USA > Maryland > Studies in the civil, social and ecclesiastical history of early Maryland; lectures delivered to the young men of the Agricultural College of Maryland > 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 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16
By the days of Elizabeth, however, the people ha.1 recovered some of their old prosperity, and, with it, their spirit; not the nobility, but the people, for feudal- ism was practically dead, and power had passed into the
32
HISTORY OF EARLY MARYLAND.
hands of the people. These principles were in conflict all along through the colonial period, and as they had brought about the Great Rebellion in England, so there was a constant protest in the colonies, a protest that grew more and more pronounced, until the long struggle ended in, as it had trained the colonies for, national independence. Even in the charter of New York, granted to the Duke of York. afterwards James the Second, by his brother Charles, we find the jealousy of colonial independence manifested, for in some respects the duke's privileges were inferior even to those granted to other proprietaries.
There are certain things common to many of the · charters which it would be well for us to remember, among them the privilege of removal granted to those who desired to go into the colonies. We are so accus- tomed to the right of changing our abode, going to any foreign land, or to any part of our own land, that we cannot understand readily the denial or limitation of this right as it existed in the days when charters were given. For among the privileges granted by these is this, that persons so desiring should be free to go over to the colo- nies to make their homes there. And this was because of an old law of the reign of Elizabeth, according to which "if any subject or denizen shall depart the realm without license under the great seal, he shall forfeit his personal estate and lose the profits of his land during his life." The liberty granted, therefore, was very necessary, being only a relaxation of the law in behalf of the colo- nies. Even within the kingdom itself free passage was not allowed from place to place, but license had to be obtained. Though all of this survives in some parts
33
COMPARISON OF CHARTERS.
of Europe to-day, most notably in Russia, where every one belongs to some commune, to which he may be re- turned wherever he may be found within any part of the great empire.
This restriction of personal freedom was seen in a most oppressive form in the charter of Virginia in the year 1612, one clause of which was that certain persons having returned from Virginia and given an evil report of the condition of things there, the king granted power to the home council "to apprehend and bind over with good sureties, or else to remand and send back the said offenders to the said colony of Virginia, there to be pro- ceeded against and punished as governor, deputy, or council there, for the time being, shall think mect.". We should think it a strange thing if any one coming back from our western country, or from Alaska, and bringing a report of disappointment and distress, should be ar- rested and bound over to keep silent, or else be sent back again, to be dealt with by those who had every private and selfish reason for making the world believe that all was encouraging. But private rights, as we know them, were not known in 1612.
Another privilege granted, which is also common to the charters, is that of transmitting goods into the colo- nies and of shipping from the colonies any productions. But this latter was subject to conditions. For it was a universal law that the home country possessed the mo- nopoly of the trade of the colonies, and no ships of other nations were allowed to trade directly with them. And nothing was watched more jealously than this. Goods from the colonies did reach other countries, but they had first to be shipped to England, Scotland or Ireland,
:
34
HISTORY OF EARLY MARYLAND.
and then afterwards to be reshipped to any other port. By this means the English agents of the colonists reaped a heavy commission, and the necessity arose that all goods from whatever country should first pass through the hands of British or Irish merchants. It will be remem- bered how Massachusetts repudiated this right of Eng- lish interference with her trade, and by all possible and sometimes absurd excuses, sought to extenuate her no- torious violations of the law. For Massachusetts was always at the forefront of protest against British preten- sions.
In the matter of the legislative power of the people, and their right to determine what laws should bind them, we find a good deal of interest, from the fact that the Stuart kings by no means looked upon the exercise of this right by the people with pleasure, and called their representatives together in parliament as seldom as their own needs would allow. For at that day it was different from what it is now, for the people did not govern the realm, but only came together to assist the king to do it, whenever he called them. and this was only so often as he needed money, which he could not get without them. It will be remembered that it was King Charles' effort to get money without the people's consent that aroused Hampden, and with Hampden the whole English world, and precipitated the civil war, and overthrew the mon- archy, and compassed the death of the king.
But in the colonial charters provision soon came to be made for the assembling of the people or their repre- sentatives, and the requirement that no law should be of force without their consent. In the first grant to the Virginia Company no such provision was made. The
----
35
1740368
COMPARISON OF CHARTERS.
king made the laws and the council provided for the government under them. In 1621, however, two houses of assembly were created in Virginia,-one appointed by the treasurer and council of the Company, the other composed of the governor, local council and two bur- gesses to be chosen by the inhabitants of any town, hun- dred or settlement. The governor was to have a veto of the laws passed; while also, accepted by him, they had to be further approved and confirmed by the general court in England. Again, however, it was provided that no order of the general court could bind the colony till it was assented to by the colonial assembly.
Provision for such assembly by the charters became the rule from that time out. The charter for Avalon, for instance, granted to Lord Baltimore in 1623, before he changed his religion and ceased to be Secretary of State, provided that the freeholders were to be assembled for the making of laws for the province, the condition given being that the laws should not be repugnant or contrary, but as near as conveniently may be, agreeable to the laws and statutes of England. Lord Baltimore. who was one of the most astute and observant men of his day, saw the necessity, and had the provision incorpor- ated. And again, when his second charter was given, that for Maryland, the same clause was inserted. How far it was only policy and how far it was the fruit of a broad and liberal spirit, we do not know. We only know that when the colony had been planted. and its administration became a practical problem, his son. on whom the world has been delighted to lavish its praise. attempted so far to limit the privilege of the assembly as to claim the sole initiative in the making of laws. This
36
HISTORY OF EARLY MARYLAND.
the people rejected, however, and proceeded to consider the laws as of their own suggestion, a claim and pre- rogative which his lordship was afterwards constrained to allow. The right of initiative was recognized as be- longing to both parties equally. Before a law could become finally and completely part of the code of the province it had not only to pass the assembly in both its houses, but also to receive the approval of the governor in the colony and afterwards of the proprietary. It went into effect, however, upon its approval by the governor, so that sometimes the anomaly was seen that a law was in force and business carried on in the colony under it, when in fact it was no law and was finally rejected by the proprietor. There was of necessity a good deal of de facto and not de jure government under such circum- stances.
Another notable peculiarity to be observed, is the reference made to extending the Christian religion, as being one of the purposes of sending out the colony,- "Enlarging the extent of the Christian world," as the charter of Avalon has it. Also the charter of Massa- chusetts Bay of 1629 declares that converting the natives is the principal end of the royal intention and of the adventurers' free profession in the establishment of the plantation. The charter for Maryland also contained the same. How far such clauses are to be pushed, is questionable, though we do know that whatever may have been the intention either of the grantor or of the grantee under the charter, efforts were made by godly, carnest men to carry the word of God to the inhabitants of the wilderness. The bitter spirit that was excited in the Indians soon hindered in many places the zeal of the
.
·
-
37
COMPARISON OF CHARTERS.
missionaries, a bitterness created by the injustice and brutality with which they were treated; yet to the very utmost of their power, often preceding the trader and the explorer, devoted men pursued their purpose even to remote districts. This was the case not only in the English colonies, but also in Canada, the account of their efforts often reading more like a romance than like sober and sometimes painful reality. The account we have from Father Andrew White of his own work and that of his colleagues in Maryland, cannot but fill us' with admiration for the single-mindedness and purity of in- tention of his earnest soul.
Another point of interest is the taxation of the people. The colonies were subjected to various custom charges, port dues, etc., from which there was no appeal. In the case of the Carolina charter of 1663 free trade was allowed with England, Scotland and Ireland for seven years, after which customs and dues were to be paid; but in the carlier charters there were no charges for ship- ments to England, but only when the same goods were reshipped to some foreign port, when they had to pay the same duties as were paid upon any other goods. A singular exemption was allowed by the charter for Avalon, as the products of the colony were to be relieved even of this burden for a period of ten years; but upon per- son, goods, chattels, tenements, lands, no taxes could be levied save by and with the consent of the repre- sentatives of the people. The king relinquished any right he thought himself possessed of, and he provided by the charters that the proprietaries should not exercise any such right. It certainly promoted the peace of the colonies that that was fixed and determined, for there
------
38
HISTORY OF EARLY MARYLAND.
was none of the proprietaries that was not soon made to feel that the people knew and were determined to exer- cise, all the rights and privileges of English citizens and subjects.
The question of religion, also, as it is suggested by the various charters, may very well be touched upon here. I have spoken of the claim that the grantees were influenced by a desire to extend the blessings of the Christian religion to the Indians. But I refer in this place to the regulations concerning religion that were contained in the charters, the assurance and limitation of privileges, as bearing upon the residents of the prov- ince. This was a matter of the first concern, for one of the most powerful causes for impelling men to leave their homes and seek a retreat in the colonies was the de- sire to enjoy freedom of conscience and of worship.
The Virginia colony was from the beginning under Church of England influences, and we have seen how, with a high hand, the deputy governor, in 1618, issued his injunctions that every one should go to church on Sundays and holy days, and that the penalty of refusing to do so was compulsory labor. The church was part and parcel of the very existence of things, church and state being so close together that no defining line could be drawn between them. In the charter granted to Sir Geo. Calvert for Avalon, which was before he changed his religion, there was given him the advowson of all churches to be erected in the province; that is, the right to appoint ministers, it being of the very sentiment of England that churches should be built, and that the patronage or right of appointment should be vested in some individual.
-----------
39
COMPARISON OF CHARTERS.
In England various persons have this right; sometimes official as where the Lord Chancellor has many churches in his gift; or the faculty of the learned colleges; or some of the church dignitaries, as the Bishops; or private individuals, as when a church has been built upon a private estate. And so when a title to the province was given to Calvert, both as proprietor of the soil and as possessing civil jurisdiction, this privilege was granted.
And so again in the charter for Maryland in 1632 we find the same. At this time Calvert had become Baron of Baltimore, and had avowed his conversion to the Roman religion. The fourth clause confers upon him the patronage and advowson of all the churches, together with license and faculty to build churches and to cause them to be dedicated and consecrated according to the ecclesiastical laws of the kingdom of England. Though Lord Baltimore had declared himself a Roman Catholic, the charter refused to recognize the fact, and treated him and insisted on his acting as a member of the estab- lished Church of England. It is true he never built churches or chapels, and none therefore were conse- crated, and the function of patronage was never exer- cised. It was about the only one of the privileges of his charter that he did not exercise. It brought him no emolument, it might have been an expense to him, and it may have been against his conscience. Certain it is that the failure to make such provision for the great Protestant majority of his people, proved to him a great misfortune, as it was one of the chief causes of his loss of the administration of the province in the Protestant revolution, and with it a large part of his revenue that arose from the civil administration. Accepting the char-
T
40
HISTORY OF EARLY MARYLAND.
ter with the fourth clause, he was bound not to neglect the spiritual needs of the people and not to appropriate all the revenues to his private use. Here let me observe that in speaking of Lord Baltimore I proceed upon the principle that "The king is dead, long live the king." When it is necessary to distinguish between the different individuals that bore the title I shall do so.
The charter of the Carolinas, granted in 1663, con- tained the same clause providing for the patronage of the churches and their dedication. In the charter for Penn- sylvania, however, we find a difference; for in that there is a recognition that the grantee, Penn, was not of the faith of the Church of England; for the right was secured to any persons to the number of twenty, to petition the Bishop of London to send a minister to them, and he was to be such a one as the Bishop would approve, the king evidently fearing that Penn was not of a sufficiently tolerant spirit to induce him to extend the liberty of worship to all. The right of petition was to be exer- cised irrespective of the will or pleasure of Penn.
A strong contrast is presented between the religious spirit of New England and that of Georgia, suggesting the progress that had been made between the year 1620 and 1732; for while in New England the spirit of the time showed itself in repressing, as far as possible, re- ligious liberty, and in the endeavor to hold state and church within the bonds of a narrow denominationalism,- the spirit of the times, I say, because then a persecuting spirit was abroad in almost the whole world,-in Georgia there was, from its foundation, a spirit of broader liberty, freedom of conscience to all, and the right of public worship to all except the Roman Catholics; who were
------
----
41
COMPARISON OF CHARTERS.
dreaded and repressed more for what were regarded as their dangerous political heresies than their erroneous religious creed. It took many years for Protestant Eng- land to become so conscious of her own power that she could despise and ignore those heresies.
THIRD LECTURE.
LORD BALTIMORE AND THE MARYLAND CHARTER.
Modern nations, like ancient ones, cultivate as far as possible the memory of their founders and of those who in the earlier days of their existence, glorified the state either by their virtue, their wisdom or their deeds. The ancient nations, it is true, losing the due balance be- tween God and man, worshiped often these ancient heroes, exalting them to a second place among the di- vinities and paying them all reverence. And the great deeds and wise words of those who lived in the histori- cal period were likewise handed on, by poet as well as his- torian, a halo gathered about them, glorifying what, may be, thousands of men in their own time would have said or done. Modern nations, it is true, do not so glorify their founders, there is no hero-worship; still every nation is proud of being able to point out illustrious men among the fathers of the state, or those who by wisdom and de- votion, have promoted its welfare and honor. England has her Alfred of earlier days, her Henry the Fifth, her William Pitt; France has her Charlemagne, her Louis the Pious, her First Napoleon. America has not only her Washington, but the whole galaxy of wisdom and de- votion that vindicated the manhood of the nation by the Declaration of Independence. Many of the separate States have their champions, men that guided the course of events in the earlier days or in the periods nearer our own.
43
THE MARYLAND CHARTER.
And well it is for nations that it should be so, for such commemoration of the illustrious departed keeps alive the national love of the institutions of the State, makes men jealous of everything that can tarnish the honor or destroy the integrity of the State. Patriotism is something that has to be fostered. It may spring up spontaneously in the human heart, but unless it is culti- vated, by keeping alive the memory of the honorable if not heroic past, it will die, choked out by the weeds of selfishness and self-indulgence, greed and ambition. There may be, even without patriotism, enough of courage preserved to call forth the efforts for the de- fense of the country; but patriotism,-the love of country, that fosters some of the highest virtues of the human heart, and without which a nation is on the decline of the plane that leads to hopeless disaster,-patriotism can only be kept alive by a recollection of the country's heroic antecedents, and of those who in the country's behalf pledged their lives and their sacred honor in its cause.
Now among the separate States of the Union that have and glory in a notable past, is Maryland. Somehow she has never made as much of her inheritance as some other States have, though in recent years she has become more zealous in searching into her records and present- ing them to the world. I presume that one cause of her apathy in other days was that hers was a mixed community; that being a Border State, a very large portion of her people were not native, but came here chiefly for the sake of the many advantages which the State offered in its soil and location, for commercial and manufac- turing enterprises. When the second volume of a most
.
44
HISTORY OF EARLY MARYLAND.
excellent history never saw the light, because the first, on which the author had bestowed so much and such conscientious care and labor, the most worthy monument yet erected of the period it covered, was received with so little interest, -- I speak of McMahon's history of Mary- land,-when such was the fact, it shows at how low an ebb was the- sentiment in Maryland in behalf of the honor of Maryland. There is a different state of things now, I grant, but it is altogether questionable how far the sentiment extends. It is one purpose of these lec- tures to endeavor to develop in the young men of Mary- land a pride and love of the honorable old State.
Upon going back to the first days of the colony we find two men standing out in strong prominence, father and son, George and Cecilius Calvert, first and second Lords Baltimore. The common name, Lord Baltimore, seems to have caused a good deal of confusion, for Lord Baltimore has often been referred to as if the whole early history of the colony had been controlled and directed by one man; whereas, as regards the offices of father and son, they are as different as the lives and times of two men could possibly make them.
Of the first of these, the father, George Calvert, first Lord Baltimore, there is very little that can be said, and that little is neither good nor bad. For we do not know enough of the man, his thoughts, feelings, purposes, to give any very distinct portraiture of him. He was a loving husband and an enterprising man, and as a poli- tician he was fairly consistent in his principles. But such things can probably be said of the largest part of the human family. Born about 1580, he in early man- hood entered political life, filling various offices, includ-
45
THE MARYLAND CHARTER.
ing that of principal Secretary of State and membership of the Privy Council. James the First honored him with many proofs of his confidence, which he attempted to justify, not only by a faithful performance of his various duties, but by standing forth as the advocate -of the king's claims when questioned by parliament or people. George Calvert was a courtier in the strictest sense of the word, and was always as near the king as the king's favor could bring him. And doubtless he was fitted to be there, as a gentleman of education and excellent intelligence.
. At the same time he was always providing for him- self, but in an honorable way. Had there been any means of imputing evil conduct to him, doubtless it would have been done. For he was not a favorite with the weak king's favorite, and could he have been deprived of the king's favor, to get him out of the way, doubtless it would have been done.
But such qualities never make a hero, and George Lord Baltimore was not a hero. He had always an eye to business, so that there was hardly a foreign enterprise prosecuted in which he had not an interest, colonization being a specialty with him. He was one of the original associates of the Virginia Company, and continued so till 1620. In 1659 and 1614 he put money in the East India Company. In 1622 he was a member of the New England Company. In 1620 he bought an extensive plantation in Newfoundland, and in 1623 he secured a charter for this, creating it a province, and giving him almost roval honors and prerogatives. Avalon, how- ever, failing him in his expectations, he secured from King Charles the gift of a section of Virginia, extending
46
HISTORY OF EARLY MARYLAND.
also into North Carolina, and called Carolana; but find- ing he would have trouble in securing the actual pos- session he relinquished it. And then in the year 1632 we find him obtaining the province of Maryland, though dying before the gift was finally completed. Also in the year 1621 the king granted him twenty-three hundred acres of land in Ireland, which he endeavored to colonize.
All these transactions indicate that he was a man of great enterprise and business intelligence, and judging from the amounts he and his son claimed to have spent upon Avalon and Maryland, about forty-six thousand pounds sterling, he must have been very successful in the various enterprises in which he was interested.
But all these things do not make a hero. Sometimes it is claimed he sought to establish a colony in Maryland as a refuge for the members of his church and religious faith who were denied freedom of religious worship in their own country: that that was the purpose he had in view. And the attempt has been made on this account to glorify him and to lift him up above the narrow views and unworthy contentions that belittled the whole religious mind of that day. But for over twenty years right along, from the foundation of the second Virginia Company in 1600, he had been engaged in this very business of colonization. Also in 1620 he bought estates, as we have seen, for which he secured a patent in 1623, a year and more before he avowed any change in religion, and yet the charters of both are nearly iden- tical, evidently drawn by the same hand, and that probably his own. He was a great speculator on a large scale; Virginia, New England, India, Newfoundland, Carolana, and Maryland, as well as Ireland, being the fields of
-
47
THE MARYLAND CHARTER.
his operations. But he was wiser or more fortunate than some speculators, because, though he did not live to reap the fruits of his ventures, his children and his heirs did; for their patrimony in Maryland proved a splendid source of revenue. George Calvert was not of the stuff out of which heroes are made.
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.