USA > Maryland > Maryland toleration; or, Sketches of the early history of Maryland, to the year 1650 > Part 5
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
On the 25th of February, another General Assembly commenced its sessions.
* 2 Tim. 3: 6.
+ 2 Bozman, 100.
# 2 Ibid, 156.
42
The only thing done now, which particularly concerns the view we are taking of Maryland, is the Act which was passed " for Church liber- ties." It was re-enacted the next year, and in 1676, made a perpetual law. It enacts, "that Holy Church within this province, shall have and enjoy all her rights, liberties and franchises, wholly and without blemish ;"* using thus, the very terms of the 10th section of the Charter, and show- ing our construction of it to be true. But what meant the words "Holy Church ?" If they are to be construed under the construction of the 7th, 10th and 22d sections of the Charter, they must mean the then estab- lished Church of England. But this is not probable, the Lord proprietor being a Romanist, and also his Governor and so large a part of his col- onists. And that they intended the Roman Catholic Church seems just as little probable, in view of the condition of the Romanists, and with the charter hanging over them. Chalmers does not therefore seem very far in the wrong when he says,t that " it would have puzzled the wisest doctors of the Church of Maryland in that day, to have told what her franchises were," or what Holy Church in that connection might mean. It cannot be conceded, then, that the remark of Chalmers is a " con- temptuous sneer."} It may not however be much in the wrong, to ad- mit that the Act might be made to mean, whatever present circumstances might require that it should mean.
In the sixth year of the St. Mary's Colony, the Jesuit Fathers had ex- tended themselves throughout a large portion of the province. The narrative so often referred to states, that the number of the missionaries remained the same as the last year, but were located on places widely distant. Father John Brock, the Superior, with a coadjutor, remained in Metapawnian, which was given by Macquacomen, the king of Patux- ent, and was the storehouse of the mission. Father Philip Fisher was at St. Mary's. Father John Gravener, alias Altham, was stationed at Kent Island, which, says the narrative, was sixty miles distant; and Father White was at Kittamaquenda, the metropolis of Piscatoe, with the King, Tayac-one hundred and twenty miles distant. B. U. Campbell says, that Father Brock's real name was Morgan, and that his station was near the mouth of the Patuxent, upon the land which had been given to the missionaries by the Indians, and was called Mattapani. It was afterwards, he says, relinquished to Lord Baltimore, and was the place where he built his mansion. This relinquishment, it may be remarked, was compulsory. Whatever may have been the motive for so doing, at
* Bacon, 1640, Chap. 1. + 2 Chalmers, 213.
# 2 Bozman, 107.
48
the session of the Assembly of this year. it was enacted, in a bill "for maintaining the Lord proprietaries title," &c., that "no subject of his Majesty, the King of England, or of any other foreign prince or state, shall obtain, procure, or accept of any land within this province, from any Indian to his own, cr the use of any other than of the Lord proprietary, or his heirs, nor shall bold or possess any land within this province by virtue of such grant, upon pain that every person contrary hereof, shall forfeit and lose to the Lord proprietary and his heirs all such lands so accepted or held, without grant of the Lord proprietary or under him."* This was in accordance with an old English Statute, which provided, " that no religious community should, by gift or otherwise, obtain or hold landed property without the consent of the civil authorities."} In disregard of this, the missionaries had accepted from the king of the Patuxents, a large tract of land, the plantation above alluded to. The Act of the Assembly just met this case; and Lord Baltimore therein asserted his supremacy over the Church in the colony. He thus came into collision with the missionaries, and their plantation was forfeited to him. He had in a previous year, as we have seen, kept them in the colony, and thereby from establishing missions out among the Indians at a distance. But these acts were unquestionably in antagonism with his Church, and rendered him liable to excommunication. In the bull "in coena Domini," the Pope asserts full supremacy over all powers and persons, temporal and ecclesiastical, and forbids all persons whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to violate, depress, or restrain the ecclesiastical lib- erties or rights of the apostolic See and Church of Rome, howsoever and whomsoever obtained, under pain of excommunication," &c. But to return-Mr. Campbell tells us that "Father Altham was stationed at Kent Island. He is of course the same, in the narrative called Gravener, so that he too had two names. The narrative states that twelve Prot- estants returned to Roman Catholic Church this year. The Kent Island Church of England Colony, it will be seen, had now not only a Roman Catholic Government, but a Jesuit priest stationed among them. And if Indians were not converted to the faith, proselytes were made to it, and the mis ion was not unsuccessful in St. Mary's.
1640.
The depriving of Captain Claiborne of Kent Island, and subduing the Protestants there to Lord Baltimore's government, before spoken of, left nothing for record this year, save that Father Altham, alias Gravener,
* See 2 Bozman, 113.
+ 2 Streeter, p. 30.
died there, on the sixth of November. Father White remained at Pis- -cataway, and reports the baptism of Tayac on the 5th of July, together with his queen and infant, and others of the principal men. And Father Fisher at St. Mary's proselyted as many Protestants as the others baptized Indians.
But though he had been deprived of his Island, Captain Claiborne still conceived that he had a right to his property there. He was now returned from England, and was a resident of Virginia as before, and on the 8th of August, he made application for what he claimed on the Island, to the Governor and Council of Md. He was very coolly told that it was then possessed by right of forfeiture to the Lord proprietary, for certain crimes of murder and piracy whereof he was attainted, March 24, 1638, by the judgment of the House of the General Assembly. This was certainly an unwise reply, and exhibits a looking down upon him, and a contempi, which they afterward, no doubt, had reason to regret.
1641.
For this year, the narrative of Father White and others supplies us with nothing to our purpose, save only the arrival of another Priest, Father Rigby, nor does the proceedings of the Assembly, or any other source.
1642.
In the history of the religious dissensions in St. Mary's, we find record- ed, that on the 22d of March, P. M., there was a petition presented to the Assembly, by David Wickliff, in the name of the Protestant Catho- lics of Maryland." The next day, the petition of the Protestants, it is said, was read, complaining against Mr. Thomas Gerard, for taking away the key of the Chapel, and carrying away the books. The prefixing of the title Protestant to Catholics, shows that the petitioners were not Roman Catholics ; and the affixing the name Catholics to that of Prot- estant, shows that they were not of the Puritan party of the Church of England, then in the Colony. Mr. Gerard being charged to make an- swer, upon the hearing of the prosecutors and of his defense, he was or- dered to bring the books and the key taken away, to the place where they had them, and pay a fine of 500 lbs. tobacco, a little upwards of $22, towards the maintenance of the first Minister that should arrive. Mr. Bozman remarks-" As Mr. Gerard must have been a man of con-
* 2 Bozman, 199, 200.
- - ------
45
siderable note at this time in the province, and probably a zealous Ro- man Catholic, being the lord or owner of St. Clement's Manor, which comprehended very nearly the whole of St. Clement's hundred-this ex- aggerated fine demonstrates, that the Protestants must have possessed at this early period, a very great influence in the Colony, as they natu- rally indeed might be supposed to have, from the supremacy of the mother country." And we are shown here clearly, that as yet, eight years from the first settlement of the Colony, there was no Protestant minister in it!
Another fact, which may be mentioned here, is, that on the 6th of April, Captain William Claiborne, then a resident of Virginia, was ap- pointed " the King's Treasurer, in the dominion of Virginia, for life."* This appointment shows, that though by the decision of the Lords Com- missioners, he had lost his Island, yet that he had not thereby lost favor with the King. It was no doubt given him, as some compensation for his loss by their decision ; and the leading ones of the Commissioners who gave their decision against him, were not now at hand to advise-they had been succeeded by others. It was probably the most lucrative office in Virginia. It also effectually refutes the charge of his having turned Pres- byterian ; for it came not from the Presbyterian Parliament, then in the ascendant in England, but from the King, and after his separation from the Parliament, and having abandoned London. Besides, "so zealous and firm had the Colony of Virginia hitherto been, in the support of the Church of England, that shortly after the arrival of Sir William Berkley as Governor of that province in 1639, several laws had been made against the Puritans, though there were as yet none among them ; and so rigor- ous were these laws, that none but conformists, in the strictest and most absolute sense, were permitted to reside in the colony."t Yet Captain Claiborne resided there, and was on the side of the King, not with the Parliament.
During this year, however, it is stated that three Puritan ministers came to Virginia from Massachusetts, and were kindly entertained by some private persons. In the preceding year, Mr. Richard Bennett, in the name of some other gentlemen, had gone to Boston to desire that such ministers might be sent. But though they came, their residence was short, for they returned the next summer; and that, no doubt, be- cause the Assembly of Virginia this year, had passed an Act to prevent dissenting ministers from preaching and propagating their doctrines in
* 1 Hazzard, 493.
+ 2 Burk, 67. 2 Boz., 198, 9.
.
46
the colony." The Governor and Council-and Captain Claiborne was one of that Council-issued an Order, that all such persons as would not conform to the discipline of the Church of England, should depart the country by a certain day ; yet it appears that an independent Church was now founded and must have had some few members. These things are referred to, because three at least of the individuals mentioned, will be seen hereafter, to have much to do in Maryland history.
One of the three ministers mentioned above, was William Thompson, a native of England, and originally, among the primitive Puritans of Lancashire. He was the first minister of Braintree, Massachusetts, and was now sent to Virginia.t But it would seem, instead of returning to Massachusetts, on leaving Virginia, that he came to Maryland and set- tled here-where after a while we shall hear of him.
Ten days previous to the date of Claiborne's appointment, just spoken of, March 26th, " Lord Baltimore was brought before the House of Lords, on charges which are not now known; in consequence of which, he was placed under heavy bonds not to leave the kingdom.} He had thus come under the suspicions of Parliament, if he was not indeed obnox- ious to them. Whether these charges had anything to do with the management of his colony or not, yet "certain it is, that from this time, he manifested great anxiety to avoid every act which would expose him to the charge of contravening, by his colonial policy, the established laws of the realm. His firmness in this particular, and his watchfulness in regard to compromising his proprietary rights, even placed him in oppo- sition to the Jesuit missionaries in the colony, to whose aid he refused for a time, to allow others to be sent, unless they would pledge them- selves to make their practices conformable to the policy of the English Government, and leave him the full exercise of his prerogatives." They did thus pledge themselves, and in October two came over. But, says the narrative, "our reasons being heard, and the thing itself being more clearly understood, they easily fell in with our opinion."§ And that opinion was, as expressed to the Governor and Secretary by them, that to enforce the law against religious fraternities, would expose them to excommunication, and the displeasure of Almighty God! The priests triumphed, and Lord Baltimore, for the present, had to give way.
* Beverly, 229. 1 Oldmixon, 301.
+ 2 Bozman, 198, note, and Allen's Biog. Dict., Art. Thompson.
# Streeter, pp. 29, 30.
§ Father White and others, p. 42.
47
In September of this year, Mr. Bozman estimates the population of Kent Island at 365, and that of Kent at 535,9-900 in all.
The narrative of Father White and others, shows that there was this year three priests. Fathers, Fisher the superior, at St. Mary's, White at Piscataway, and Rigby at Mattapany-together with three coadjutors, two of whom had come over this year. Besides reporting some miracles, it is stated that Father White was detained during the winter, while going up the Potomac, for some weeks at a village near by, and that its chief and others of its principal men, received the faith of Christ and baptism. Not long after, the young Empress of Piscataway was baptized at St. Maray's, where she had been educated. And almost at the same time, the town called Port Tobacco, to a great extent, received the faith with baptism, to the number of 130. The young queen of Patuxent, with her mother, were converted. But no proselytes are reported. This is the last report from the Jesuit Fathers for eleven years.
1643.
On the 15th of April, having appointed Giles Brent, Esq., as his deputy, during his absence, Governor Calvert sailed for England. It is said, that in consequence of difficulties in the Government of the province, he went over, in order to have personal consultation with his brother, Lord Balti- more, who declared his intention of visiting Maryland, but failed to do so.
Some time in the fall of this year, the Earl of Warwick was appointed Governor in Chief and Lord High Admiral of the American Colonies, with a Council of five peers and twelve commoners to assist him. This looked, certainly, as if the Parliament, by whom they were appointed, intended to subject Maryland and the other colonies to their jurisdiction, but it does not appear that any steps were actually taken to effect it, though it may account for Lord Baltimore's not leaving England. In the colony, there was much trouble occasioned by war with the Indians.
1644.
On the 20th of January, Richard Ingle, a captain of a ship engaged in the colonial trade, was the subject of an attempted arrest on the charge of high treason against his Majesty.} His vessel was seized, but he him- self escaped. The colony, as well as Lord Baltimore, unquestionably, for the time being, took sides with the King against the Parliament, and Ingle's inen are said to have been tampered with, to carry the ship
- * 2 Bozman, 237.
+ 2 Bozman, 271.
.
48
to Bristol where the King then was .* Hostilities with the Indians also "still continued and difficulties occurred between the acting Governor and the Secretary. In September, Governor Calvert returned, bringing with him a new commission ; one peculiarity of which was, that henceforth those who received lands, were required to take an oath of fidelity to Lord Baltimore. This, as the sequel will show, was the source of seri- ous difficulties.
It appears from an executive document, issued towards the end of this year, that Captain Claiborne, by means of a military and naval force, regained possession of Kent Island.t So quickly had it been done, and so entirely in accordance with the wishes of the people of that Island, that upon rumor of what had been done, the Governor had to send out spies or agents, in order "to learn with what force he did it, what strength he is of those at sea or shore, what his intents are, and how long he means to stay."
In July previous, the King had lost the whole north of England, and " the estates of those who took part with the King," (and so Lord Balti- mote had done thus far,) " were considered by Parliament as liable to confiscation or sequestration, whenever the fortune of war should enable them to do so."; But whether Captain Claiborne acted under any au- thority of Parliament, Mr. Bozman confesses he has no information. The existing difficulties, however, at St. Mary's, presented a tempting opportunity, and knowing that he should meet with no opposition from Parliament, then in the ascendant, he embraced it. And any one, who knows any thing of the then existing antipathy of Protestants against the Romanists, may readily imagine, that the Kent Islanders were quite willing to escape from under Lord Baltimore's Government; and so will- ing were they, that Governor Calvert learned nothing of Captain Clai- borne's success from them. The Island had come under Protestant rule again. Captain Claiborne had been expelled from the government and pessession of his Island for more than five years. But now, having re- gained it, he was proclaimed at St. Mary's, an enemy of the province, and all intelligence or correspondence with him forbidden at peril.§ There is not a particle of proof, however, that he had forsaken his King and benefactor, or that he had arranged himself under the banners of the Parliament, and perhapses and probabilities are quite as good in his favor as against him. It appears that Governor Calvert made "an ex- pedition to Kent," but was not successful. |
* 2 Bozman, 691. § 2 Bozman, 288.
+ 2 Bozman, 287. # 2 Bozman, 289.
| 2 Bozman, 290.
49
1645.
Early in February of this year, during a session of the Assembly, Captain Ingle, who, in January of the last year, had been proclaimed guilty of high treason against his Majesty, in St. Mary's, and fled,-act- ing now, it is said, under a commission from Parliament,-surprised and took St. Mary's by force, and Governor Calvert fled to Virginia. Many of the friends of Lord Baltimore were driven from the province, and the Jesuit Fathers were seized and sent to England for trial,* and their Mission, for the time being, was thus broken up.
The narrative of Father White and others for 1670,t states,-speak- ing of an event alleged to have occurred in 1646,-" that there were at the time, certain soldiers, unjust, plunderers, Englishmen indeed by birth, of the heterodox faith, who coming the year before (1645) with a fleet, had invaded with arms almost the entire Colony, had plundered, burnt, and finally having abducted the priests, and driven the Governor. himself into exile, had reduced it to a miserable servitude." And in a letter to Lord Baltimore from the Assembly, dated April 21, 1649, they. say, " great and many have been the miseries and calamities and other sufferings, which your poor distressed people, inhabitants of this province, have sustained and undergone here, since the beginning of the heinous re- bellion, first put in practice by that pirate Ingle, and afterwards, for al- most two years' continuance by his complices and confederates, in which time, most of your lordship's loyal friends here were spoiled of their whole estate, and sent away, as banished persons out of the province ; those few, that remained, were plundered and deprived in a manner, of all livelihood and subsistence, only breathing under that intolerable yoke, which they were forced to bear under those rebels, which then assumed the government of your Lordship's province unto themselves. Our suf- ferings were violent like a tempest."} The misrule of Ingle and his asso- ciates is here depicted in strong terms by Lord Baltimore's loyal friends -the Romanists and others.
This loss of the government by Lord Baltimore, has been called usually Claiborne's and Ingle's rebellion. If it is so called by Lord Baltimore's friends, because each gained possession of his respective Colony, at or near the same time, no material objection can be made. But there are no doc- uments to show that they were identified. "Claiborne can be shown to have been in his place in the Virginia Legislature, when Ingle made his demonstration on St. Mary's ; and during the time of the occupancy of 1
* Streeter, 33, 84.
+ P. 45. 4
# 2 Bozman, 665.
50
Maryland, by the invaders, to have been a regular attendant on the Courts of that Colony, where his official duties as Treasurer, required him to be present."* Besides, the public documents of the day do not associate Claiborne and Ingle together. Thus, on the Proclamation of Governor Calvert, Jan. 1, 1645, Richard Thompson, planter, only is asso- ciated with Captain William Claiborne .; Thus, on the proclamation of pardon of March 4, 1648, after the province of St. Mary's was retaken, Governor Green says,t " Whereas, sundry of the inhabitants of this province, by the instigation of one Richard Ingle, have unfortunately run themselves into a rebellion," &c., and " are now returned unto obe- dience again," &c., "I do hereby * * grant a general absolute and free pardon unto every and singular the inhabitants residing within this province, * * excepting Richard Ingle, mariner."; He only was thus excepted. So in his granting a new seal, August 12, 1648,§ Lord Balti- more says, " Whereas, our great Seal of the province of Maryland was treacherously and violently taken away from them by Richard Ingle or his complices, in or about February, 1645." So in his commission to his Master General of the same date, " he speaks of Richard Ingle and his complices and again in his commission to the Commander of the Isle of Kent, T he speaks precisely in the same way.
But in his commission to Governor Stone, August 6, 1648, he gives bim power to grant pardons, &c .** "So as such pardon or pardons ex- tend not to the pardoning of William Claiborne, heretofore of the Isle of Kent, and now or of late of Virginia, or of his complices in their late rebellion, * nor of Richard Ingle, nor John Durford, mariner," &c. Instead thus as being considered by Lord Baltimore, as engaged in the same rebellion, they are by him clearly distinguished as two distinct parties. So in the commission to the Governor and Council, August 12th, 1648,ft he forbids the repeal of any act, &c., whereby William Claiborne was, or is attainted,-Ingle is not mentioned. All this is proof that, in that day they were not considered as associated and were distin- guished as not having been.
1646.
Nothing is found touching our subject this year. Captain Claiborne was in possession of Kent Island, and Ingle and his associates of St. Mary's,-at least partially.
* Streeter, 34. § 2 Bozman, 651.
** 2 Bozman, 645.
+ 2 Bozman, 228
! 2 Bozman, 652.
tt 2 Bozman, 654.
# 2 Bozman, 641.
" 2 Idem, 653.
-------
51
1647.
Towards the close of the last year, Governor Calvert returned from Virginia, with a body of soldiers,* and surprised all those who had com- bined against him, and cast them into prison,t and thus recovered again the Government of St. Mary's, in which he was specially aided by those who were his loyal friends of that Colony. They also paid on defraying the expenses of the soldiers, 60,000 lbs. of tobacco, which say they "is far more than all our recovered estates in the province were then worth." And having gained St. Mary's, he turned his attention towards Kent Island. On the 16th of January, therefore, he laid an embargo upon all persons and vessels, that no intelligence might be communicated, or practiced with foreigners during this time of war, in which he says,t "I do hereby forbid all persons now being in the county of St. Mary's, that they presume not to go, or attempt to go out of the county of St. Mary's, without acquainting me first therewith, and my leave to do so, and that no person entertain any communication, or give any entertainment to any one, coming into the province or from the Isle of Kent," &c.
After having done this, he went on with his work, and seems to have succeeded, in April, in having reduced Kent Island again under his gov- ernment, and took possession of it in person. Eleven are mentioned as having been pardoned, and taken the oath of fealty to Lord Baltimore ; the others fled. Those thus fleeing doubtless went over on to the main land and settled there. Robert Vaughan, a Protestant, was now appointed the Commander of the Island. Captain Claiborne had had possession there for nearly three years, nor was this the last time that he came into pos- session of the Island.
On the 9th of June, Governor Calvert died, at about the age of 40, having previous to his death, named Thomas Green to succeed him.
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.