USA > Maryland > The history of Maryland : from its first settlement, in 1633, to the restoration, in 1660 ; with a copious introduction, and notes and illustrations > Part 29
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 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91 | Part 92 | Part 93 | Part 94 | Part 95 | Part 96 | Part 97 | Part 98 | Part 99 | Part 100 | Part 101 | Part 102 | Part 103 | Part 104 | Part 105 | Part 106 | Part 107 | Part 108 | Part 109 | Part 110 | Part 111 | Part 112 | Part 113 | Part 114 | Part 115 | Part 116 | Part 117 | Part 118 | Part 119 | Part 120 | Part 121
nia.
255
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
from either the papists or the Puritans. Taking the tone from SEC. IX. the sovereign, the officers of justice began to put in execution 1628. the laws against both more frequently than in the former reign, though the emptiness of the royal coffers induced the monarch to connive at the frequent practice of compounding for the pen- alties. It is not impossible, but that this disposition of the minds of churchmen towards the Catholics, had passed by this time across the Atlantic to Virginia.
duct of the
Immediately on the arrival of lord Baltimore in Virginia, the The con- assembly of that province, actuated, as is supposed by a late Virginians historian,* by a sense of duty, caused the oaths of allegiance towards and supremacy to be tendered to him and his followers. He him. rejected them, proposing, however, at the same time, for himself and his followers a form of oath, which he declared himself ready to accept. As particular forms of these oaths were pre- scribed by particular statutes, it was not in the power of the assembly to dispense with them after being tendered. In this state matters rested, the assembly contenting itself with laying the whole transaction before the privy council in England.t
Setting aside the want of courtesy and hospitality in this treatment of lord Baltimore, and the questionable colonial policy of the measure, as it would appear to us at this day, considera- ble doubts might arise as to the legal power of the assembly, in this instance, to tender these oaths to his lordship. No such power appears to have been given by what is called the first charter of Virginia, of 4 Jac. 1. By the second charter of the 7 Jac. 1, power was given (as before mentioned}) "to the trea- surer for the time being, and any three of the council, (that is, any three of the council of Virginia in England,) to tender and exhibit the said oath (of supremacy) to all such persons as shall at any time be sent and employed in the said voyage." By the third charter of Virginia, of the 9 Jac. 1, power is given to the treasurer or his deputy for the time being, "or any two others of the said council, for the said first colony in Virginia, to minis- ter and give the oath and oaths of supremacy and allegiance, or either of them, to all and every person and persons which shall at any time or times hereafter, go or pass to the said colony of Virginia." But it is evident, that these clauses of dedimus
* Burk, in his Hist. of Virginia, vol. 2, p. 25.
t Burk's Hist. Ibid.
# See this clause of this charter before recited in p. 184.
256
INTRODUCTION TO A
SEC. IX. potestatem, in both these charters, vested authority for that pur- 1628. pose in the treasurer and company in England, and not in any of the members of the government in Virginia, and that too must have been necessarily exercised by them before such persons passed into Virginia. But after all, should this reasoning not be thought to be correct, it is certain, that these charters were all annulled by the judgment of the court of king's bench, on the quo warranto before mentioned, and the assembly itself was but a self-created body, not authorized by the commission of go- vernment to Mr. John Hervey, of the 26th of March, 1627, the only then existing authority for the government of Virginia. Moreover, if these oaths were tendered to him by two justices of the peace, of the province, the statutes which enabled two justices to do so, expressly excepted noblemen from their juris- diction.
Differ- ences among the Catholics with re- spect to the oaths of allegi- ance and It was not to be expected, that such a conscientious Catholic, as lord Baltimore is represented to have been, could with pro- priety have taken the oath of supremacy, which oath at that time was the one prescribed by the statute of 1 Eliz. ch. 1, sec. 19; inasmuch as he must thereby have declared, that the king was the only supreme governor of all his dominions and countries, supremacy " as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as tem- poral." This could not consistently be done by one who believ- ed the pope to be the supreme head of the christian church. It was, probably, then known also by his lordship, being an Irish peer, that pope Urban VIII. had but a few years before (in the year 1626) issued his bull to the Irish Catholics, in which " he exhorted them rather to lose their lives, than to take that wicked and pestilent oath of supremacy, whereby the sceptre of the Catholic church was wrested from the hand of the vicar of God Almighty."* But as to the oath of allegiance, which was that prescribed by the statute of 3 Jac. 1, ch. 4, sect. 15, although it required a denial of the pope's power of excommunicating kings, and thereby deposing them, yet many of the moderate English Catholics, soon after the making of the statute of 3 Jac. 1, in the year 1606, thought that they could with propriety, and actually did, take the oath prescribed by that statute; and in this they were encouraged by George Blackwell, who had been established as the archpriest or superior of the Catholic church in England, and who gave it as his opinion that the English
*Leland's Hist. of Ireland, vol. 2, (ch. 8,) p. 479.
257
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
Catholics might with safety take this oath of allegiance. But SEC. IX. pope Paul, by a brief, in 1606, forbade them to take it. Black- 1628. well refused to publish the brief, and on that account the Eng- lish Catholics conceived that it was a forged one. The pope, however, renewed his prohibition, and cardinal Bellarmine wrote a sharp letter of reproof to Blackwell, exhorting him to redress his fault, and rather suffer martyrdom than continue that course. Blackwell answered Bellarmine, that since the ablest divines did not believe that the pope had any power over the temporals of princes, he thought that he might in conscience take the oath according to that opinion .* This letter of Bellarmine and the two briefs of the pope, drew forth the pen of king James, who was always glad of an opportunity of displaying his talents for theological controversy ; and it is said,t he clearly demonstrated that the cardinal had confounded the two oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and thereby shown, that he did not understand the subject. The intended distinction between them, appears to have been, that the oath of supremacy obliges the subject to acknowledge the king for supreme head of the Church of Eng- land, as well as to bear allegiance to him; but the oath of alle- giance, prescribed by the statute of 3 Jac. 1, requires only sub- mission and obedience to the king, as a sovereign, independent of any other power upon earth.# So that it was supposed, that every Catholic could safely take this new oath, unless he was one of those who thought, that to be a true Catholic it was ne- cessary to believe, that the pope had power to depose kings, and give away their dominions. It is said also,§ that the com-
* Blackwell probably alluded here to some controversial writings, which the then recent dispute between pope Paul V. and the republic of Venice had occa- sioned. That pontiff had thought that some laws or decrees of the senate inter- fered with his ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and demanded by his nuncio, that they should be revoked. The senate supposing that these laws concerned only mat- ters which were properly the subjects of their internal police, refused the de- mand. Two clergymen also, who had committed crimes, were about to be pun- ished. He demanded that they should be delivered up, to be tried by his eccle- siastical judges. This also the senate refused. The consequence was, that his holiness pronounced the doge and the republic excommunicated. This dispute occasioned many books to be written, in different parts of Europe, relative to the bounds of division between ecclesiastical and political power; in which many sound Catholics attempted to maintain the independence of princes and states against the papal power. See Dupin's Hist. of the Church, Cent. 17, chap. 2 and 3.
+ Rapin's Hist. (Tindal's edit.) vol. 8, p. 65.
# Ibid. vol. 8, p. 62. § Ibid.
Vor .. I .- 33
258
INTRODUCTION TO A
SEC. IX. mons having put into the rough draught of the oath, "that the 1628. pope has not power to excommunicate the king," James observ- ed, that these words might possibly offend his good Catholic subjects, and it would be sufficient to assert, that the pope's excommunication could not authorize subjects to rise against their sovereign. Whether foreigners, especially Catholics, really understood these distinctions or not, it seems that soon after- wards, in conformity to the sense of it at the court of Rome, the English Catholics generally adopted the resolution of rejecting both oaths alike. It was not to be wondered at, therefore, that lord Baltimore should on this occasion, have also pursued that line of conduct.
Lord Bal- timore forms the settling a colony in
Whether lord Baltimore personally, at the time of his visit to Virginia, explored that tract of country now denominated Mary- scheme of land, of which he afterwards procured a grant, we are not posi- tively informed. But, as the obtaining a more complete know- Maryland. ledge of the country bordering on the Chesapeake, than he could otherwise possibly have from report, must have been the princi- pal object of his visit, we cannot but suppose, that he must at this time, notwithstanding the discouragement of his pursuits by the Virginians, have made the tour by water of the principal parts of the Chesapeake bay. Although it is highly probable, that the Virginians had then been for some time in the practice of trading and bartering with the Indian natives inhabiting the shores of that bay, even to its head, at the mouth of the Sus- quehanna; and might, indeed, as it is said, have established trading houses on some of the islands toward the head of the bay, particularly perhaps on the isle of Kent; yet, if the "ancient records" of Virginia, before mentioned, and cited by a late historian of that state, be authentic to prove that this visit of lord Baltimore to Virginia, was in the year 1628, which we have here taken as granted, there are strong grounds to pre- sume, that at this time there had been no permanent settlements made, either by the Virginians or any other Europeans, within the lines and limits of any part of that country for which the lord Baltimore afterwards obtained a grant, unless a colony of Swedes and Fins, which had arrived in the Delaware, in the preceding year, (1627,) and may be supposed to have been in this year settling themselves at the mouth of Christina creek, near Wilmington, in what is now called the Delaware state, be considered to have been within the limits of his lordship's patent.
259
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
It may be proper to take some further notice here, of this at- SEC. IX. tempt at colonization by the Swedes, inasmuch as it was made 1628. the ground of a charge in the bill in chancery, filed by the Penns, proprietors of Pennsylvania, in the year 1735, against lord Bal- timore, in a dispute concerning the bounds of their provinces, that his lordship had set forth, in his petition to the king for his grant, what was not true; that is, that the country for which he prayed a grant, "was not then cultivated and planted, though in certain parts thereof, inhabited by certain barbarous people;" by means of which false suggestion, it was contended that his patent was void, at least for so much as was within their claim .*
It appears, that in the year 1626, under the reign of Gustavus Settlement Adolphus, king of Sweden, a scheme was formed in that king- of Swedes dom, for settling a colony in America. This was chiefly pro- on the De- laware. moted by the great commendation which William Ussellin, (or Useling,) an eminent Swedish merchant, gave of the country in the neighbourhood of what was then called New Netherlands, now New Jersey and New York. Gustavus was thereby in-
* From a MS. copy of the above mentioned bill in chancery, in my possession, the following clause is extracted : "and your orators further show unto your lordship, that on the eastern side of the said peninsula or tract, and also above the said peninsula or tract, within the main land or continent, and towards the sea and the estuary and river of Delaware, there was, of very early and ancient times, (the beginning whereof is not known,) a settlement and plantation, made and planted and inhabited by christians of the Swedish nation ; and the said set- tlement and plantation was afterwards held and inhabited in the year 1609, and for many years then after, by christians under the dominion of the states general, of the United Provinces." Mr. Murray, (afterwards lord Mansfield, ) who drew this bill, was certainly misinformed as to two facts exhibited in this allegation. No authentic history has ever yet undertaken to show, that the Swedes were settled on the Delaware, in "times the beginning whereof is not known," nor indeed prior to the year 1627, as is stated in Proud's Hist. of Penn- sylvania; and it is, moreover, entirely inconsistent with the early events of the History of Virginia, wherein no circumstance to that purpose is recognized. The other fact stated, seems to be in consequence thereof, evidently groundless, to wit : that the Dutch had "afterwards, in the year 1609, held and inhabited the said settlement of the Swedes." Now it seems to be agreed on all sides, that captain Hudson did not make his voyage of discovery, under the authority of the Dutch, until the year 1609; and it was not until the next year, (1610,) that the Dutch colony was sent out, which settled on Manhattan (now New York) island. It would necessarily take some years for them to have extended their possessions and habitations to the Delaware. Accordingly, the historian of Pennsylvania, (Proud,) makes the first settlement of the Dutch on the Delaware, to have been in the year 1623, " near Glocester, in New Jersey;" which apparently indicates, that their first exploring excursions to the Delaware were from Manhattan across the Jersies ; and this was, as Proud asserts, "before any of the Swedes came into America." See Proud's History of Pennsylvania, vol. 1, p. 110.
of a colony
260
INTRODUCTION TO A
SEC. IX. duced to issue a proclamation, exhorting his subjects to contri- 1628. bute to a company associated for the settlement of a colony in that country. Considerable sums were raised by contribution; and in the next year, (1627,) a number of Swedes and Fins came over to America. They first landed at Cape Inlopen, the interior cape of Delaware bay,* which, from its pleasant appearance to them, they named Paradise-point. They are said to have pur- chased of some Indians, the land from Cape Inlopen to the falls of Delaware, on both sides of the river, which they called New Swedeland stream; and made presents to the Indian chiefs, to ob- tain peaceable possession of the land so purchased: with whom they appear to have lived in much amity;} but they were fre- quently disturbed by the Dutch settled at Manhattan, now New York, who, extending their territories, which they called New Netherlands, so as to include the western shores of the Dela- ware, built a fort in the year 1630, on a small creek near Cape Inlopen or James, calling it Hoarkill, since called Lewis town.} While we are upon this subject, it may not be improper to ob- serve further, that it seems to be agreed by historians, that in the succeeding year, (1631,) the Swedes erected a fort on the west side of Delaware, at a place near Wilmington, upon the river or creek, which still, from the name of the fort, is called Christina, or commonly Christeen,§ where they had laid out a town, and made their first settlement.
* A note is here made by Mr. Proud, (in his Hist. of Pennsylvania, vol. 1, p. 111,) as follows : " this cape is frequently confounded with cape Hinlopen, the exterior, or the False Cape, in Fenwick's island, being written in the same man- ner, and sometimes Henlopen ; said to be a Swedish word, signifying entering in. It was also formerly, sometimes called Cape Cornelius, and afterwards by Wil- liam Penn, Cape James." From this it would appear, that the aspirate letter H, in the Swedish language, prefixed to the word Inlopen, altered the sense of it, from the interior to the exterior cape, the latter of which was at Fenwick's island.
t Smith, in his Hist. of New Jersey, says, it is uncertain whether they bought the land of those natives, who could properly convey it. Holmes's Annals, vol. 1, p. 242.
# The building of this fort at Lewis town, is differently related in Holmes's Annals, vol. 1, p. 259, under the year 1630. He says, " the Dutch continuing their pretensions to the land settled by the Swedes, one of the Swedes built a fort (this year) within the Capes of Delaware, "at a place called Hoarkill;" for which he cites Smith's Hist. of New Jersey, 22. So that from him it would seem, that the fort above mentioned was built by the Swedes, and not the Dutch, as it is stated in Proud's Hist. of Pennsylvania, vol. 1, p. 113; from whence what is said above in the text here, is taken.
§ This is sometimes corruptly spelt Christiana, but as the name of Gustavus's mother was Christina, and he had a daughter, born in 1626, called Christina, who succeeded him as queen of Sweden, and was much celebrated in history, it is probable that Christina is the true name of the fort and creek.
261
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
Supposing this settlement of the Swedes at Christina, in the SEC. IX. year 1631, to have been the first permanent settlement made by 1628. them on the Delaware, as it would appear to be, although tem- porary habitations might have been created by them before that time at Hoarkill, or other places, for the purposes of traffic with the natives, it goes very far to justify the suggestion of lord Bal- timore before mentioned, that the territories for which he prayed a grant, were "hitherto unsettled ; which receives further confir- mation by the possibility of his being ignorant of the first traf- ficking voying of the Swedes to the Delaware, in the year 1627, which was but the year preceding that of his visit to Virginia. But allowing that he had full knowledge of the arrival of the Swedes in the Delaware, in the year 1627, it was natural for him to have considered them only as interlopers, intruding into the British dominions ;* and therefore, in his representation to his majesty, not entitled to be considered as persons, whose set- tlements could obstruct his grant. The Dutch, whatever their subsequent claims might have been, had then certainly made no
* That all other nations who attempted to make settlements in any part of North America, especially in those parts of it lying between the colonies of Vir- ginia and New England, were considered by the English at this time as intru- ders within their dominions, is evident not only from the preceding expedition of captain Argall, against the French and Dutch as before mentioned, but from their subsequent contest with the Dutch about their settlement at Manhattan. This claim of theirs was founded on the right of prior discovery by Sebastian Cabot; to demonstrate which, a small tract or essay was drawn up by some anonymous writer, most probably towards the end of the Dutch war in 1654, but published in Thurloe's State Papers, under the year 1656; (see it in Haz- ard's Collections, vol. 1, p. 602,) entitled " A Brief Narration of the English Rights to the Northern parts of America ;" in which the author, after some la- boured reasoning, and metaphysical distinction between general and particular rights, concludes, " that as the general and particular rights of the English to those northern parts of America, are so plainly and perspicuously laid down, so upon a due examination it will be found, that the Dutch have no right at all, either in the general or particular, but have intruded into and anticipated the Eng- lish in their rights." Agreeably to this right of the English, preparations were made by the New Englanders, in 1654, for conquering the Dutch settlement at Manhattan ; but Oliver, desirous that the two sister republics, the English and Dutch, should be well with each other, clapped up a sudden peace in April, 1654, which put an end to the hostile intentions of New England, and left the Dutch for some years in quiet possession of New Netherlands. In the next year, (1655,) the Dutch made a conquest of all the Swedish settlements on the Delaware. Smith's Hist. of New York, 18, 19: but Oliver, charmed with the fine character of Charles X. king of Sweden, made a treaty with him in the year 1656, in which he promised to grant such of his majesty's Swedish sub- jects as should be recommended by him, " special license" to trade in America. See Hazard's Collections, vol. 1, p. 605, and Hume's Hist. ch. 61.
-
262
INTRODUCTION TO A
SEC. IX. permanent settlements within the limits of his grant. With re-
1628.
gard to the extent of his patent to the fortieth degree of latitude,
(inclusive,) it is to be observed, that the latitudes of the differ- ent places of such a new country, must have been subject to much error, being often taken and so set down by unskilful per-
these two proprietors, (the Penns and lord Baltimore,) before sons ; and, as lord Hardwicke observed, in the great case of
referred to, it is a fact, that latitudes were then fixed much lower than they have been since found to be by more accurate obser- vations. A mistake of the latitude, in extending his northern bounds, might therefore have been very unintentionally made .*
more's scheme.
The Virgi- As both the second and third charters of Virginia, before nians op- pose the mentioned, unquestionably comprehended the whole of the coun- ford Balti- try afterwards called Maryland, it was to be expected that the colonists of Virginia, would make some objections to any grant, whereby a part of their territory should be lopped off from them and transferred to others. But, although some apprehensions on this ground of supposed injury to them in their rights, were artfully raised among them, so as to induce them in a few years afterwards, to prefer a petition to the king and council, against any grant of their territory to lord Baltimore, as will hereafter be seen in its proper place; yet it appears, that they had too much discernment, not to perceive, on more mature reflection, that a colony planted so near to them as that of Maryland, so far from being injurious, would be highly beneficial to them, particularly in contributing to their greater security from the hostile invasions of the savages. And when we reflect upon the enormous ex- tent of those territories included within the lines of their char- ters, to wit: "from the point of land called Cape or Point Comfort, along the sea-coast to the northward, two hundred miles, and in equal distance to the southward, and from sea to sea, west and northwest;" that is, from the Atlantic to the Paci- fic Ocean, it leaves the question of policy, and indeed of right and justice, easily to be decided at this day. We may here further observe, that inasmuch as these charters of Virginia had been all annulled by the judgment of the court of king's bench, in the year 1624, (whether rightfully or not, could not be ques- tioned but in a legal manner, by writ of error or appeal to a su- perior tribunal,) all political right of the colonists in Virginia to any territory whatever, except to the particular tracts which each
* See note (H) at the end of this volume, before referred to,
263
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
individual colonist occupied, must have been taken away from SEC. IX. them by such judgment until reversed. It seems, therefore, 1628. with regard to the colonists in Virginia, in a corporate capacity, to have been an act perfectly justifiable in lord Baltimore to ap- ply for, as well as lawful for the king to grant, all that territory included within the lines of his patent.
But the most formidable objection raised against his grant, seems to have been founded on a circumstance, apparently im- material to the public, however it might interfere with the pri- vate rights of some individuals. It has been alleged, on a va- riety of occasions, that settlements had been established by the Virginians, under the authority of William Clayborne, within the country afterwards denominated Maryland, prior to the date of his lordship's charter of grant for the same,* and that as it was suggested therein, that the country was hitherto unsettled, " hactenus inculta," his grant became thereby void. But it seems to be extraordinary, that although history recognizes this objec- tion as being frequently made, yet it furnishes no authentic proof of the fact on which it is founded. If lord Baltimore's visit to Virginia was in the year 1628, as we have supposed on the au- thority of the History of Virginia, before cited,; there are some established facts in history, which seem to indicate very strong- ly, that at the time of his visit to Virginia, whatever there were at the time of his grant, no such settlements had been made. Temporary habitations, for the purposes of traffic with the na- tives, might have been before that time erected, both on the isle of Kent and at the mouth of the Susquehanah, as contended ; but these were certainly not such settlements as could preclude the right of the crown to grant, or the justice and policy of planting in that country a numerous colony. It may be proper, however, to investigate the claim of William Clayborne a little more minutely.
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.