The history of Maryland : from its first settlement, in 1633, to the restoration, in 1660 ; with a copious introduction, and notes and illustrations, Part 58

Author: Bozman, John Leeds, 1757-1823
Publication date: 1837
Publisher: Baltimore : J. Lucas & E.K. Deaver
Number of Pages: 1062

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 58

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).

* This circumstance corroborates the supposition, that the "Protesants," who had presented this petition, were those of the Church of England, as the Puri- tans were not in the habit of using "books" in their church service. The "books," here mentioned, were, most probably, those of the Church of England service, remaining as usual, on the reading-desk of the pulpit.

201

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

premacy of the mother country. But we may here take occa- CHAPT. sion to observe, from the complexion of some proceedings of III. 1642. the English parliament, which had taken place prior to this ' period, that a very considerable number, if not a majority, of the clergymen of the Church of England in the mother country, had by this time conformed to the discipline of the Puritans. In the preceding year, (in September, 1641,) a proposition had been made in the house of commons, relative to the book of common prayer, used by the established church. "In regard," (they said,) "many things in it gave offence, at least umbrage, to tender consciences, that there might be liberty to disuse it."* Although this proposition did not at this time succeed, on ac- count of the opposition of the house of lords, who voted an or- der for the due performance of divine service without any alte- ration, as appointed by acts of parliament, yet (as observed by Rapin,t) "the commons absolutely refused to join in the publi- cation of this order, thinking it unseasonable at such a juncture to press the rigorous observance of the laws concerning divine service, when a great part of the people called for a reforma- tion." The king also, in the December following, had thought it proper to issue his proclamation to enforce the performance of divine service according to the law and statutes of the realm; but this untimely measure was deemed offensive to the commons.} The right of the bishops to vote in the house of lords, also had been taken away by statute; and the commons had voted, (and their votes had become laws,) that all deans, chapters, and can- ons should be abolished.

In conjunction with these circumstances attending the state of the church in England, an incident is mentioned in the Histo- ry of Massachusetts, which seems to indicate, that notwith- standing the ruling party in the house of commons in England had failed in their attempt at a complete abolition of the estab- lished church by a statute for that purpose, as just mentioned, yet the ministers of the Puritan sects, (comprehending the Presbyterians as well as independents,) appear to have now gained an influence throughout the kingdom superior to those professing the established church.§ An assembly of divines, it

* Lord Clarendon's Hist. (folio edit.) p. 96. i

+ Rapin's Hist. (Tindal's edit.) vol. 9, p. 325.

# Rapin's Hist. ibid. p. 403.

§ It is remarked in the king's answer to the nineteen propositions of the par- liament, both dated in June, 1642, that "conventicles had began to swarm in the VOL. II .- 26

202

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. is said, were convened this year, (1642,) at Westminster, to III. consider and advise about the settling of church government .*

1642. Several lords of the upper house, and about thirty members of the house of commons, with some ministers in England who were for the independency of churches, dispatched a formal written invitation to Mr. Cotton of Boston, Mr. Hooker of Hartford, and Mr. Davenport of New Haven, (all of New Eng- land,) to ask their assistance in that synod. Two of these New England ministers thought, that "it was a clear call of God;" but the other "not liking the business, and thinking it was not a sufficient call to go a thousand leagues to confer about matters of church government," it was delayed, and the invitation final- ly declined.t Jealousy of the Presbyterians, who composed at this time a principal part of those denominated in England, Puritans, was most probably the true cause of the final refusal of the New England ministers to join the assembly in England.

From the preceding statement, relative to religious parties, as they existed at this time both in the mother country and the co- lonies, we may easily perceive, that the Roman Catholics of Maryland must have had a very difficult line of conduct to pur- sue. They had ample cause to dread the growing power of the Puritans ; but the interests, as well as personal feelings, perhaps of the lord proprietary, would seem to have dictated his adhe- rence to the royal cause. Those, who administered the affairs of his province, not having as yet much of the puritanic leaven mixed among them, would also feel disposed to act accordingly. Yet a mistaken policy had, it seems, suggested to the English and Irish Catholics, to pay court to the Puritans, by joining in their wishes for the destruction of the established church. In avoid- ing Scylla they fell upon Charybdis. On the hidden and treach- erous shoals of Puritanism, their fortunes were wrecked.

Besides the few acts of assembly, passed at this session, (which will be presently mentioned,) one other measure appears

kingdom within these nineteen months."-(Rapin's Hist. Tindal's edit. vol. 10, p. 87.)-This computation would bring the date of the first perceptible com- mencement of the downfall of the church to the latter end of the year 1640.

* See this assembly of divines at Westminster characterised by lord Claren- don in his Hist. (folio edit.) p. 174 .- "Some of them infamous in their lives and conversations ; and most of them of very mean parts in learning, if not of scan- dalous ignorance ; and of no other reputation, than of malice to the Church of England."

+ +Hutchinson's Hist. of Massachusetts, vol. 1, p. 111 .- Holmes's Annals, vol. 1, p. 321.

203

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

on the journal; which, although it be apparently of a trifling CHAPT. nature, yet the mention of it serves to develope the early domes- III. tic policy, as well as the state of the useful arts, at this time, in 1642. our infant colony .- "Then was read a bill to prohibit the expor- tation of deer skins, to the end they might be dressed in the country, but, because the leather dresser could not undertake to take all the deer skins of the country, till he had provision of tallow, &c., out of England, it was respited till next assembly."

Having finished the business of the session, the house appear to have felt an anxiety to provide against any unwillingness which the governor might possibly entertain, to convene them again within any short period. They, therefore, "appointed," that "another assembly was to begin on the first of June next." This was entirely consonant to their former resolution, on the first day of the session,-that the adjournment or prorogation of the house should not be without their own consent. They do not appear, however, to have entirely taken away the right of the governor to dissolve the house; for, the last entry on the journal of this session is,-"Then the lieutenant general dis- solved the house."-But it is to be supposed, that this exercise of the power of dissolution by the governor, was also, as well as that of prorogation, not to be "without the consent of the house."*

Three acts of assembly only were passed during this short The acts session. The first, which was entitled, "an act for the put- this ses- ting in force of some laws for the government of the pro- sion. vince," related to some branches of the act of 1638, ch. 2, be- fore mentioned; to wit, so much of that act as concerned the rights of the lord proprietary, and people's liberties,-the power of judicature in civil and criminal causes,-the captain of the military band, -officers' fees,-the settling the house of assembly, }-the payment of debts among all creditors by equal

* For all proceedings of this session of assembly, as above mentioned, see the record book, in the council chamber, entitled, "Assembly Proceedings from 1637 to 1658," p. 166.

t By the 14th section of the act referred to, (1633, ch. 2,)-" The lieutenant general and secretary, (or his deputy,) and gentlemen summoned by special writ, and one or two burgesses out of every hundred, (at the choice of the free- men,) at any time hereafter assembled, shall be judged a general assembly." So that by the present recognition of this clause in the former act, it would ap- pear, that the next assembly was not to consist, as at the present one, of a con- vention of all the freemen of the province, but according to the constitution as before settled and adopted at the two sessions preceding this last one.

_ passed at

204

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. partitions,-and the custom of tobacco. These branches, of III. that act of 1638, were hereby revived and continued until the 1642. end of the next assembly .*

The next act of this session was entitled, "an act for granting one subsidy." The motives to this act are thus set forth in the preamble .- " The freemen of this province out of their desire to return his lordship some testimony of their gratitude for his lord- ship's great charge and solicitude in maintaining the govern- ment, and protecting the inhabitants in their persons, rights, and liberties, and to contribute some support towards it, so far as the young and poor estate of the colony will yet bear, do desire that it may be enacted, &c." The subsidy granted was 15 lb. of tobacco per poll, for every inhabitant of the province, male and female, children under the age of twelve years except- ed, to be paid according to the lists or returns made by the seve- ral housekeepers, between the 25th of July and 25th of August next, under the penalty of 30lb. of tobacco for every taxable con- cealed. The expenditures of lord Baltimore, in the settlement of his province, from its first colonization to the present period, must have been very considerable, and for which he could not, in the nature of things, have as yet received from the colony any thing like a remuneration. The colonists were, therefore, most probably actuated, in granting this subsidy to the lord proprie- tary, by a mere honest sense of justice.t

The other act of this session, entitled, "an act against fugi- tives," was only a re-enactment of an act, with the same title and the same words, passed at the last session, and herein be- fore noticed. This mode of legislating appears to have been much in use in the early sessions of the provincial legislature. Instead of reviving or continuing a former act, it was common to re-enact the same over again with the same title and in the

* It is mentioned in this act of 1641-2, ch. 4, that "the next assembly was to begin on the 12th of November ensuing, unless some assembly should be called sooner."-But as just stated above, it had been "appointed, that another assembly was to begin on the first of June next."-These contradictions indicate the perturbed and unsettled state of the government of the ce at this time.

t Chalmers, in his annals, (ch. IX. p. 208,) makes the following remarks upon this act of assembly .- "The transportation of people and necessary stores and provisions, during the two first years, cost lord Baltimore upwards of forty thou- sand pounds ; which, if estimated according to the then value of money, and the price of all things, must be allowed to have been a considerable sum. The freemen of the province thought so, when they granted him this subsidy. And this donation does equal honour to both, because it shews that the one had mer- ited ; that the others were grateful."

205

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

same words ; a practice, that tended unnecessarily to swell the CHAPT. statute book. III.

About this time must have arrived in the province the new 1642. New con-

"conditions of plantation," bearing date the tenth day of No- ditions of vember, 1641, which his lordship had thought proper to be pro- plantation. mulgated by him, at London, for the better encouragement of emigrants to his province. They seem to pursue his original system of colonizing the province by dividing it into manors ; and it is probable, from the special direction therein, that emi- grants to the province should go out furnished with "such arms and ammunition" as are therein specified, that information of the hostilities of the Indians had reached him before he issued those "conditions."*

Early in the spring of this year must have occurred the pro- Maryland ceedings of some of the Maryland colonists, as recognized by settle- ments on the historians of New York, in taking possession of the margin the of the river, then called by the English-Hiding-creek, but by the Dutch-Schuylkill. These proceedings of the Marylanders must have been founded on a supposition, that the expression in lord Baltimore's charter,-"unto that part of the bay of Dela- ware on the north, which lieth under the fortieth degree of north latitude from the equinoctial, where New England is terminated," extended the north bounds of his province, so as to include the whole of the fortieth degree. } By which means all the lands on both sides of the Schuylkill, including the city of Philadelphia and the peninsula or neck of land lying between the rivers Dela- ware and Schuylkill and south of Philadelphia, would have been a part of the province of Maryland. But as the "bay" or estuary of Delaware did not extend higher up that river than New Castle, this subsequently became a doubtful question, and formed part of the grounds of dispute between the proprietaries of Maryland and Pennsylvania, which afterwards so long sub- sisted. Notwithstanding the lord Baltimore's grant, and not- withstanding also the Swedes had, in the year 1627, arrived in the Delaware, and carried on for some years traffic with the natives, and had, in 1631, built a fort at the mouth of Christina creek, near Wilmington, William Kieft, who appears to have been the third Dutch governor at New Amsterdam, (now New York,) and had acceded thereto in the year 1638, claimed all the country from thence "to Delaware, then called South river,

* See note (LXIII.) at the end of this volume.

t See note (XLIV.) at the end of this volume.

Schuylkill.

206

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. and beyond it," to the exterior south cape of Delaware bay, III. called Cape Henlopen, at Fenwick's island, as a part of New 1642. Netherlands. He accordingly, in a letter, dated May 6th, 1638, directed to Peter Minuit, (or Minnewits,) whom the historian of New York supposes "to be the Swedish governor of New Swe- den," asserted, "that the whole South river of New Netherlands," (the Delaware,) " had been in the Dutch possession many years, above and below, beset with forts, and sealed with their blood." In pursuance of this right by "possession," which the Dutch had thus acquired by "their blood," as they alleged, to the lands even on the west side of the Delaware, this same governor of New Amsterdam, (Kieft,) being informed of these proceed- ings of the Marylanders, in May 1642, "fitted out two sloops," (an armament to go round from New York to the Schuylkill, by sea, as we may suppose,) "to drive the English, (Marylanders,) out of Schuylkill." In his instructions, dated May 22d, to Ian Iansen Alpendam, who commanded in that enterprise, he again strongly asserts the right of the Dutch both to the soil and trade there." But, allowing that the English claim to all the country lying between the colonies of Virginia and New Eng- land, to have been valid, by reason of Cabot's discovery, the lord Baltimore and his Marylanders were obviously justifiable in considering even the prior possessions, (if they were really so,) of either the Dutch or Swedes, as entitled to no consideration, at least by any British subject, against the right granted to him by his charter of Maryland from the English crown. Whether Alpendam succeeded in his enterprise, or whether the Maryland- ers then relinquished their possessions on the Schuylkill, we are not informed, nor do our Maryland records make any mention of this attempt by the inhabitants of Maryland to form at this time any settlements on the Schuylkill.

Besides the intrusions of these foreigners,-the Dutch and Swedes, into the territories of Maryland, claims were now made also to lands on the west side of the Delaware by some English settlers at New Haven. In some proceedings of the commissioners for "The United Colonies of New England," convened at Bos- ton, the 19th of April, 1653, relative to disputes between them and the Dutch, they thus express the principle on which they laid claim to "lands on both sides Delaware bay and river."

t See note (XLV.) at the end of this volume.

207

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

" The United English colonies* expecting a just and neighbour- CHAPT. ly correspondency and intercourse from and with the Dutch III. living at and about the Monhatoes, which they call New Nether- 1642. lands, (though the place fall within that part or tract of America called New England, lying and being in breadth from forty to forty-eight degrees of northerly latitude, which both in Europe and here is well known by antient patent to be granted by the kings of England to their subjects, to settle and plant upon,) have met with a constant course of opposition, injuries, and many hostile affronts."}

The "antient patent," here mentioned, could be no other than that, which was commonly called Sir Ferdinando Gorges's grant, bearing date, November 3d, 1620. This grant was made to the duke of Lenox, and several others of the nobility, together with Sir Ferdinando Gorges; and seems to have been intended as a substitute for the old North Virginia company, who had ceased at this time to act. By this patent, "all that circuit, continent, precincts, and limits in America, lying and being in breadth from forty to forty-eight degrees of northerly latitude, and in length by all the breadth aforesaid throughout the main land from sea to sea," &c., was given to them in abso- lute property .¿ But these letters patent, after receiving severe animadversions made upon them in the house of commons, on account of real or supposed restrictions contained in them on the right of free fishery in America,§ were, on the 7th of June, 1635, surrendered to the king, and became void. || Besides, agreeably to the words of this patent, New England could have commenced only where the fortieth degree of latitude terminated; the words-"from the fortieth degree," &c. being exclusive. The line of the fortieth degree of latitude crosses the Delaware a little above Philadelphia. A great portion of the river and the whole of the bay were, therefore, clearly out of the limits of this

* Articles of union between the four colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, were drawn up in the year 1638, but difficulties occurred, which retarded the execution of the design, until the year 1643, when commissioners, appointed by those colonies, completed and signed the articles of union at Boston, on the 19th of May in that year. See Holmes's Annals, vol. 1, p. 326.

+ Hazard's Collections, vol. 2, p. 212.

# See these letters-patent in Hazard's Collections, vol. 1, p. 103.

§ See these debates on this subject in the Introduction to this volume, p. 235 to 239, and p. 243 to 245.

|| See the deed of surrender in Hazard's Collections, vol. 1, p. 393.

208

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. grant. III.

1642.

It becomes difficult then to discern any plausible pre- tence, on which the settlers of New Haven could ground a right to any lands on the Delaware by force of these letters patent, which had been thus surrendered and made void, prior to any voyage or adventure of any of their fellow-settlers, to the Dela- ware, and which moreover did not comprehend within its limits any of the contested settlements of the Dutch or Swedes on the Delaware, or even the Marylanders on the Schuylkill.

Aware, perhaps, of the futility of a right thus founded, the commissioners, in another part of their proceedings, seem to place the foundation of their right on another ground, not indeed much more solid than the former,-a purchase from the natives. As this part of their proceedings contains a short sketch of the history of their claim to the present period, it is here inserted .- "In the yeare 1640, the English att Newhauen sent men to view and purchase parte of Delaware bay but with expresse direction not to meddle with any thing the Dutch or Swedes had right unto. As the English vessel passed by the Monhatoes the said Monser Keift made a protest but upon enformacon of the order giuen hee was satisfyed and wrot to Iohn Jonson the Duch agent att Dellawar to hold good corespondency with the English there which accordingly hee did att first and shewed them how fare the Duch and Sweds title or claime reached; the rest hee told them was free for them to purchase and offered his assistance therin which offer (though kind accepted,) was not entertained; but the Indians being free the English agents att seuerall times from the seuerall propriators purchased large tracts of land on both sides Delaware bay and riuer and began to plant and to sett vp houses for trade within theire own limits; but in anno 1642 without cause or warning giuen without shewing any title to the place or hearing what the English could say for +

the said Duch gouernor sent armed vessells and men and in hos- tile mannor when they were altogether vnprepared for defence, as expecting nothing but peace seized theire goods carried away the men prisoners and with such violent hast burnt downe theire trading houses that two houres respite for treaty or consideration could not bee obtained, nor soe much time as to inventory the goods taken out of theire charge; and after in another parte of the riuer they seized theire boat and two other men in it carry- ing the men and goods first to the Monhatoes and thence return-

* This blank is so in the original.

209

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

ing the persons and parte of the goods to Newhauen; as by let- CHAPT. ters and other euidence may appear. Mr. Lamberton agent for III. the English att Newhauen coming from Delaware anno 1642 by 1642. the Monhatoes, the Duch gouernor aforesaid compelled him by threatenings and force to giue an account of what beauer hee had traded within the English limits att Delaware, and to pay recogni- tion or costom for the same and a protest sent from Newhauen against those injurius proceedings proued altogether fruitless. The Duch gouernor aforesaid sent armed vessels to Delaware to seize Mr. Lamberton's vessell by force or to driue him out of the riuer but hee perceiuing theire aime stood upon his guard and at that time maintained the right and honnor of the English."*

As ten years had now elapsed since the lord Baltimore had ob- tained his grant, and his colony had been settled at St. Mary's for several years in pursuance thereof, we cannot but deem it extraor- dinary, that, amidst these disputes between the Dutch and the New Haven colony, no notice appears to have been taken of his lord- ship's claim. That the Dutch should pay but little attention to it, may indeed be easily accounted for. They naturally deemed their claim, founded as they alleged on the right derived from prior occupancy, paramount to any grant from the British crown. It must be allowed, indeed, as has been before observed in the in- troduction to this history, ; that the right of prior discovery, (un- der which by Cabot's voyage the English claimed all the conti- nent from the coast of Labrador to the cape of Florida,) is gen- erally but a slender right, unless quickly followed by an occu- pancy coextensive with the claim. The limits also of the terri- tory thus supposed to be acquired by occupancy have always been fruitful of uncertainty and dispute. Hence the Dutch had some plausible pretext for building a claim to their settlement at Manhatoes and the territories which they denominated New Neth- erlands, as far as the east side of the Delaware, as they consisted of the unoccupied space of the continent between the colonies of Virginia and New England. But, however just these pre- tensions of the Dutch might have been, certainly no English subject could with propriety presume to claim lands, under a pur- chase from the natives, which his sovereign, (in whom alone the right of grant vested,) had before granted to another subject.

# See the proceedings of the New England commissioners, in Hazard's Col- Jections, vol. ii. p. 212-13-14.

+ See note (C.) at the end of the former volume.

VOL. II .- 27

210

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. The New Haven colonists were, therefore, violating a well es- III. tablished principle, acknowledged throughout the colonization of 1642. British America, and adopted or retained to this day by the Uni- ted States. But lord Baltimore and his colonists were papists, unentitled, in the eyes of these Puritans, to any rights. Their claims were therefore disregarded by them. These considera- tions, together with the distance between St. Mary's, the place of the first settlement of the Maryland colony, and the remote limits of the province on the shores of the Delaware, sufficient- ly account for the intrusions of the New Haven colonists, and the passive conduct of the Marylanders in permitting those of the Dutch and Swedes, on that part of their territories.

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.

The history of Maryland : from its first settlement, in 1633, to the restoration, in 1660 ; with a copious introduction, and notes and illustrations, Part 58

Author: Bozman, John Leeds, 1757-1823 Publication date: 1837 Publisher: Baltimore : J. Lucas & E.K. Deaver Number of Pages: 1062

Author: Bozman, John Leeds, 1757-1823
Publication date: 1837
Publisher: Baltimore : J. Lucas & E.K. Deaver
Number of Pages: 1062