The history of Maryland : from its first settlement, in 1633, to the restoration, in 1660 ; with a copious introduction, and notes and illustrations, Part 88

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 88

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).

484

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. Indians could vest any right in the Dutch, unless a previous pur VI. chase by the English could be shewn ; which was alleged by the 1654. New Haven traders to be the case. But, the question is,-hac the Dutch any right to make any purchase at all from the In- dians in a part of the country previously acquired by the Eng- lish by the right of discovery? which question acquired peculiar force, when this right of purchase from the Indians by the Dutch was set up by William Penn's heirs (Englishmen) in 1735, as one ground of their claim to the three lower counties.

The governor of the Swedes, (Printz,) observing this con- duct of their rivals, in endeavouring to make permanent settle- ments in the territory, which, as they conceived, belonged to them, formally protested against the erection of the Dutch fort or trading house at New Castle. The erection of this fortifica- tion at New Castle, together with this purchase of the Dutch from-the Indians, gave considerable umbrage also to the New Haven claimants or traders on the Delaware; who, accordingly, in September, 1651, presented their petition to the commissioners of the United Colonies of New England, then assembled at New Haven, in which they remonstrated against this "new fortification and plantation upon their duly purchased lands, lately begun by the Dutch." They had before made their complaints to the com- missioners in 1643, of "sundry injuries and outrages they had received from both the Dutch and Swedes at Delaware bay;"* but the commissioners, assembled in 1649, as it appears, did not seem much disposed to support with any effectual assistance these projected settlements of the New Haven traders on the Delaware; assigning therefor very substantial reasons, as they now appear to us. "The commissioners, considering the pre- sent state of the colonies, the English in most plantations alrea- dy wanting hands to carry on theire necessary ocations, thought fitt not to send forth men to possesse and plant Delaware, nor by any publick acte or consent to incurrage or alow the plant- ing thereof: The New Haven marchants being notwithstanding lefte to theire just libbertie to dispose, improve, or plant the land they have purchased in those parts, or any parte thereof, as they shall see cause."} At the next meeting of the commissioners, however, in September, 1650, at Hartford in Connecticut, the New Haven traders to Delaware, renewed their complaints, and

* See before, p. 206 and 261 ;- also Hazard's Collections, vol. ii. p. 11.

+ Hazard's Collections, vol. ii. p. 127.

St th C th e d 0

485

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

Stuyvesant, the Dutch governor, having arrived there also to meet CHAPT. VI. 1654. the commissioners, in order to settle the bounds and limits between Connecticut and New Netherlands, articles of agreement were then made and concluded by the delegates respectively appoint- ed by the commissioners and the Dutch governor; in which the delegates, after stating the pretensions of each party to the lands on the Delaware, particularly, that "the English of New Haven had presented and shewed to them several purchases they had made on both sides the river and bay of Delaware of several large tracts of land, unto and somewhat above the Dutch house or fortte there,* with the consideration given to the said sachems and their companies for the same, acknowledged and sealed by the hands of the Indians, who, they affirm, were the true pro- prietors,"-dertermine, that "wanting sufficient light to issue and determine any thinge in the premises, are necessitated to leave both parties in statu quo prius, to plead and improve their just enterests at Delaware for planting or trading as they shall see cause; onely wee desire, that all proceedings there, as in other places, may be carried on in love and peace tell the right may bee further considered and justly issued either in Europe or heere by the two States of England and Holland."

On this clause of the agreement a remark occurs, in applica- tion to the subsequent purchase of the Dutch from the Minquaas in 1651, as before stated. If the English of New Haven had made "the several purchases from the Indians of the several tracts of land on both sides of the river and bay of Delaware," which seems to be admitted by the Dutch delegates in their agreement, one of which purchases included the spot or scite of New Cas- tle, where the Dutch erected a fort in 1651, as the English of New Haven subsequently alleged, it certainly goes far to invali- date the Dutch purchase of 1651 from the Minquaas, relied on by William Penn and his heirs in support of the Dutch right un- der which they claimed; the prior purchase from the Indians taking precedence of the latter,} But the truth is, that neither

* This Dutch house or fort must have been either at Nassau, near Glocester, or at the Hoarkilns, now Lewistown; as they had not possession of New Castle until the next year, 1651.

¡ Penn, in his letter of the 14th of August 1683, (see Chalmers's Annals, p. 663,) has stated, that lord Baltimore could "pretend nothing to Delaware, that was at and before the passage of that patent," (to wit, lord Baltimore's charter for Maryland, of 1632,) "bought and planted by the Dutch." But, if this purchase of 1651, was the first purchase from the Indians of their lands on the Delaware by the Dutch, as it appears to have been ; (so stated by Chalmers in his Annals,

0 t ·

ar h S

e d

486

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. of them had any right to make a purchase from the Indians c VI. lands, which had before been granted by the English nation c 1654. their sovereign, to lord Baltimore; to whom alone appertaine the right of extinguishing the Indian title to all lands within th limits of his province. The Dutch were intruders within th limits of that part of the American continent acquired by th English in virtue of Cabot's discovery, and the New Haven traders ought not to have presumed to counteract the grant o their own government in England.

The New Haven traders, however, pleased with that article of the agreement of 1650, between the commissioners and the Dutch, relative to Delaware, and flattering themselves, that, not withstanding the commissioners had before refused to suppor them in their projected settlements there, yet that the Dutch were now bound not to molest them therein, began preparations. in the course of the winter of 1650-1, to make a plantation o: settlement on the Delaware. Having engaged about fifty set- tlers, and hired a vessel for their transportation, the adventur- ers set out from New Haven in March 1650-1, intending to cal at Manhattoes in their way, having a letter from the governor of New Haven to the Dutch governor "to prevent jealousies, and to assure him of the Englishe's peaceable and righteous inten- tions and proceedings." But Stuyvesant was too alert, not to be previously apprised of their proceedings. Being informed of the intended expedition, he dispatched a messenger to the New Haven governor with a formal protest against it, dated April 11th, 1651, expressing therein his intention of using against those attempting the expedition "force of arms and mortal op- position to blood shed." The adventurers had sailed from New Haven before the arrival there of the messenger with the pro- test, but had not arrived at Manhattoes previous to his depar- ture therefrom. They were, therefore, unacquainted with the Dutch governor's resolution, when they arrived at Manhattoes. On their arrival there they sent two messengers on shore to de- liver the letter of the New Haven governor to the Dutch go- vernor. After perusing the letter he immediately ordered the two messengers to be arrested and to be kept as close prisoners

p. 632 ;) how futile was this argument of Penn. Indeed, he himself seems to have doubted its validity, in resorting, in the next sentence, to lord Baltimore's neglect "during forty years in not reducing it; by which neglect," (he adds,) " he forfeited it." A pacific principle truly ! A man looses his right by not re- sorting to force, (that is, war,) to maintain it !

487

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

under guard .* That done, he sent for the master of the vessel CHAPT. to come on shore, as he wished to speak with him, and commit- VI. 1654. ted him also. After which two more of the company coming on shore, and desiring to speak with their friends under restraint, he committed them also. He then desired to see their commis- sions, promising to return them next day; they were delivered to him, but when afterwards demanded, he refused to return them ; nor would he either re-deliver the commissions or discharge the men from imprisonment, until they engaged under their hands not to proceed on their voyage towards Delaware, but to return to New Haven ; at the same time threatening them, that if he should afterwards find any of them in Delaware, he would seize their goods, and send their persons prisoners into Holland. So accordingly they returned to New Haven, preferred their petition to the commissioners of the united colonies assembled at New Haven in September of the same year; wherein they stated their before mentioned grievances, and moreover, that the Dutch had then, "(as was reported) lately begun a new fortifi- cation and plantation upon their" (the New Haven adventurers) "duly purchased lands;" alluding to the recent purchase and settlement of the Dutch at New Castle on the Delaware, as be- fore stated. The commissioners, having attended to the peti- tion, came to the resolution of writing to the Dutch governor, therein protesting against his injurious proceedings, asserting the English right, and requiring satisfaction for the damage done to their friends and confederates of New Haven; which they did. They at the same time declared to the petitioners, in the way of answer to their petition, that, although they did not think it pro- per then to enter into hostilities against the Dutch, "choosing rather to suffer injuries and affronts, (at least for a time,) than in any respects to seem to be too quick, yet, if they (the ad- venturers) should see cause again to endeavour the planting of their forementioned purchased lands in Delaware, at any time within twelve months from that date, and for that end should, at their own charge, transport together one hundred and fifty or at least one hundred able men armed with a vessel or vessels and ammunition fit for such an enterprise, all to be allowed and

* It is proper to subjoin here, that the Dutch subsequently, in 1653, denied, that "these messengers were put into fast hold," but asserted, that they "were civilly used and entertained at the house of the captain leiftenant of the towne, Martin Crygar." See Hazard's Collections, vol. ii. p. 260. It is probable, that they were entertained well, but kept confined to the house by a guard.

st ·

he bt- ort ch

ed he he

The ent of

488

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. approved by the magistrates of New Haven jurisdiction, that VI. then, in case they meet with any hostile opposition from the 1654. Dutch or Swedes, while they carry themselves peaceably and inoffensively, they may call for further aid and assistance."*

It appears farther from the proceedings of the commissioners of the united colonies, in 1651, that soon after the outrages com- mitted at Manhattoes by the Dutch on the New Haven settlers, as just stated, both the commissioners and Mr. Eaton, governor of New Haven, wrote to Mr. Winslow, then in London as agent for the New England colonies, concerning these injuries. Go- vernor Eaton, after stating to him "the just title of the New Ha- ven traders to considerable parts of land on both sides of Dela- ware bay and river," desired the aid and assistance of Mr. Winslow "in procuring a patent" for them, from the government of England. The commissioners also, in their letter to the same agent, after stating their sense "of the dishonour put upon the English nation by this unjust affront of their duty to preserve the English title to so considerable a place as Delaware, desire informacon what esteeme the old pattents for that place have with the parliament or counsell of state, where there hath been no im- provement hetherto made by the pattentees,-whether the parlia- ment hath granted any late pattents, or whether in granting they reserve not libertie and encurragement for such as have or shall plant upon theire formerly duly purchased lands, as also how any engagement by the colloniest against the Dutch upon the fore- mentioned occasion, will bee resented by the parliament."} It must be confessed, that these injuries seem to indicate a full knowledge, in the commissioners of the united colonies, of lord Baltimore's right and title to the lands on the west side of the Delaware, and that "the old pattents," mentioned by them, must have included lord Baltimore's patent for Maryland, as

* See the petition, and the proceedings of the commissioners thereon, at large, in the records of the New England colonies, of September session, 1651, pub- lished in Hazard's Collections, vol. ii. p. 192. The names of the petitioners, whom we may suppose to have been the principal adventurers in the proposed settlement, were Jasper Graine and William Tuttill. It is proper to mention here, that the New Haven traders and settlers, in June 1651, prior to this session of the commissioners for the united colonies in September of the same year, ap- plied to the colony of Plymouth for aid in settling their plantation at Delaware, but the court of that colony answered,-"that they would have no hand in any such controversy." See Hazard's Collections, vol. i. p. 554.

t This seems to have been confined in its meaning to the New England "col- lonies" only.

į Hazard's Collections, vol. ii. p. 181.

489

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

well as that of Ferdinando Gorges's, under which last the colo- CHAPT. nies of New England extended their claim southward to the VI. 1654. fortieth degree of latitude .* But it is evident, that if by the words-"for that place"-they meant to include the scite of the Dutch fortification at New Castle and the lands purchased by the Dutch from the Minquaas, as before mentioned, Gorges's grant could not assist them; for, the most northern limits of the fortieth degree, by which New England was bounded, would have excluded them not only from the scite of New Castle, but from every part of the purchase from the Minquaas, the fortieth degree extending considerably above the mouth of the Christi- na creek. Indeed, the desire of the New Haven traders, back- ed by the commissioners, to procure a new patent for the lands on the Delaware, through the agency of Mr. Winslow, seems to manifest a consciousness, that the "ancient patent" of New Eng- land would not cover their newly "purchased lands on the Dela- ware." They ought to, and must, have known, that lord Balti- more's patent extended to where New England ended, to wit, to where the fortieth degree ended and the forty-first commenced; and yet, unaccountably, no attention to it seems to have been paid by them, unless his patent be one of those, to which they alluded in the passage just quoted. It does not appear, how- ever, that the New Haven traders ever obtained a patent for their "purchased lands on the Delaware," as desired by them, through their agent in England. The changeable and revolu- tionary state of the government of England, and the approach- ing war with the Dutch, might have prevented it.

The disputes between the Dutch and the English of New Ha- ven, relative to the lands on the Delaware, seem, after these vio- lences of the year 1651, to have subsided into a state in some degree conformable to the before mentioned article in the agree- ment of 1650 between the Dutch governor and the New Eng- land commissioners, to wit, that both parties should remain in statu quo prino, till the right should be finally determined by the two states of England and Holland. But the Swedes, not be- ing a party to this agreement, do not appear to have been bound by it. In the year 1652, a Swedish vessel of considerable force, with a few troops on board, conducted by Risingh, a Swedish officer, anchored near the fort of Niewer Amstel, (now New

* That they relied upon Gorges's grant, is evident from their expressions on the same subject in the year 1653. See Hazard's Collections, vol. ii. p. 212 and 269.

VOL. II .- 62

490

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. Castle;) of which he soon acquired possession by stratagem, as VI. 1654. it is said, rather than by force .* The particulars of this strata- gem are more plainly expressed by the historian of New York. Risingh, under the disguise of friendship, came before the fort- ress, fired two salutes, and landed thirty men, who were enter- tained by the commandant as friends; but he no sooner disco- vered the weakness of the garrison, than he made himself master of it, seizing also upon all the ammunition, houses, and other effects of the (Dutch) West India Company, and compelling several of the people to swear allegiance to Christina queen of Sweden.t On the capture of this fort by the Swedes, the name of it was changed from Niewer Amstel to fort Casimir, probably in honour of John Casimir then king of Poland, for whose elec- tion Christina had become a zealous advocate. It would seem also, that soon after this the Swedish fort between the Brandy- wine and Christina creeks was rebuilt .¿ The Swedes now ap- pear, after these events, to have gained a complete ascendancy over the Dutch in their colonization of the lands on the Dela- ware; and perhaps, in virtue of this apparent superiority, the Indians were induced, at a meeting held by the Swedes with their chiefs, in the same year, at Printz's Hall, on Tenecum island, to enter into a treaty with them, in which they engaged "to assist and stand by each other in all future attempts, that should be made against each party." This league or agreement is said to have been faithfully kept by the Indians. The Swedes are said also to have entered into terms of friendship with both the English and the Dutch in the neighbourhood, either immedi-

* Chalmers's Annals, p. 632 .- Some doubt, however, seems to arise, as to the time of this transaction, from the circumstance, that Risingh was not governor of the Swedes on the Delaware until the year 1654; and, as the taking posses- sion of the fort seems to be agreed by all to have been done by Risingh, it would seem most probable, that it was done by him after he was governor, con- sequently not until 1654. But, as Chalmers appears to rely, for some of the facts stated by him in this part of his Annals, not only on Smith's History of New York, but also on "a very long and intelligent deposition of Van Sweringen on this subject," among "Maryld. Pap. iv. c. 35," (in the English plantation office,) which he cites, it is possible that he may be correct, and that the expe- dition might have been "conducted by Risingh" before he was governor.

t Smith's Hist. of New York, p. 18.

# Chalmers (in his Annals, p. 632,) observes, that Risingh, "soon after the capture of fort Casimir, erected on the same river, five miles higher, Fort Chris- tiana, in honour of his queen." But, it seems to be certain, that the Swedes had built a fort, laid out a town, and made their first settlement there, in the year 1631. It is probable, however, that the fort there, built in 1631, was the one blown up in 1645, as before stated, and was now rebuilt by Risingh.

491

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

ately or soon after the preceding capture of Niewer Amstel .* CHAPT. Whether these "English in the neighborhood" were the Mary- VI. 1654. landers or New Haveners, we are not informed ; most probably the latter; for, it appears from subsequent documents, that the government of Maryland had been unaccountably passive in suffering both the Dutch and Swedes to intrude into their terri- tories, and had as yet never attempted to hinder or even molest them in their settlements on the Delaware, unless the attempt by the Marylanders, in 1642, to form settlements on the Schuylkill, as herein before mentioned, might be so deemed. There was then no occasion of a treaty of peace between the English of Maryland and the Swedes on the Delaware; but between the latter and the New Haven traders more serious collisions had taken place.

In the year 1653, the New England colonies were alarmed with reports of a contemplated plot, said to have been formed by the Dutch government at Manhattoes and the neighbouring In- dians, to make war upon and to break up the English colonies of both New Haven and Connecticut. The commissioners for the united colonies accordingly, at their special session at Bos- ton called on that account in April, 1653, entered into zealous and ardent debates on the propriety of their going to war at once with the Dutch at Manhattoes. It will be recollected, that a furious naval war was then raging between the two mother coun- tries,-the states of England and Holland, chiefly in the English channel. This might be supposed to have been sufficient in itself to have set their respective colonies in America in a state of hos- tility. But the interested motives of the politicians of Massachu- setts preponderated. They found their trade with the Dutch rather profitable, and the expenses of their proportionate contribution to the maintenance of a war would have been somewhat oppres- sive. The colony of Massachusetts, being more powerful than all the three other colonies of the union combined, and the ses- sion of the commissioners being held at Boston, and the general court of that colony positively refusing to enter into any war whatever, it happened, as it ever will in all unequal confederacies, that the interest of the greater state will swallow up that of all the rest. The colony of New Haven, therefore, was left ex-

* This peace with the Dutch seems to confirm in some degree the allegation of Chalmers, before mentioned, that the capture of Niewer Amstel or fort Casimir was in 1652, as the Dutch would not probably so soon have broke the peace they had entered into, as they did in 1655, if the capture had been made in 1654,

492

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

CHAPT. posed to all the dangers attending their frontier situation. The VI. minor considerations of their injuries at Manhattoes and of their 1654. settlements on the Delaware, though ardently urged by them, had but little weight. The New Haven traders thus seem, from these discouragements, to have hereafter gradually relinquished their contemplated colony on the Delaware. The general court, that is, the assembly of that colony, however, seems to have continued its patronage of the undertaking. Being informed, perhaps, of the ascendancy, which the Swedes had gained over the Dutch on the Delaware, they directed their governor (Eaton) to enter into a correspondence with "the New Swedish governor, (Risingh,) concerning "New Haven's right to several parcels of land on both sides of Delaware bay and river." This was done by him in July 1654, to which an answer (in Latin) was return- ed by the Swedish governor in August of the same year. But this correspondence, as it is stated, was "without any satisfac- tion. Governor Eaton laid the affair before the commissioners of the united colonies assembled at Hartford in September, 1654; who again wrote to the "New Swedish governor," but no record appears of any answer thereto. The catastrophe attending the Swedish settlements on the Delaware, in the next year, 1655, most probably put a final period to any further correspondence on the subject.

After this necessary digression, as it appears, on those settle- ments on the Delaware, which subsequently became so impor- tant to the province of Maryland, we are now to return to the more domestic transactions of the colony. Among these we find on our records one, which, though apparently of a trivial and private nature, not deserving the public notice of history, yet, as it developes in a particular manner the religious state of the province at this time, may be considered as worthy of atten- tion. A young lady, of the name of Eleanor Hatton, the niece of Mr. Thomas Hatton, who was then secretary of the province and his lordship's attorney general of the same, had been (in some manner not mentioned in the record) persuaded or enticed to place herself under the care and in the house of a certain Luke Gardiner ; who, as it seems, must have been a zealous Ro- man Catholic, if not a priest. Her mother, after the death of the young lady's father, the brother of Mr. Thomas Hatton, had married Mr. Richard Banks, It was suspected and stated by both the mother and uncle of this young lady-Mr. Thomas

State of the Roman Catholic religion at this time in Mary- land.

493

HISTORY OF MARYLAND.

Hatton and Mrs. Banks, to the governor and council, who proba- CHAPT. bly upon this occasion were then sitting as a provincial court, VI. that this detention of Miss Eleanor Hatton by Luke Gardiner 1654. was "to train her up in the Roman Catholic religion, contrary to the mind and will of her said mother and uncle, who had often demanded her of the said Luke, who refused to return her to either of them." It does not appear, either from the record or the concomitant circumstances of the transaction, that this en- ticement of the young lady away from her mother or her uncle was done with any immoral intentions of an illicit amour. The record states, that "the said girl was by her father, (brother to the said Mr. Hatton,) a little before his death, recommended to the care and tuition of her said uncle, who had been at great charge about her transportation and otherwise." From this we may infer, that Mr. Hatton's brother had died in England, and that his widow and daughter had come to Maryland to be under the care and patronage of Mr. Thomas Hatton. It would seem, that agreeably to the rules of law, as it was then and is now in relation to this subject, that the mother, being the natural guar- dian of the child, would have a right superior to that of any other person to the care and custody of her child, unless perhaps the disposition of the child, as above mentioned, by the father to his brother, Mr. Thomas Hatton, might have superceded such natural right of the mother, or her second marriage have deprived her of that right, and thrown it upon the guardian by will. But, as the proceedings in this case appear to have been at the joint instance and application of the mother and uncle, their conflict- ing rights do not appear to have entered into the question. The record of the writ, (of habeas corpus, as it appears to be,) fur- ther states,-"the which unsufferable dealing of the said Luke Gardiner is, (as I apprehended,*) not only a great affront to the government, and an injury to the said girl's mother and uncle, but likewise of very dangerous and destructive consequence in re- lation to the peace and welfare of this province." The writ then commands lieutenant Richard Banks, (the husband of the mo- ther,) to whom it appears to have been directed, to seize upon by force the person of the said Eleanor Hatton, "to bring her be- fore the governor and council at St. Mary's to be disposed of as shall be fit," and to arrest the said Luke Gardiner, and bring

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 88

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