USA > Maryland > Maryland, two hundred years ago, a discourse > 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 | Part 7 | Part 8
I must also remark, that the period which I desire to illus- trate is singularly barren of romantic or startling incident ; and that the topics which I propose to discuss, afford few materials for rhetorical flourish or oratorical display. My aim, on this occcasion, is, rather to deal in facts, however humble, than in speculations, however novel ;- to elicit truths rather than to form theories ; to impart some useful and relia- ble information, relative to an interesting period of our colo- nial history, rather than to amuse or excite those who honor
21
me with their attention, by highly colored pictures or a decla- matory harangue.
For nearly four years after the settlement of St. Mary's, Claiborne, though notified by Governor Calvert that he must consider himself a member of the new colony and submit to its regulations, persisted in his refusal to acknowledge Lord Baltimore's proprietary rights over Kent island, and con- tinued his traffic with the Indians. His justification for this course, consisted in a letter from the king, declaring that he never intended to grant Lord Baltimore any lands already occupied, forbidding the people of Maryland or Virginia to . disturb or molest him in his plantation, and continuing to him freedom of trade, notwithstanding the Maryland patent ;- in a formal determination by the Council of Virginia, (in answer to his request for advice what course to pursue,) not to relinquish their jurisdiction over the island ;- in the general sentiment of the people of that colony in his favor and against Lord Baltimore; and in his own firm conviction of the justness of his cause.
A little more than a year after the landing of the colonists, two collisions took place, (April 23rd and May 10th, 1635,) on the waters of the Chesapeake, between parties of Clai- borne's men and an expedition from St. Mary's, sent out by Governor Calvert for the purpose of putting a stop to their trade; in the former of which, one of the Marylanders and three of the men of Kent, including Claiborne's deputy, Lieut. Rateliffe Warren, were slain. Virginia was at this time in commotion, on account of the deposition of the over- . bearing Governor, Sir John Harvey, by the people; and it is by no means improbable that his known good will towards Lord Baltimore, and his want of sympathy with Claiborne, were the immediate causes of the popular outbreak that resulted in his removal, and his transportation to England, accompanied by commissioners instructed to lay the com- plaints of the colonists before the king. It may have been owing to a participation in this movement, that Claiborne,
4
-
22
who had no reason to be friendly to Harvey, was not present at either of these rencounters.1
It was not until near the close of the year 1637, that Cal- vert found himself strong enough to compel Kent island to submission; when Claiborne, seeing the futility of any further attempt at resistance, departed for England, to lay his case before the king in person and ask redress of his wrongs. Shortly after, an Assembly was held at St Mary's; and before this body sitting as a court of justice, was brought one Thomas Smith, who had recently been arrested on Kent island, charged with piracy for his participation in one of the collisions that occurred in the Bay, three years before. A. disagreement which had already taken place between the Proprietary and the people, left the authorities in a singular > dilemma. The colonists, in a purely democratic Assembly held in February, 1635,2 had adopted a body of laws and sent them to Lord Baltimore for his concurrence. He, claiming himself the initiative in legislation, refused his assent; and in return, transmitted to the colony a code, which was brought
1 In September, 1634, Lord Baltimore sent instructions to his brother, to seize Claiborne and detain him a close prisoner at St. Mary's, in case he persisted in his refusal to recognize his Lordship's patent, as covering Kent island. Early in October following, the commissioners of Maryland complained to the Gov- ernor and Council of Virginia, of "evil practices by Capt. Claiborne with the Indians, (a point which had been suggested by Lord Baltimore, ) to the subver- sion of both colonies;" for which, says the old record, " he was confined at James City till witnesses could be examined against him." In December, 1634, " the complaint of the Maryland Commissioners against Claiborne was heard, and witnesses examined and he and the deponent, &c., sent to England." If these - entries (which are not original ) in the Virginia records, are accurate, Claiborne was on his way to, or was in England, when these collisions took place ; but I am inclined to think them incorrect. A Report of the Committee of the Navy, Inade in December, 1652, says, "after three years suffering, Col. Clai- borne was forced for safety of his life, to fly into England." No evidence, I believe, exists, that he appeared in England for trial in 1635, or that he was there before the commencement of the year 1638.
? The first movement in the colony of Massachusetts towards forming a body of laws, was made about the same time ;- May 6th, 1635. For want of positive laws, it was then agreed, " that some men should be appointed to frame a body of grounds of laws, in resemblance to a Magna Charta, which, being allowed by some of the ministers and the General Court, should be received for funda- Mental laws .- Winthrop's Journal, 1, 160.
23
before this, the second Assembly of which we have any account ;- but, though strenuously supported by the Gover- nor and a few of his friends, was, by a large majority, rejected. A committee was appointed to draught another code, to be sent to the Proprietary; but in the mean time, the colony was without local laws, by which to try the party < accused of piracy. This want of laws, however, was not allowed to obstruct the administration of justice. Smith, on the ground that the Assembly of 1635, had enacted that all offenders in murder and felonies should suffer the penalties provided by the laws of England, was regularly indicted, brought before the House of Assembly, tried, found guilty of piracy, and condemned to death ; by a vote in which six of the colonists, who had been present at the affrays in the Bay and testified before the grand jury that found the indictment, participated. The accused, a person of education, demanded benefit of clergy, which was refused; and he was probably soon after hung.1 So ended the first capital trial in Mary- land.
While his unhappy follower was thus atoning for his resist- ance to the power and orders of the Proprietary, Claiborne was in the presence of the king, urging, with all the fiery energy and determination that marked his character, his claims for redress ; and making propositions for a grant, which would have given him thirty-six miles of territory on each side of the Susquehanna, and opened a way for a communi- cation and trade with the Lakes by a route, the advantages of which are at this moment engaging the attention of the capi- talists and men of enterprise of our city and state. His case excited the sympathy and his proposals obtained the favorable regard of the king, by whom they were referred to the Lords Commissioners of Plantations ; but with that body, Lord Baltimore's influence prevailed ; Claiborne's claim to Kent
' Capt. Claiborne, as administrator of the estate of Capt. Thomas Smith, " shewed (June 30th, 1640,) to the Court at James City, he had paid as far as assets would go, and was discharged." This was probably the party who was tried and condemned to die, in Maryland.
24
island was pronounced unfounded, and Lord Baltimore's exclusive right to regulate the Indian trade within the limits of his province, distinctly affirmed.
It is a curious commentary on the comparative policy of courts, if not on the justice of this decision, that the same argument which was ineffectually urged, as to Kent island, before the Commissioners of Charles, was put forward by William Penn before those of James II. with entire success. Claiborne maintained that the grant to Lord Baltimore was only of "lands uncultivated and uninhabited, except by sav- ages;" and claimed that Kent island, having been settled and recognized as a constituent portion of Virginia before the charter, could not justly come under his jurisdiction. His objections were put down by the Commissioners of Charles, as invalid. Penn, nearly fifty years after, insisted that a Dutch settlement existed on the west bank of the Delaware, at the time of the granting of the charter; and as it covered only lands unoccupied, it did not include that tract ; and the Commissioners before whom he appeared, so far recognized the validity of his plea, as to frame an award which ultimately gave him the Lower Counties, (now the State of Delaware,) a region fifty times as large as that claimed by Claiborne, and as distinctly included within the limits fixed by the charter, as Kent island. If there was justice in one award, there was injustice in the other ; and as we contrast the historic repu- tation and comparative success of the two parties, we are forcibly reminded of the appositeness of the lines of the poet :
( " A saint may do, without the least suspicion, Deeds that would sink a sinner to perdition."
Relinquishing all hope of regaining for the present what he still regarded as his property, yet trusting that the time would arrive when he might re-assert his rights and obtain redress, Claiborne returned to Virginia. On his arrival there, he found new causes for hostility to Lord Baltimore and his brother, in the severity which had been exercised by Gover- nor Calvert against his friends on Kent island, the condemna-
25
tion and execution of Smith, his own attainder1 by the Assem- bly, and the confiscation of his entire property within the pro- vince of Maryland. Still, he made no further attempt to enforce his claims or obtain satisfaction for his wrongs, but busied himself in the endeavor to retrieve his shattered fortunes, by taking up large tracts of land, and by other active enterprises, within the limits of Virginia.
Relieved from the pressure of the controversy with Clai- borne, the Maryland colony began to gain ground; yet two causes still existed to embarrass the intercourse between the Proprietary and his people, and to engender distrust of the government and discussions among the colonists, namely, Lord Baltimore's strict construction of his prerogative, as opposed to the people's liberal interpretation of their rights,- and the strong antagonism then existing between the Protes- #5 tant and Catholic forms of faith. The former had as yet shown itself only in the attempts of both Proprietary and colo- nists to obtain the initiative in the enactment of laws ;- the latter engendered discussions between the Protestants and . Catholics of the colony, that called forth from Gov. Calvert a proclamation, prohibiting " all further disputes on religious subjects, tending to the opening of faction and the distur- bance of the public peace." This, so far as I can ascertain, was the first paper, issuing from either Lord Baltimore or his brother, in which allusion was made to the opposing religious views of the colonists. There appear to have been some
1 The act of attainder against Claiborne, was passed by the Maryland As- sembly, March 24th, 1637-8. It charged him with various acts of contempt, insolence, and rebellion ; and upon these, together with his assumed instiga- tion of the acts of aggression committed by Lieut. Warren, of Kent island, ou the 23d of April, 1635, (which had been adjudged to be piracy and murder, ) was attainted of those crimes by the Assembly. The act declares, " because he hath, since the committing of said crimes, fled and withdrawn himself from the province, whereby he cannot be attainted by any ordinary course of jus- tice," the freemen, considering the premises and the necessity of exemplary jus. tice upon such notorious and insolent rebels and disturbers of the peace and safety of the inhabitants of this province, enact that he be attainted of the crimes specified, and forfeit to the Lord Proprietary all the lands and tene- ments held by him on the 23d of April, 1635, and all the goods and chattels, of which he may be possessed in the province, at the date of the act.
26
grounds for jealousy on the part of the Protestants ; for the Catholics were not always prudent enough to restrain the ex- pression of their dislike of Protestantism, while the Jesuit 16 fathers were most indefatigable in their attempts to gain con- verts ; and, according to their own report, 1 were so far suc- cessful, as to have brought over to the Catholic faith nearly all those who arrived from England during the year 163S, besides four servants whom they bought in Virginia and five traders, not belonging to the colony. At the same time, their efforts were unceasing to restore harmony between the dis- cordant spirits, whose controversies threatened to disturb the peace of the colony, while the Governor and his assistants ' rigidly enforced the regulations prohibiting religious disputes, even when over zealous Catholics were, in consequence of their disregard of his proclamation, made subject to fine and reproof.2
The policy of Lord Baltimore, in regard to religious mat- ters in his colony, has, in some particulars at least, been mis- apprehended and therefore misstated. The assertions has long passed uncontradicted, that toleration was promised to the colonists in the first conditions of plantation ; that the rights of conscience were recognized in a law passed by the first Assembly held in the colony ; and that the principal offi- cers, from the year 1636 or 7, bound themselves by oath not to molest, on account of his religion, any one professing to believe in Jesus Christ.4 I can find no authority for any of these statements. Lord Baltimore's first and earlier condi-
1 Report of the Fathers for the year 1638.
" See trial of William Lewis, (July 3d, 1638,) for calling the author of a Pro- « testant book a minister of the devil, and forbidding his Protestant servants to x read in his house a Protestant book, authorised to be read by the state of Eng- land. Council Proceedings, from 1637 to 16-44, and Bozman, rol. 2, p. 596.
3 Petition to Gov. Sharpe, about the year 1751.
4 This assertion comes from Chalmers ; - who says, " in the oath taken by the Governor and Council, between the years 1637 and 1657, there was the fol- lowing clause, &e. It might be said that the expression " between the years 1637 and 1637," is indefinite and does not necessarily mean, from the year 1637. But so close a criticisin is not necessary. Chalmers, though generally accurate, stated in this case more than was true. We have on record the oaths administered to the Governor and Council in 1639, which we know were in
27
tions of plantation' breathe not a word on the subject of reli- > gion; no act recognizing the principle of toleration was , passed in the first or in any following Assembly, until fifteen > years after the first settlement, at which time a Protestant had been appointed Governor, and a majority of the Burgesses were of the same faith ; and when, for the first time, a clause involving a promise not to molest any person professing to believe in Jesus Christ, and "particularly a Roman Catholic," was inserted, by the direction of Lord Baltimore, in the official oath.
It is true that no attempt was made by the Roman Catho- lics in Maryland, to establish their faith, to the exclusion of other sects, and that a practical toleration existed ; but this, as we know, was not deemed inconsistent with the most strenu- ous, and, to a considerable extent, successful efforts on the part of the Jesuit fathers, to convert the Protestants in the colony to their faith. Neither is the fact that the Protestants were allowed privilege of worship in Maryland, conclusive evidence to my mind that Lord Baltimore adopted that policy from an inward conviction of the sacredness of the rights of conscience ;- a principle which had not then penetrated the folds of the Catholic, any more than of the Protestant church. If, as is not improbable, the views of Cecilius Calvert co-in- cided with those of his father, as indicated in his published . writings, he felt little sympathy for dissenters from the estab-
use, as late at least as April, 1643 ; and these contain not a word of allusion to religious matters. Many writers have repeated Chalmers' assertion, and laid great stress upon it, but the evidence of historical writers who depend upon each other, is not cumulative. The first link in the chain must be sound, or the whole will fall.
Langford, a zealous friend of Lord Baltimore, says in his " Refutation of Babylon's Fall," -- " his Lordship appointed this oath to be taken by the afore- sayd officers, when he made Capt. Stone Governor, and Mr. Hatton Secretary, and others of his Councell there ;- who being of different judgment in religion from himself, his Lordship thought it but reasonable and fit, that, as he did oblige them by oath not to disturbe any there who professed to believe in Jesus Christ, so to express the Roman Catholics in particular, who were of his own judgment in matters of Religion."
' See " Conditions propounded by the Lord Baltimore, to such as shall goe or adventure into Maryland;" in the " Relation of Maryland," a pamphlet printed in London, September 8th, 1635.
28
lished church, and particularly for the Calvinists, whose tenets and efforts against church and state, Sir George Calvert denounced in unequivocal terins. '
But, admitting that a conscientious desire to recognize and practice upon the great principle of religious toleration was a leading motive with the second Lord Baltimore, it must still be conceded that he could not have been intolerant, however strongly disposed. His charter conferred on him, it is true, the patronage and advowson of churches in the colony, with license to erect places of worship ;- but these were to be "ded- > icated and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of the kingdom of England." It provided also, (as did the char- ter of Virginia,) against any construction of its articles, by which "the holy service of God and the true christian religion," (which, of course, in the mind of the grantor, could mean only the ritual and doctrines of the established church,) "should suffer by change in any particular."? It was with these restrictions that Lord Baltimore accepted his charter; and with a distinct perception of the necessity of adopting a colo- nial policy, conformable, in all essential particulars, to the laws of the realm. The only point that he strained, was, in grant- 30 7, ing to his fellow Catholics a liberty of worship which was de- & nied them by the English statutes ; a privilege which, as a faithful son of the Church, he could not have withheld, even had he, on grounds of policy, been disposed; and to which /[ Charles, at a time when the Catholic influence was strong and the vigilance of the law in reference to professors of that faith greatly relaxed in England, was not likely to object.
1 " THE ANSWER TO TOM TELL-TROTH, &c." was written by Sir George Calvert, about the year 1630, but not printed until ten years after his death, and then, most probably, by the agency of his son. The main object of its publi- cation was, to vindicate the memory and policy of James, to strengthen the position of Charles, and to rebuke the presumption of those Calvinistic politi- cians, who were dealing merciless blows at the weakness of the monarch, the corruptions of the church, and the oppressions of the state.
See, in Appendix, No. 1. several extracts, illustrative of the spirit manifested by the author towards the reforming sectarians. : /~
2 See, in Appendix, No. Il. some remarks upon the erroneous translation of this passage from Article XXII. of the Charter, hitherto received, and sugges- tions as to its real meaning and intent.
29
The policy of the government of Maryland in this respect, as well as the spirit of the people, may be inferred from the legislation of an Assembly held at St. Mary's, in February, 1639. One of the first enactments guarantied to " HIoly church in the province all her rights and liberties ;" and this was followed by bills securing to the Proprietary his " prero- gatives" and to the people their "liberties," according to the ¿ provisions of the Great Charter of England.
While the Proprietary and the people of Maryland were thus establishing the colony on a basis, in which the rights of each should be distinctly recognized and fairly adjusted, the people of England, under the stimulus of political and religious excitement, were taking rapid strides in that career of revolution, which was to end in the subversion of the established church and the overthrow of the monarchy. The king was finally compelled, after an intermission of more than ; eleven successive years, again to summon a Parliament, the members of which assembled, only to be overwhelmed with petitions against public grievances, to deprecate the increas- ing influence of the Roman Catholics, and to prepare the way for the impeachment and destruction of the hated Strafford - and Laud.
From this time forward, we must look for an increasing ?! sympathy on the part of the colonists with the movement in - the mother country, and the introduction of a new element, calculated greatly to modify their social and political relations, in the sympathy felt by different portions of the people, according to their education, prejudices, and religious faith, with the royal party on the one hand, or the party of the op- position on the other. This state of things, engendering a restive and factious spirit among the people, made the posi- tion of Governor Calvert one of great care and responsibility. A renewal of religious controversy added also to his anxieties. The Protestants complained of a prominent colonist, ' a Cath- . olie, for having obstructed them in their worship. Almost no the same day, in England, (March 26th, 16-12,) Lord Baltimore was brought before the House of Lords on charges,
1 Mr. Thomas Gerard.
5
30
the precise nature of which is not now known, but in conse- quence of which, he was placed under heavy bonds not to leave the kingdom.
It is possible that these charges had something to do with his Lordship's management of his colony. Certain it is, that, from this time, he manifested great anxiety to avoid every act which would expose him to the charge of contra- vening, 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 opposition to the Jesuit missionaries in the colony, to * whose aid he for a time refused to allow others to be sent, unless they would pledge themselves to make their practices × conformable to the policy of the English government, and « leave him the full exercise of his prerogatives.
The missionaries, who were zealously laboring among the natives as well as in the colony, had received as a gift a con- siderable tract from the chief of the Patuxents, and perhaps other similar donations. But, their holding these lands was in contravention of an old English statute, that no religious community should, by gift or otherwise, obtain or hold landed property, without the consent of the civil authorities; and of an established law of the province, that no person should receive lands therein of the Indians or others, without a grant from the Proprietary ;- for it was manifest if the missionaries were allowed to do this, it would not only expose him to ac- cusation in England, but established a precedent, that might ultimately undermine his proprietary right to dispose of the ; soil of his province. He therefore sent out a new comnis- 40 sion for the Governor, with new conditions of plantation, in > which, in conformity to the English statutes, all fraternities, as well spiritual as temporal, were declared incapable of inheriting or holding lands within the province, unless by par- ticular license from his lordship; and an oath was prescribed
' It is worthy of note, that, while Lord Baltimore was defending himself before the Committee of the House of Lords in London, Claiborne received froin the king, then at York, the appointment for life of Royal Treasurer of the colony of Virginia.
2.8
x
31
for every person taking up land, binding him not to accept, directly or indirectly, from Indians or other persons, lands or tenements, except for bis iordship's use.
These documents were received in Maryland in the sam- mer of 1612; but the clauses in the conditions of plantation, just noted, gave great dissatisfaction to the missionaries, who - claimed to be exempted from their operation, on the ground that the rights and privileges of "Holy Church " had been guarantied by act of Assembly; and that the conditions could not be enforced without violating the papal decrees, as well as the established saw of the province. Governor Calvert and Secretary Lewger held a conference with them on the subject; but they declared that to publish or administer the * oath prescribed for applicants for land, or to enforce the *clause against religious fraternities, would expose them to the x severest penalties imposed by 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.