USA > Maryland > Maryland toleration; or, Sketches of the early history of Maryland, to the year 1650 > 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
And yet, notwithstanding all this, in September of this very year, Lord Baltimore in England, issues orders to his Governor in Maryland, "that if Claiborne would not submit to his government, he should be seized and punished."} Yes, seized and punished, if he would not submit to his, Lord B's government!
But with this the King's own declaration before him, that Lord Balti- more's claim was contrary to justice, and to the true intent of his, Lord B's patent; and the decisions of the Privy Council, and the Commis- sioners, and the Governor and Council of Virginia just mentioned, is it surprising, that Captain Claiborne should not submit ? Besides, what was this order but a declaration of War? And it was, as we shall presently see, not only against Capt. Claiborne, but it included also bis Protestant settlement. It was not merely personal, it was a contest for the possession and government of Kent Island. Or is it surprising that such a declaration of hostility-showing Lord Baltimore to be his enemy-that Claiborne should be the enemy of Lord Baltimore ?
" A historian of the Colony," says Dr. Hawks,S " has not scrupled to call him-Claiborne-'the bane of Maryland,' despising, in 1634, the authority of the infant settlement, because its power was less than its right." The historian mentioned was none other than Lord Baltimore himself, in a pamphlet of a few pages-and as to Lord Baltimore's power being less than his right, the reader can judge for himself.
* 2 Bozman, 582.
+ 2 Bozman, 69, note
$ 2 Bozman, 83.
§ Eccl. Contributions Md., 25.
.
23
In the carrying on of this contest, a circumstance is mentioned, which - has called forth much condemnation of Claiborne. Bozman says,* "that he made an ungenerous and cruel attempt to set the savages at war upon this infant colony," at St. Mary's, and places it after the failure, "to seize and punish him," and as it would seem near the end of the year, on the authority of the writers to whom he refers. Mr. B. U. Camp- bell, on the same authorities, places it in the early part of the following year. But Father White, in his narrative,t written before the expiration of one month from the landing at St. Mary's, speaks of it as having occurred before he wrote, and as the work of Capt. Fleet under Clai- borne's influence. " At the first, he, Captain Fleet, was very friendly to us. Afterwards, seduced by the evil counsels of a certain Claiborne, who entertained the most Lostile disposition, he stirred up the minds of the natives against us, with all the art of which he was master." " We have been here only one month."} Thus Father White, writing on the spot, and at the time, ascribes it to Captain Fleet, bringing in only Clai- borne's influence. Captain Fleet was indeed in the Colony. But Clai- borne was a hundred miles off. This Captain Fleet was an Indian trader from the Jamestown Colony,§ induced by Governor Calvert when there, to serve the Maryland Colony, by having a portion of the beaver trade, and was a Protestant. But clearly, in the estimation of Governor Calvert himself and the St. Marians, it was no great fault he had com- mitted, if even true, and was easily and fully forgiven, for he continued to reside in the Colony for some years. In the second year of the Colo." ny, the Governor and Council had four thousand acres of land conveyed to him.[] Four years after, 1638, he was a member of the Assembly, T and licensed to trade with the Indians ;** and in 1644, was appointed to go against the Indians with twenty men.ft
We have said that the contest was not merely personal, between Lord Baltimore and Captain Claiborne. In a report of the Committee of the Navy to Parliament, dated Dec. 31st, 1652, it is stated, "that upon the arrival of Lord Baltimore's agent in Maryland, 1634, the Virginians were prohibited from trading with the Indians, in any part of Maryland, to which for.nerly they had been accustomed."## This prohibition was unquestionably leveled against the Kent Islanders themselves, here called by high authority, Virginians.
* 2 Bozman, 33. t p. 20.
± 2 Bozman, 24.
§ Streeter, 17.
Į Kilty, 64.
T 2 Bozman, 55.
** 2 idem, 592.
tt 2 idem, 276.
## Virginia and Maryland, p. 21.
24
1635.
From the narrative of Father White* and others, we learn, that with the emigrants who came out this year, there was the addition of another priest to the number already in the Colony. The narrative remarks, that " from this Mission, which was but lately commenced, there has been as yet but smail fruit, on account of the very many difficulties which occur in it, especially among the barbarians whose language is slowly acquired by our countrymen. Nothing in a manner can be written. There are five members in it, three priests and two lay coadjutors, who, with much alacrity, sustain their present labors in hope of future success." Thus in a Colony, not all Roman Catholics, consisting of but little upward of three hundred, if so many, there was full provision for the religious oversight of the Romanists and a mission to the natives also. While, so far as the ministry was concerned, the Protestant portion of the Colony were unpro- vided for. And we cannot but wonder somewhat, if Maryland was intended for an asylum for the oppressed Roman Catholics of England, why so many Protestant emigrants were brought into the Colony ; and, not less, why so many being brought in, no Protestant Ministry was pro- vided to care for them. But they had, notwithstanding, their guides and helps, which their Romanist brethren had not. They had the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer, and that, too, in their own language; and were themselves a part of that spiritual priesthood of which St. Peter speaks,t to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. As has been well remarked,{ " all the faithful, baptized into One Body and having drank of one Spirit, constitute that single Vine, that single Spouse, that single Church, which altogether each member discharging its own separate duty and ministry, is sent into the world by Christ, even as He was sent by the Father."
The Romanists had indeed their priests there, but their Bible and their Mass book, in which their prayers were, were in an unknown tongue, the Latin, or otherwise quite beyond their reach ; while the Protestants had their Bible and Prayer book in their own language, and could thereby search the Scriptures daily, as the noble Bereans§ of old did, whether the things taught them, by those around them, were in truth taught there. It is a matter to be much regretted, that we have no more account of what was the condition of the Protestants, furnished us, as
* p. 24. + 1 Ep. ii, 5, 9.
# Moberly's forty days, p. 79. § Acts xvii, 11.
.
25
that of the Romanists was, by a cotemporary writer of their own. As it is, we learn little about them except from incidental facts. The com- mercial spirit of individual Protestants of that day, seems to have been as absorbing, as it still is, so that the things of the kingdom of God were not sought first. Lord Baltimore could avail himself of them to swell the number of his Colonists and increase his revenue from their occupa- tion of his lands, but he could make no provision for their religious wants. He could care for his own-the Romanists, and for the poor Indian-but not for Protestants.
For the Protestants of Kent Island, as we have seen, Captain Clai- borne did make provision. A Protestant Minister was there, and indeed more than one ; for among the depositions taken in Virginia, 1640, " allowances for Ministers," are testified to, among the expenses incurred by Captain Claiborne between the years 1631-1636 inclusive, on Kent Island. For this and other interesting facts, I am indebted to the kind- ness and personal examination of the Virginia Colonial Records, to S. F. Streeter, Esq., Baltimore.
2
In the narrative of Father White,* one fact is mentioned, perhaps deserving of notice. It is this, "four servants that we bought for neces- sary use in Virginia." One of these was Francisco, a mulatto. For, in a memorandum recorded, p. 37, in the oldest land record book of the province of Maryland, there is mention made, that " Francisco, a molato, was brought in by Andrew White, in the year 1635," and right to land was therefore claimed.t This is the first notice on record, of the introduction of this race into the Province. This fact is mentioned in connection with the record, because the owner was entitled to one hundred acres of land, for bringing in a servant. Father White, therefore, must have the credit of introducing colored servants by purchase, into Maryland.
But our attention is called here to the progress of the war between the government of St. Mary's and the Kent Islanders. It is stated, that early this year, Captain Claiborne granted a special warrant to Lieutenant Warren, to seize and capture any of the vessels belonging to the Gov- ernment or Colonists of St. Mary's ; and in pursuance thereof, an armed boat, belonging to Claiborne, was fitted out for this purpose and manned with about fourteen men.' The authority for this statement is not given us by our author. Bearing in mind, however, that Claiborne's seizure and punishment had been ordered-and in his seizure, &c., that of his
* p. 25. + 2 Bozman, 571.
# 2 Bozman, 34.
-
26
- islanders-it will not appear astonishing that be should prepare to act on the defensive, or to make reprisals even, if found needful. Our author also states that the government, of St. Mary's, probably apprized of Captain Claiborne's measures, equipped and armed two boats under the command of Captain Cornwallis, one of the Governor's assistants. In April, or May, these boats met Captain Claiborne's boat, in the Pokomoke River-where Captain Cornwallis had gone in pursuit-and the result was, that a battle ensued, in which one of Lord Baltimore's men was killed ; and Lieutenant Warren, and two others of Captain Claiborne's men, were also killed, and the rest of his men and his boat were taken. Thus it will be seen that the order to seize and punish Captain Claiborne, was understood to include his Colonists, for Captain Claiborne himself was not there.
Captain Claiborne, however, in his petition to the King, gives quite another version of the affair. And it is but right that he should have a hearing. He states there, and the statement he well knew would be denied and disproved too. if not true, that "his boats had gone with goods to purchase corn of the Indians, being utterly destitute of them- selves." It was in pursuance of this design, he says, that his boats went out. And it is notorious, that his boats and men were found by the enemy, not at Kent Island, nor near even to the St. Mary's Colony, but lower down, and on the opposite side of the Bay therefrom, some seventy miles distant, near the Pokomoke Indians, on the Pokomoke River, from whom corn was to be obtained in trade. And here it is admitted that Captain Claiborne's boat was found, on the 23d of April,* when the cap- ture took place. There was also another rencontre, in the same River, on the 10th of May, the particulars of which are not stated.
Each party indeed claim, that the other fired first. But it certainly matters little which fires the first gun when a state of war exists. Either side may have fired first, and still have been acting only in defense. Captain Claiborne was at this time in Virginia, where it is claimed he had fled for refuge. But it seems unfortunate for this charge, that he was not a resident of Kent Island, but of Jamestown, where his duties as a member of the Council and Secretary of State, required him to be. He was no more a resident in his Colony, than Lord Baltimore was in his.
Governor Calvert, however, sends Commissioners to the Governor of Virginia to reclaim him, as a criminal against the laws of Maryland ; and yet, singularly enough, not a single law had as yet been enacted in
* Streeter.
:27
Maryland. The only lav was the order given by Lord Baltimore for Claiborne's "seizure and punishment." This was unquestionably presum- ing on Governor Harvey's friendship for Lord Baltimore and his opposi- tion to Captain Claiborne. But the Governor had just then been deposed by the people of Virginia, and sent to England. It is sufficient, there- fore, to say, that they did not comply with Governor Calvert's demand. The demand, indeed, showed an unauthorized assumption of power. It had not yet been decided in England that Captain Claiborne or his Col- ony, were at all amenable to Lord Baltimore's jurisdiction. The Courts of law there, had not yet decided upon the validity, or invalidity, of their claim, while, as we have seen, the King, the Privy Council, the Commis- sioners of plantations, together with the Governor and Council of Vir- ginia, had, for the time being at least, sustained their claim. And it was in the face of all this, that war was made on the Kent Islanders-three men killed-eleven captured -- their goods and boat taken, and the pro- prietor himself claimed as a criminal! Such was the war waged by the Roman Catholic Government of St. Mary's, against the Protestants of Kent Island.
1636.
We have very little bearing on the main point before us, the religious condition of Maryland, relating to this year. The narrative of Father White and others, shows us only, that another priest had been added to the number on the ground, that there was one temporal coadjutor less- but no letters are published as having been sent to the superiors. There were now thus four priests and one lay assistant.
1637.
This year, we have nothing from Father White and those associated with him, unless what is stated above of last year belongs to this-which is doubtless the fact. For we learn from Mr. Campbell, on the Roman Catholic Missions, that a fourth priest arrived this year, known as Thomas Copley, Esq. He says, that "in the oldest book in the land office," I find the following entry : 'Thomas Copley, Esq., demandeth four thousand acres of land, due by conditions of plantation, for transporting into this province himself, and twenty able men at his own charge, to plant and inhabit in the year 1637.' It is no objection to his identity with the Mis- sionary of the same name, that the record calls him 'Esq.,' for it would not have been safe, at that period, to have openly recognized a Romish
* L. I., fol. 25.
-
W
$.28
priest by the title of Rev .; and in the State records, we find a prudent caution in this respect to any apparent disregard of the penal laws, then in force in the mother country against Romish priests, and Jesuits in particular."-" A proof that Mr. Copley was a Jesuit priest, and en- gaged in Missionary duty in Maryland, is found in an original letter," in which " he is called Father Copley." Touching this same individual, we find in Kiity's Landholder's Assistant, this extract from the same records : " Came into this province the 8th of August, 1637, Mr. Thomas Copley and Mr. John Knowles, who transported R. H., L. G., W. K., &c .- and p. 86-to the number of nineteen." Just before this, is the fol- lowing entry : " Entered by Mr. Copley-brought into this province, in the year 1633, O. S., Mr. Andrew White, Mr. John Altham, &c., Thomas H., &c., &c., to the number of thirty." He seems thus to have been the agent in procuring the first Colonists that came over in 1634, as well as those of the present year, and also in securing their lands, as promised
- to emigrants. And thus the priests secured their portions of lands, not less than did the other settlers; lands which, it is understood, went to the Roman Catholic Church itself by the very vows of this priestly Order. This Thomas Copley, Esq., does not appear to have been known however to the Protestants, in his real character of a Jesuit Father.
From the entries made in the land records, we are shown that there were many Colonists who came over this year.
In the spring or fall of this year, it appears that Capt. Claiborne repaired to England. Previously to this, there is no proof that he was there, after he came into the Colony. And either by himself, or his agents, such representations had been made to the King, as called forth from him the following order* to Lord Baltimore :
" Whereas formerly, by our royal letters to the Governor and Council of Virginia, and to others, our officers and subjects in those parts, we signified our pleasure that William Claiborne, David Morehead and other planters, in the Island near Virginia, which they have nominated Kent Island, should in no sort be interrupted in their trade or plantation by you, or any other on your right, but rather be encouraged to proceed cheerfully in so good a work, we do now understand, that though your agents had notice of our said pleasure, signified by our letters, yet con- trary thereto, they have slain three of our subjects there, and by force, possessed themselves by right of that Island, and carried away both the persons and estates of said planters. Now, out of our royal care to pre-
* 2 Bozman, 585.
t
1
1
29
vent such disorders, as we have referred to our Commissioners of Pian- tations the examination of the truth of these complaints, and require them to proceed therein according to justice, so, now, by these particular letters to yourself, we strictly require and command you, to perform what our general letter did enjoin, and that the above named planters and their agents may enjoy, in the meantime, their possessions and be safe in their persons and goods there, without disturbance or further trouble by you, or any of yours, till that cause be decided. And herein we expect your ready conformity that we may have no cause of any further mis- like." Dated July 14th, 1638, in the copy, but should be 1637, as is proved by other documents.
" Lord Baltimore on receiving the order, with an attention which," says Chalmers,* " he deemed due to the command of his Prince, though founded on misinformation, said that he would wait on the King and give him perfect satisfaction !" What satisfaction he gave him is not known-but such was the King's order to him. He was required and commanded, that the Protestants of Kent Island enjoy their possessions, and be safe in their persons and goods, without any further disturbance.
What misinformation was given by Captain Claiborne, as alleged by Lord Baltimore, we are not informed. But that he had indeed possessed himself of the goods and estates of some of the Kent Islanders, the Vir- ginia and English records furnish full proof. The Rev. Richard James, as before stated, was a resident clergyman on Kent Island, for some years up to the present. This gentleman, it appears, had previously been librarian to Sir Robert Cotton, the famous antiquarian; and when Sir George Calvert, the first Lord Baltimore, obtained as a Protestant his charter of Avalon, in the Island of Newfoundland, and took his Protest- ant Colony thither, he was the Minister there. We next find him as above stated, the Minister of Kent Island. In this year, he seems to have accompanied Captain Claiborne to England, and to have died at Sir Robert Cotton's in 1638.t On Captain Claiborne's return to Virginia, he administered on the Rev. Mr. James' estate, and August 1st, 1640, is found this record : " Captain Claiborne, administrator of Richard James, Minister, brought into Court at James' City, his inventory and account. He alleged, that the Governor of Maryland had seized on the greater part of the estate of Mr. James, and detained it from him, Claiborne." He therefore asked to be discharged, which was granted;} so, also, in
* 2 Bozman, 72. + Wood's Atheniensis, &c.
# Streeter, from Virginia and English records and depositions.
SO
-
another record, December 30th, 1337, the cattle of Gertrude James were seized by a writ from St. Mary's. This, it is apprehended, is proof, that the Roman Catholic Government of St. Mary's, did possess itself of the goods and estate of at least one Kent Islander, and that one, the Protest- ant clergyman of the Island, or rather his widow !
And now, how went on matters at Kent Island, subsequently to the disaster on the Pokomoke hay, in the spring of 1635 ? Did the Protest- ants there, at once submit to Lord Baltimore's government upon the defeat and capture of their men and boats, when one-seventh of their Colony were killed and taken ? Very far otherwise. The remainder of the year 1635 passes away-all of '36 and all of '37, to its very last day,* when we find, that the Isle of Kent had been only in some measure reduced to the obedience of Lord Baltimore, and George Evelyn, a Roman Catholic, the owner of the barony of Evlinton, St. Mary's, was appointed commander of the Island, and John Langford, another Roman Catholic, high sherifft then, or soon after. Thus, though deprived now of the superintendence of their proprietary, and so long before of one- seventh of their most valiant men, yet, now, at the end of near three years, they were only in some measure reduced to Lord Baltimore's gov- ernment.
1638.
Although Kent Island had been thus partially subjected to Lord Bal- timore's Roman Catholic Government, during the latter part of the last year, yet the Colonists there were so far from being quiet, or submissive to his Lordship's government,{ that there were insolences and mutinies and contempts of the government of the province there. Governor Cal- vert, therefore, himself, had to proceed with a military force, to reduce the Colonists there to his government, which, it appears, he accomplished in the month of March. And all this, notwithstanding the King's order of the previous July to Lord Baltimore ; and the more easily, as Captain Claiborne was now in England, so that the Kent Islanders were deprived of his aid.
Previous to this, on the 25th of January, commenced the second General Assembly held at St. Mary's, nearly four years from its first settle- ment.§ It was composed of the Governor and his Council ; such indi- viduals as the Governor specially summoned, and burgesses or represen- tatives of those not personally summoned, together with every freeman
· 2 Bozman, 44.
+ Ibid, 51.
# Ibid, 62.
§ Ibid, 49.
1
31
who had not voted for a burgess. Each member had his own vote, and as many more as had been given him by proxy, of freemen not present. The number of members present, before its final adjournment, appear to have been seventeen, giving and representing fifty-six votes. Among those present, were the Commandant and High Sheriff of Kent Island, and Robert Philpott, gentleman, of the same Island. Capt. Henry Fleet and some other Protestants were also members. Those who were person- ally summoned, were Thomas Copley, Esq, and Fathers White and Altham, the three Jesuit Priests before mentioned. But Mr. Campbell tells us, that they desired to be excused.
To this Assembly was submitted the laws transmitted to the Colony by Lord Baltimore, and they were rejected, the Governor and Secretary having fourteen votes only, voting in their favor. The Assembly, after some other business, adjourned to the 8th of February. The Assembly met at the time appointed, and again rejected Lord Baltimore's laws, and soon adjourned to the 26th. But the Governor, not returning from his expedition to Kent Island, above spoken of, the Assembly did not meet until the 12th of March, when seventeen bills, presented by a Committee, were passed.
Bozman says,* did the duty of an historian allow him to mention his conjecture, a plausible supposition may be made, that the dispute about . the reception of these laws, was dictated more by a political contest for the right of propounding laws to be enacted by the Assembly, than any other cause." Previous to this, by three years, it is said, an Assembly had met February, 1635, and passed some Acts which were sent to Lord Baltimore for his concurrence, which he had rejected. And now the laws originated and sent over by Lord Baltimore, were rejected by the Assembly. But that the contest was about the right of originating and propounding laws, is admitted to be only "a plausable supposition ;" and granting it, may it not be an equally plausable supposition, that the exercise of this right had something to do with Romanism and Protest. antism? He who knows anything of the state of things in England at that time, may readily indeed so suppose. And the popular influence of Protestantism in the Colony, was not small. Captain Fleet, a member of the Assembly, was a known Protestant, as well as others ; and Captain Cornwallis, so tradition reports, was also one, either at that time, or not long after. And he was clearly, the most popular man in the Assembly, receiving ten more votes, when the appointment of a Committee was made, than any other member.
t 2 Bozman, 56.
-
32
The most peculiar Act of this body, was a Bill for the attainder of - " William Claiborne, gentleman."* He not being taken, and being absent from the country, was proceeded against in this way, and by this Bill his property in Kent Island was forfeited to Lord Baltimore. Upon ,the adjournment of the Assembly, on the 14th of March, it constituted itself into a Court of Justice, and Thomas Smith, the second in com- mand at the battle on the Pokomoke, three years previous, was called to the bar for felony and piracy, and condemned, and thus sentenced : "You shall be carried from hence, to the place from whence you came, and thence to the place of execution, and shall be there hanged by the neck until you be dead; and that all your lands, goods and chattels, shall be forfeited to the Lord proprietary," &c. And this sentence was executed.
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.