duty of a penny a pound on tobacco shipped to other than British ports and later Navigation Acts restricting Maryland tobacco plant- ers to British markets and British ships, met with no concerted opposition. During the period of royal government these acts were more effectively carried out than before and after 1715, though the governors were again appointed by the restored Pro- prietors, such appointments were always subject to confirmation by the crown, which instructed all governors in detail as to the execution of the Acts of Trade and exacted compliance under bond and oath. In 1731 the Lower House was somewhat con- cerned over a parliamentary project to restrict manufacturing enter- prise in the colonies.
-
2
- 73 -
But in general, the inconveniences of royal interference were overshadowed by more immediate and more acute differences between the proprietors and the Lower House of the Assembly. The people of the colony undoubtedly felt a definite affection for the mother country. It was the cradle of their institutions, English law seemed to them the most liberal and beneficent, especially as they were removed from the contemporaneous religious perse- cutions and political upheavals there, and consequently saw only the great outstanding features of the British constitution. Further, England was their chief market and therefore the source of their income. But the end of the fourth colonial war brought with it elements which were the beginning of estrangement.
The members of the popular House of Assembly had under- gone a long apprenticeship in defending and extending their rights against the Proprietors and thus had a lively appreciation of the value of comparative independence, the making of their own laws and the disposal of their own money. Thus when England embarked upon her policy of restricting their freedom and of bending them to her will, Maryland exerted the full force of her resistance against the mother country.
But England was not conscious of the intensity of this spirit. On the contrary, the Lower House had on a recent occasion at least seemed to give encouragement to a different belief. A letter of disapprobation from the Earl of Egremont, Secretary of State at the time, called forth by the Lower House's failure to provide sufficient funds for carrying on the fourth colonial war, was answered by a letter to the governor as follows: "As to the severe reprehension contained in the Earl of Egremont's letter, which you have been pleased to lay before us, .. we must conclude that our most Gracious Sovereign and his Ministers have not been fully and truly informed of the repeated generous offers of the people heretofore made by their Representatives to raise very large supplies for his Majesty's service by bills passed for those purposes and constantly refused by the Upper House."1 But notwithstanding such expressions of willingness to place their resources at the disposal of the home government,
1 Lower House Journal, March 19, 1762.
-- 74 -
the Assembly had no intention of surrendering the least part of its asserted claim to the right of appropriating its own money for use in such ways and for such purposes as it saw fit.
.
An Act of Parliament of 1764 imposing port duties on Mary- land contained in its preamble a foreshadowing of the new pol- icy. It was asserted that it was just and necessary that a revenue be raised in America.
Shortly after, it was reported that the British minister Gren- ville had recommended to Parliament the passage of a stamp act for raising revenue in the colonies. This immediately became a topic of excited conversation and protest, but the latter went unheeded and on March 22, 1765 such an act was passed by Parlia- ment. It provided that stamps varying from 3 pence to £ 10 be used on all commercial and legal documents in the colonies, as well as on pamphlets, newspapers and publications. It further provided for trial without jury in cases of infraction of this law. The Maryland Assembly was not in session and the prevalence of small pox justified Gov. Sharpe in not convening it. But the measure was warmly opposed in articles appearing in the "Mary- land Gazette" and thoroughly disapproved of throughout the colony.
Opposition was not confined to passive protest but found- expression in acts of violence. Mr. Hood, a Marylander, had been appointed stamp distributor for the province while on a visit to England. On his arrival in Annapolis he was personally affronted, and his effigy was whipped, pilloried, hanged and burned at various places in the province. On September 2, 1765, a mob of three to four hundred persons pulled down a house he had built for receiving the stamps. After these incidents, Gov. Sharpe wrote Lord Halifax, that nothing save military force would suffice to protect Hood and that the temper of the people was such that he was convinced the stamps would be burned, if landed.
A number of the chief men of the province organized an association known as the "Sons of Liberty" to resist the execu- tion of the Stamp Act. These men seized Hood, carried him be- fore a magistrate, and compelled him to take oath to resign and to give no aid, direct or indirect, in executing the Stamp Act. When the stamps arrived later on the sloop-of-war "Hawke"
3
3
nl nadg -- Jo sus
75 -
-
there was no authority to receive them and they could only be landed secretly and re-shipped to England.
In the fall of 1765 a number of the leading lawyers of the province petitioned Gov. Sharpe to convene the Assembly. This was desired in order that delegates might be chosen for the Stamp Act Congress which was to be held in New York. The governor complied with this petition fearing that a refusal would cause violent protest. The Assembly met on September 23, 1765 and immediately took up the question of the Stamp Act. A letter from the Massachusetts legislature recommending consideration of the state of affairs and the transmission of a memorial to the home government was unanimously approved by both Houses. Further, William Murdock, Edward Tilgman, and Thomas Ringgold were appointed delegates to the New York Stamp Act Congress and given instructions to lodge a joint protest with re- presentatives of the other colonies against the infringement of the time honored right of trial by jury and to petition for the removal of the stamp taxes. A few days later the Lower House adopted the following series of resolution expressive of its atti- tude :
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.