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 57
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
* At the foot of this proclamation, as on the record, is the following note :- "Published and proclaimed by the sheriff at the Fort of St. Mary's, the 2d of March,1641 .- The like proclamation was sent to Kent, 13th March."-See "As- sembly Proceedings from 1637 to 1658," p. 170.
+ In the declaration of both houses of the English parliament, they state the number of protestants massacred to have been 154,000. (See Rapin's Hist. Tin- dal's edit. vol. 10, p. 235;) but Hume, (in his Hist. ch. lv.) says, that "by the most moderate, and probably the most reasonable account, they are made to amount to 40,000."
1642.
192
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. ulent Papists and rigid Puritans;"* and even in the midst of the III. insurrection, Sir Phelim O'Neal, a descendant of one of their 1642. aboriginal kings or cheiftains, and leader of the Ulster insur- gents, "declared that he acted by authority of the English par- liament."t The conduct of the Irish Catholics could be im- puted only to their hopes of re-establishing the Catholic religion on the ruins of the English church and state.
It seems extraordinary, however, that, amidst all this confu- sion in both Ireland and England, history does not present us with the slightest mention of the conduct of our lord proprieta- ry-Cecelius, lord Baltimore. Being an Irish peer, and taking his title from a place called "Baltimore, in the county of Long- ford,"# one of those in which the insurrection first broke out, and, being also of the Catholic religion as his father had been, it was to be expected, that a man of his rank would have ap- peared in some character amidst the bustle of the times. It is probable, however, that being a prudent and cautious man and bound by gratitude to the king for uncommon favours to his fa- ther and himself, he now remained quiet in England as a private gentleman, unconnected with the excesses of either the Catho- lics in Ireland or the Puritans in England. This is rendered more probable, by the circumstance of his having the young earl of Ormond as his proxy in the session of the Irish parliament of 1634,§ a nobleman who was one of the sincerest friends king Charles had then in Ireland, and alike opposed to popery and puritanism. It may be added, that lord Baltimore might have been now particularly affected by the insurrection in the county of Longford, the more immediate or particular cause of which is said to have been the peculiar injuries sustained by the native Irish of that county by the plantations established there by king James, || and which plantations, might have been part of the es- tates of lord Baltimore. Further additional causes for lord Bal- timore's neutrality during the civil war might be inferred from the general conduct of the English Roman Catholics at that time as to the king's cause. The popish lords in England had about
* Leland's Hist. of Ireland, vol. iii. p. 62.
+ Ibid, p. 119.
į There is a town called Baltimore, in the county of Corke, in Ireland; but in Beatson's Political Index, vol. iii. p. 147, his title is stated, as above,-" Baron Baltimore of Baltimore, in the county of Longford."
§ Leland's Hist. of Ireland, vol. iii. p. 19.
| Leland's Hist. of Ireland, vol. iii. p. 117.
193
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
this time, (1642,) withdrawn themselves from the English house CHAPT. of peers. Although this was said to have been done, to prevent III. "aspersions upon the votes of that house,"* yet it might have 1642. been in part the result of their indifference at least, if not hos- tility to the king's cause. There is some evidence, however, of their hostility thereto. It is assigned by a cotemporary and venerable historian,t as a probable reason, why so many papists espoused the cause of the Puritans and entered into the parlia- ment's army, that the English Catholics fully expected, that the Puritans, if they succeeded, would allow "liberty of conscience for all religions." A fatal delusion ! From the same authority we learn also, that the French ambassador, at that time in En- gland, used his utmost endeavours to persuade the English Catho- lics, not to join the king's cause.# We are further informed also, that at the battle of Edge-hill, which occurred this year, on the 23d of October, (1642) several papists were taken prisoners by the king's army, and some popish priests found among the slain.§ To this general conduct of the English Catholics there were, however, some exceptions; one of which deserves to be here particularly mentioned, inasmuch as it tends to elucidate with some probability the political character and conduct of our lord proprietary at this period of time. Cecilius, lord Baltimore, had married lady Ann Arundel, the daughter of Thomas Lord Arun- del of Wardour. This ancient family, (the Arundels,) numer- ous and wealthy in the west of England, at the time we are now treating of, were descendants from Roger de Arundel, who came over to England with William the Conqueror, (anno 1066,) and who was rewarded by him for his services with twenty-eight manors in Somersetshire after the conquest. Notwithstanding the reformation in England, the family appears to have continu- ed of the Roman Catholic religion, though probably at times co- vertly and secretly so; and, as James the first always professed to bestow his honours indiscriminately upon any of his subjects, who deserved them, without regard to their religion, the eldest branch of the Arundel family, Thomas above mentioned, was created by him, in the year 1605, baron Arundel of Wardour in Wiltshire. Accordingly, as in gratitude they ought, the whole family appear to have been faithful and zealous in behalf of king Charles through
* Rapin's Hist. Eng. (Tindal's edit.) vol. x. p. 85.
t Lord Clarendon, in his Hist. (folio edit.) p. 250.
Į Ibid, p. 367.
§ Rapin's Hist. England, Tindal's edit, vol. x. p. 116. VOL. II .- 25
194
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. the whole of his distresses; and lord Arundel of Wardour, whom III. we may suppose to have been either Thomas the first lord Arun- 1642. del above mentioned, or his eldest son and heir, most probably the latter, is stated to have been severely wounded at the battle of Lansdown in the service of the king in the year 1643. Ano- ther branch of the same family, Richard Arundel of Trerise in Cornwall, who with his aged father, eighty years of age, in the year 1646, so nobly defended Pendennis castle, near Falmouth, in Cornwall, the last refuge of royalty in the first Charles's reign, was, by the second Charles, on his restoration, created also ba- ron Arundel of Trerise in Cornwall. The old gentleman, with his four sons, two of whom were killed in battle, had all em- barked early in the contest in behalf of their sovereign's cause. As their conduct was an exception to the general demeanor of the English Roman Catholics, so their reward on Charles's re- turn was an exception to his well known general ingratitude to his best friends. That the Arundel family constantly afterwards continued of the Roman Catholic religion, may be inferred from the circumstance, that Henry, lord Arundel of Wardour, whom we may suppose to have been the son of Thomas above men- tioned, was one of the popish lords, who were sent to the tower, at the time of what is called the popish plot in the reign of Charles the second in the year 1678. From all these circumstances it may be inferred, that, although lady Ann, (afterwards lady Bal- timore,) is said to have died in the year 1639, yet the influence of the Arundel family might have continued to prevail with lord Baltimore, so as to induce him, if not to take part in behalf of the king, yet at least to remain neutral and quiet during the civil war.
Their pro- ceedings.
On the day appointed, the twenty-first of March, the assem- bly met; forty-eight members, an unusual number, being pre- sent; six of whom had proxies for thirty more; and two gen- tlemen,-Mr. Lodington and Mr. Thompson,-"were admitted for the proxies of all the inhabitants of Kent." From these circumstances, it would seem, that they did not assemble as the delegates or representatives of the people chosen by the freemen of each hundred of the province, as at the former session, but as an aggregate assembly of all the freemen of the province, in their own individual rights, except the freemen of the isle of Kent, and those, who, instead of attending themselves, consti- tuted some other freeman, who did attend, as their proxy.
3
195
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
The first business, which appears to have occupied the atten- CHAPT. tion of the house, bespeaks the political sentiments of the peo- III. ple of the province; and demonstrates, that the fanaticism of 1642. politics, as well as that of religion, will penetrate even the seclu- sion of a wilderness. Until the passing of the statute of 16 Car. 1, ch. 7, (in May, 1641,) it had ever been deemed the un- doubted prerogative of the king to prorogue or dissolve his par- liament, whenever it appeared to him proper so to do. Among many other lawless exertions of the royal prerogative, Charles had undoubtedly exercised this branch of it in a most unjustifia- ble manner, particularly in the dissolution of the two preceding parliaments prior to the one now in session. The present par- liament now sitting, denominated the long parliament, having gained a complete ascendancy over the power of the crown, and become enabled to dictate to the king whatever statutes they thought proper to be enacted for the security of the rights of the people and the privileges of parliament, among others which they prescribed to him, in the first year of their session, pro- cured his assent to the statute just above mentioned, entitled, "an act to prevent inconveniences by the untimely adjournment of parliaments." By this statute the king renounced his power of either proroguing or dissolving the parliament then sitting, so that they hereby became a permanent body, subject only to their own adjournment, prorogation, or dissolution ; and remained so until Cromwell, with a file of musqueteers, in the year 1653, marched them out of the house. A year had not quite elapsed after the passage of the statute, (although sufficient time inter- vened for the spirit, which dictated it, to cross the Atlantic,) before our colonists, in their little parliament assembled, under- took to imitate the conduct of their great prototype-the legis- lature of the mother country ; though as it appears to us at this day, without any of those provocations, which the exercise of the royal power in England had too unhappily afforded. Our assembly accordingly, on the first day of the session, prior to any other business, as it appears, made the following resolution, as it is entered on the journal of the house :- " It was declared by the house, that the house of assembly may not be adjourn- ed or prorogued but by and with the consent of the house."- It will be recollected, that the last session of assembly had been closed by prorogation by the lieutenant general, but no circum- stance appears to have attended that fact, from which we could
196
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. even infer any inconvenience to the people or cause of dissatis- III. faction. It was an exercise of the lord proprietary's prerogative, 1642. which had been used and practised at every preceding session of assembly of the province. Nay indeed, at the first session, of which any record remains, (in 1637-8,) the house appears to have been even "adjourned" from day to day by the "president," that is, by the governor or lieutenant general, who acted as speaker or president of the house .* It may not, perhaps, be useless to mention, that according to the law of parliament in England, (which is, indeed, a part of the common law of England,) the difference between an adjournment and a prorogation of parlia- ment is,-that "a prorogation is the continuance of the parlia- ment from one session to another," but "an adjournment is a con- tinuation of the session from day to day." The former is done by the royal authority, the latter by the authority of each house separately every day, though sometimes also for a fortnight or a month together.t Although this prerogative of prorogation was not granted to the lord proprietary by his charter in express words, yet such power may be fairly inferred from the tenor of that clause therein, which confers on him legislative powers .- "Know ye, that we do grant unto the said now baron and to his heirs, for the good and happy government of the said province, free, full, and absolute power, by the tenor of these presents, to ordain, make, and enact laws, according to their sound discre- tions, of and with the advice, assent, and approbation of the freemen of the same province, or of the greater part of them, or of their delegates or deputies, whom we will shall be called to- gether for the framing of laws, when, and as often as need shall require, by the aforesaid now baron of Baltimore and his heirs, and in the form which shall seem best to him or them."-"So nevertheless, that the laws aforesaid be consonant to reason, and be not repugnant or contrary, but, (so far as conveniently may be,) agreeable to the laws, statutes, customs, and rights of this our kingdom of England."-Now, although the form of calling the freemen together to make laws is hereby left to the discretion of the lord proprietary and those freemen, yet, as the saving clause, at the end of the section, provides, that those laws shall be consonant to the laws of England, it is no strained construc- tion, to say, that even the form of making those laws, that is,
* See the proceedings of the session of 1637-8, stated before, in p. 59 and 63. : + 1 Bl. Com. 186.
197
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
of adjourning, proroguing, or dissolving such assembly of the CHAPT. freemen, shall be also consonant to the laws, &c. of England. III. In short, that English parliamentary usage, or the law of parlia- 1642. ment, shall be adopted by the provincial legislature. It cannot be too often repeated, that from this close imitation of the Eng- lish constitution, throughout all the other provincial governments of America, as well as Maryland, have resulted all these free po- litical institutions, of which the United States can now boast.
The hostilities, which still existed between our colonists and the Indians, occasioned some proceedings in the assembly rela- tive thereto. "A bill for the expedition against the Indians," was, on the second day of this session, introduced into the house, though it does not appear to have passed into a law during this session. Mention of it, however, is made on the journal in the following words :- " Then was read the bill for the expedi- tion against the Indians, and voted by the greater part, that it was not to be left entrusted to the discretion of the lieutenant general and council."-Why this jealousy was entertained against the governor and council, is not to be satisfactorily accounted for. Causes for it might have existed, of which our scanty re- cords of these times afford no explanation. In the absence of any evidence of other causes, it is not improper to suggest, that the dispute, which then prevailed between the king and parlia- ment, relative to the right of commanding the militia, was at the bottom of this vote of the assembly. This subject will occur more fully hereafter.
Religious discord also,-that horrible hydra with its hundred Religious heads,-seems to have now first reared its crest within the pro- dissensions vince. The petty bickerings between Cornwaleys's servants, before mentioned, could wear no serious aspect. The English Catholics might have still indulged themselves with the pleasing vision of having carved out, in the forests of Maryland, a happy asylum for all the persecuted of their sect. But, as it is proba- ble, that they had not the power of excluding the settlement of Protestants within their colony, it being subject to the mother country, they soon found themselves liable to the intrusions and disturbances of heretic adventurers from the contiguous pro- vinces as well as Europe.
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 Berkeley, as governor of that province,
198
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. III. (which was in 1639,) several laws had been made against the Puritans, "though there were as yet none amongst them ;" but by 1642. way of anticipation,-"to prevent the infection from reaching the country;"* and so rigorous were these laws, as well perhaps in their execution as their tenor, that "none but conformists," (it is said,) "in the strictest and most absolute sense, were permitted to reside in the colony."t Some few few Puritans, however, must have se- cretly lurked in that province at this time ; for, in the year 1641, as we are informed, Mr. Bennet, (then of Virginia, and without doubt, a zealot of the puritanic sect of congregationalists,) "went to Boston, in New England, to desire, in the name of some other gentlemen of Virginia, that two or three ministers might be sent to them."§ To this purpose Mr. Bennet carried with him letters from several pious people in Virginia," to the minis- ters of New England, earnestly soliciting a supply of faithful ministers. At a lecture in Boston three ministers were agreed on, for the solicited mission. | They were sent in the present year, (1642,) with letters of recommendation from the governor of Massachusetts to the governor and council of Virginia. Al- though they were kindly entertained by private persons, as it is said, probably by those who sent for them, yet their residence in Virginia was short, for they returned the next summer. In this same year, in consequence most probably of these movements of the Puritans, the assembly of that province passed an act to prevent dissenting ministers from preaching and propagating their doctrines in that colony.™ In virtue of this law, as it
* Beverly's Hist. of Virg. p. 51 .- Burk's Hist. of Virg. vol. 2, p. 75.
t Burk's Hist. of Virg. vol. 2, p. 67 ;- who exemplifies this in the case of one Stephen Reck, who, about this time, (1642,) was set in the pillory two hours with a label on his back expressing his offence, fined £50, and imprisoned du- ring pleasure,-for saying, his majesty was at confession with the lord Canter- bury.
# This is probably the same Mr. Richard Bennet, who subsequently, as we shall see, was one of the commissioners, appointed by the council of state in England, in the year 1651, " to reduce all the plantations within the bay of Chesapeake to their due obedience to the parliament of the commonwealth of England ;"-which they accordingly executed in 1652 ; and whose lineal de- scendant in Maryland became afterwards the wealthiest subject, as it is said, in his Britannic majesty's dominions in America.
§ Oldmixon's Brit. Emp. in Amer. vol. 1 p. 300.
|| One of these ministers was a Mr. William Thompson, a native of England, and originally among the numerous primitive Puritans of Lancashire. He was the first minister of Braintree in Massachusetts, and was now sent to Virginia, as his biographer expresses it,-" to carry the gospel to the ignorant." Allen's Biog. Dict. art. Thompson.
T Beverly's Hist. of Virg. p. 229. Oldmixon's Brit. Emp. in Amer. vol. 1, p. 301.
199
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
would appear, the governor and council of Virginia issued an CHAPT. order, that all such persons, as would not conform to the disci- III. pline of the church of England, should depart the country by a 1642. certain day .* Although this mission "to convert the ungodly Virginians,"{ or, as expressed by our own annalist, " this pious design, was unhappily frustrated," and these ministers were obliged to depart from Virginia, in pursuance of the before men- tioned order ; yet a congregational church, it is alleged, was now founded by them in Virginia, which, in the course of a few years, exceeded one hundred members ; of which Mr. Durand was an elder,§ whom also we shall shortly see acting as a conspicuous character in Maryland. From this church emanated that society of fanatics, who, after being driven from Virginia, and permitted to settle themselves at Providence, now called Annapolis, in Maryland, ungratefully rewarded their benefactors, by taking the reins of government out of their hands, and dispossessing the lord proprietary of his province.
Whether the few Protestants, who had been, prior to this, settled at St. Mary's with the Catholics, were those of the Church of England or Puritans, does not clearly appear. From all con- comitant circumstances attending the apparently trifling occur- rence, which we are now about to state, it would seem, that they were of the late established Church of England. The in- cident is thus mentioned on the journal of the house :-
"22d of March,-in the afternoon .- Then was a petition presented by David Wickliff in the name of the Protestant Ca- tholics|| of Maryland, and respited till the next morning.
* Oldmixon's Brit. Emp. in Amer. vol. 1, p. 300. Holmes's Annals, vol. 1, p. 321.
t Chalmers's Annals, p. 121.
į Holmes's Annals, vol. 1, p. 321.
§ Ibid, p. 346.
|| This expression is so in the record .- It is difficult to ascertain precisely, what was here meant by annexing the term-"Catholics" to that of "Protest- ants."-Leland, in his Hist. of Ireland, (vol. III. p. 123,) mentions, that "the Irish Catholics of those days affected to consider the word Protestant, as a de- signation peculiar to the members of the established Church" of England. The Catholics of Maryland might possibly here use this term in the same sense .- As to the term "Catholic," although it appears, according to modern usage, re- pugnant to that of "Protestant," yet in its original meaning, it was by no means contradictory thereto. The Greek term-Katholikos -- signifying total or univer- sal, was first applied by the primitive Greek fathers to the whole christian church, in contradistinction to the separate and distinct christian churches set up in different parts of christendom. This term continued to be applied to the church by the Latin fathers as well as the Greek, in their writings as well as
200
HISTORY OF MARYLAND.
CHAPT. III. "23d of March. The petition of the Protestants was read, complaining against Mr. Thomas Gerard for taking away the 1642. key of the chapel, and carrying away the books* out of the chap- el, and such proceedings desired against him for it, as to jus- tice appertaineth .- Mr. Gerard being charged to make answer; the house, upon hearing of the prosecutors and his defence, found that Mr. Gerard was guilty of a misdemeanor, and that he should bring the books and key taken away to the place where he had them, and relinquish all title to them or the house, and should pay for a fine 500 lb. tobacco towards the maintenance of the first minister as should arrive."
The paragraph immediately following this on the journal seems to denote, that the members considered this as a question of considerable delicacy .- " All that had proxies expressed them- selves, that they voted in their own behalfs, except John Wor- thy who voted for all his voices."
As Mr. Gerard must have been a man of considerable note at this time in the province, and probably a zealous Roman Catho- lic, being the lord or owner of St. Clement's manor, which comprehended very nearly the whole of St. Clement's hundred in St. Mary's county, this exaggerated fine upon him demon- strates, that the Protestants, supposing them to be of the Church of England only, must have possessed, at this early period of the settlement of the province, a very great influence therein, as they naturally, indeed, might be supposed to have from the su-
otherwise, but with some occasional variations in its sense and meaning ; such as, that the church was Catholic, because, it prescribed a performance of all the evangelical commands, to all persons, of all conditions ; and also from the uni- versality of grace, which it held out to all men .- (See this subject learnedly explained by bishop Pearson in his "Exposition of the Apostles' Creed :- a work esteemed by the English divines, as a classic in the science of divinity.) In these senses the word "Catholic" was continued to be used by the Roman Catholic Church ; and, on the event of the reformation, became, in common usage, exclusively appropriated to them. But the Church of England, continu- ing the use of the Athanasian, as well as the Apostles' creeds, have put in their claim also to the same title; and accordingly apply it to their church, when in the former creed they use the terms-"Catholic faith" and "Catholic religion." So in the latter creed,-when they repeat the words,-" I believe in the Holy Catholic Church."-This seems to be some proof, that the words,- " Protestant Catholics," in the journal of the house of assembly, as above mentioned, meant exclusively the Church of England-Protestants.
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.